The thing is, to me it looks neither badquality or badsoft. I am doing all my editing on a laptop with a 15" screen and the resolution set on 1024 wide.
This afternoon I've spent a few hours with the camera at MAN with Psych and later spent some time editing and having a look at some shots on his home computer.
When the above link is opened on his 19" screen with resolution on 1024 wide, the photo looks absolutely horrible. However, when the resolution is altered to 1280 wide, it looks of reasonable quality and similar to what I see on the screen of my laptop.
I was wondering if someone could educate me in a little more depth about screen resolutions and their effects. It would appear at the moment that I'm seeing things much sharper than the rest of you
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2966 times:
Had a good weekend shooting?
Well my screen can't be far off as I think the above shot is bit off alright. Levels are too high and the saturation too.
I'm interested in this topic as I was think of upgrading my monitor. I have a Dell 19" flat CRT running at 85hz and 1024 wide. I do know that a lot of the screeners all use CRT's and the bigger the better. Most I think have about 21" screens. However some of the new laptops I have seen have some really good screens and I would be interested to now more about them too. I know Paul has a TFT and I think my photos on his screen seem a bit sharper than on mine.
I hope there are some more replies to this thread.
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
At first this pic looks nice to me. I'm not an expert but the rejection reason I could see at first sight are the slight imperfections around the registration and lettering in general. Could it be a result of noise reduction? That could be enough to result in badquality (I've had it before as well).
Badsoft seems less apparent to me, except maybe the wheels. I think it could have been accepted as well.
Regarding the resolution: my screen resolution is 1400x1050, and your pic looks nice to me. Maybe the following explanation is completely wrong, but I'll give it a try anyway. This picture's size is higher than 1024x768, right? That means that on a screen with resolution at 1024, depending on the program you use to look at the pic, the picture might be resized with a horrible look as a result. Maybe your PC doesn't resize pics in that way, but another PC might. Just try to ensure you view the picture at 100% of the size. If that doesn't help, then I'm obviously wrong...
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
To add to this... Much of the editing I do is also on a 15" laptop screen, but at hi-res 1400x1050. I always check how it looks on a 19" at 1600x1200 or higher.
If you are using 1024x758 on a 19" LCD screen, that means you just blow up the pixels, rather than adding detail. That's why a CRT will probably show a completely different picture (and a better one), because at 19", on a CRT you will surely be working at a much higher resolution (and smaller pixels, hence a more realistic image), than on an LCD.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2944 times:
This is all fascinating stuff.
One of the issues that Tim and I were discussing was the major difference in the quality of the photo, dependent on what screen resolution it is viewed on. With a screener's hat on, I would have rejected Tim's shot as I saw it originally - i.e. on my monitor set to 1024 x 768; it just didn't look sharp enough for my taste. However, when we reset the display to that higher resolution (which I never use to view photos - all the writing etc is too small for my middle-aged eyes ) the quality was a whole lot better and I may well have accepted that photo. It brings into sharp focus (excuse the pun) the fact that what the viewer is using to view the photo makes a real distinct difference to its apparent quality - no small matter when it comes to accepting/rejecting shots. I must say I hadn't appreciated 'till now the major difference that there is with the same monitor set to a different setting.
So - one question from me is - which resolution setting should we be using to assess our own pictures that will be most likely to replicate the environment used by a screener?
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2939 times:
I'd say the highest possible resolution... If you're working on a picture, its resolution will probably be 2000 pixels wide (or more) - at least when your scans are high quality or you're using a camera with 4 megapixel or more. So I think it's only logic that you need the highest possible res to even see exactly what's on the picture...
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Thanks for the responses guys,
However - I'm even more confused now. Basically I'm wanting to know why my shot looks fine on my screen but complete rubbish on Paul's.
Is there some 'standard' screen resolution for a particular size that is recommended?
The other thing that struck me is that all of us who upload are seeing the photos completely differently.
What is best - highest resolution as possible? If so, why did the rejection get categorized as 'badsoft' when it appears to be of higher quality at a higher resolution? Also, as Staffan says, the sharpening becomes a pain. We looked at some of my shots in the DB that I consider to be sharp and have some jaggies even, but these weren't apparent on Paul's screen.
Please keep the replies coming folks, as on Sunday I realized just how little I know about this field.
P.S. - Fergul, the weather was a lot better than two weeks ago, just too much heat-haze this time
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
Getting confused as well now...
I guess things may depend on screen quality. But basically, if you are looking at a picture that is 1200x800, on a screen 1024x768 wide, then the picture can't fully fit on it. If the picture does fit, the viewer program must have zoomed out, which may lead to poor looking results.
To continue: if a pic is 1024 wide, and you look at it on two screens at the same resolution (both 1024 wide), then I think (logically) that it might look better on the small screen than the large screen, looking from the same distance. Simply because each picture point would seem larger on the larger screen.
I also hope there will be more replies, because I wouldn't know if there is something like a standard - there are so much more parameters that influence picture quality on screen. For me personally, high resolutions work fine, but that's probably because most of the work I do on pictures is when they are at high resolutions. It's always my final step to resize them to fit A.net requirements.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
The standard monitor resoulution is 72dpi. At 15", your laptop should have absolutely no problem achieving 72dpi at 1024x768 (someone do the math for me I'm too lazy ). When you opened the picture up on a 19" monitor at 1024, the Dpi would be substantially lower, thereby reducing picture quality. The image will appear softer.
On my 17" IBM ThinkVision TFT, the shot you posted above looked absolutely beautiful, maybe just a slight touch oversharpened.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 15 Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2871 times:
Quoting Edoca (Reply 8): To continue: if a pic is 1024 wide, and you look at it on two screens at the same resolution (both 1024 wide), then I think (logically) that it might look better on the small screen than the large screen, looking from the same distance. Simply because each picture point would seem larger on the larger screen.
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 10): The standard monitor resoulution is 72dpi. At 15", your laptop should have absolutely no problem achieving 72dpi at 1024x768 (someone do the math for me I'm too lazy ). When you opened the picture up on a 19" monitor at 1024, the Dpi would be substantially lower, thereby reducing picture quality. The image will appear softer.
OK- This is how I thought originally. The thing is though, why did the shot appear soft on Paul's screen and receive a 'badsoft' rejection? Could it be that the resolution of my screen is greater than 72dpi? Or the screener's display less than 72dpi? DLKAPA - that shot on my screen appears just on the verge of be oversharpened.
Also, how do tell whether or not the screen resolution is at 72dpi? I have only two settings on my laptop, 1024 and 800 wide.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 59 Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2830 times:
To add to the debate here, I saved Tom's photo above on to my laptop from work.
There, on a 15" screen at 1024 x 768 (remember the photo itself is 1200 wide), the plane looks very different - many jaggies are now apparent around the titling particularly and all straight edges that are angled. It certainly looks a very different image to the one Tim and I viewed on this computer. Unfortunately I am unable to increase the screen settings on the laptop to make that comparison..
Fascinating - if not enormously frustrating for Tim.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 966 posts, RR: 34 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Hi Tim, well for a 15" monitor 1024x768 is plenty in my opinion. Although I have not had much experience with laptop monitors most people will say you will get better quality from a CRT. I have a 17" IBM ThinkVision (CRT) monitor at work and run the at 1152x864 and on my 19" HP at home 1280x960. Keep the refresh rate as high as it will go to eliminate any flicker.
Your shot is soft in most places especially noticeable around the tail but a few small amounts of USM should sort it out. I do like the AB colours in the light you have caught it in there.
Cheers .. Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Key From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 99 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
In my experience, screen resolution is by far not as important as making quality assessments of your photos displayed at 100%. Skipping all the obvious stuff here, like needing a well-calibrated monitor of reasonable quality etc...
I have my monitor set at 1152x864 (19" CRT) as this is comfortable for me to work with in just about any application. This means I can never see my 1200 wide pics at 100% in one view (one day I'll but a bigger screen ) but I make sure to view them at 100% to work on sharpness and related matters and just scroll to see everything. FYI, during all but the last steps of my processing the pics are more like 3600 pixels wide, something I'm not likely to view at 100% at home ever. To a certain extent colour, shadow/highlight and related work can be done at magnifications like 50% or 25%, thus allowing me to view the whole picture within those 1152x864 pixels of my screen. Photoshop btw seems to display only these factor two-percentages without distortion, 66.7% for example looks horrible.
So, whatever you use to judge your photos, do it at 100% and let that 1200 wide pic use 1200 screen pixels - even if that means scrolling. Look at it resized only to judge composition, colour saturation and things like that.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 15 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2699 times:
Thanks once again for the responses guys, this is really useful.
I'm starting to think that 1024 wide on a 15" screen might be a bit much, and need to do my editing on a larger screen. I have access to a 17" inch flat screen that I'll have a go with on 1024 wide when I get time.
Erik, the problem I'm having is that even at full size, 1200 in the rejection I linked to, the shot looks perfectly fine as I view it. Even by reading this thread it strikes me how people are seeing it differently, some sharp, some too soft. I appreciate that an element of perception comes into play here, but I also feel that this perception is to a large extent based upon what people are used to seeing shots at on their own screen and not necessarily the view of a broader populous.
I genuinely have mixed feelings about what is the road forwards from here.
Shep, thanks for taking the time to have a play with the rejected shot. On coming straight from the camera, however, even though the upper fuselage is white(ish), it did have a yellowish tinge to it, as it was taken in the early sunlight on a March morning.
One other question I have is that if, as DLKAPA said earlier in this thread the "standard" screen resolution is 72dpi, how is this calculated? Is it obtained from the diagonal, in the way that the screen is measured, or does it come from the width of the screen? Just wondering, so I can do some maths.