Pumaknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
This may have been already discussed at length, but I still thought it worth giving people the benefit of my wisdom (or stupidity, you decide!!)
For some months now I have wondered why my photos are rejected for bad dark, bad quality, just bad......I have now identified one of the major contributing factors (other than me not being very good). Colour calibration between camera, monitor and editing software. I finally got round to Adobe gamma and adjusting the screen to match the output on my printer. This was motivated by a new camera (20D). Well guess what. All those photos rejected for bad dark were too dark.......the surprise. And the quality jaggies are now easier to see with the right balance of contrast and brightness......yet more surprise.
So two things -
1. to those who are beginning - calibrate your monitor, Camera (if you can) and software to show the right results - I went for Adobergb1998.
2. to the screeners and responders to my forum posts- thank you for putting up with my "what have I done wrong here" posts. Your patience and guidance is to be noted.
I'm off now to see if I can increase my acceptance ratio - might take a few years but at least rejections will be down to raw talent, and not miscalibration of tools!!
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1461 times:
One of the things I have said for a long time is that everyone sees the shots differently. If you start a thread asking whether or not a shot is sharp, then apart from personal preference, you also have to take into account that a lot of people are viewing the shot at different resolutions on different types of screen, which can make it hard to judge whether you have an upload looking correct or not.
I bought a calibration program to ensure the colours are as they ought to be, but there is still a wide range when it comes to what other people see and what I do.
Greater standardization is the answer, but that is a nearly impossible task to achieve, so you just have to at some point draw the line and say "this is what I'm going with, to hell with it if some find my shots over sharpened or over saturated, so long as they are acceptable to the screeners".
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1326 times:
One of the very first things you should do to a monitor after you plug it in is set the Adobe Gamma. Only then will you be ready to edit photos. The monitor I use to edit photos back home is a crappy soft/undercontrasted CRT from hell, and has lead me to many rejections. The monitor doesn't reveal halos or jaggies at all untill they jump out at you, and it's very easy to overcontrast an image on it. To be short, in my eyes the monitor is very forgiving, that is- it won't show you badquality. The monitor I use at school is a very unforgiving 17" TFT. Any minor imperfection jumps out, be it jaggies, colors, contrast, softness, what have you. It's a perfect monitor as far as I'm concerned. Spend good money and properly calibrate your system and you will not be dissappointed.