Can you brighten images intended for the Web?

[Dunc]

Hi.

I find that when I export images from Lightroom for display on the web (just on Flickr for friends and family) that the images are much darker than in Lightroom and in the "controlled environment" of my callibrated monitor.

Essentially I spend hours getting them right on my properly (I think!) callibrated monitor, but when friends view them or on my work PC the images look very dark - essentially all shadow detail is lost and everything descends into blackness. Most often the photos in question *are* supposed to be dark, but on my monitor they retain good shadow detail and have no black clipping, but that's just not what I see elsewhere.

I'm guessing the problem comes down to non-callibrated monitors though I always thought that had more of a bearing on colour accuracy than overall image brightness, but I guess everyone has their monitors set to a different brightness!

So the question comes down to what do I do about it? I've got a second, dark and uncallibrated monitor that I can put the image on to check it looks reasonable, but obviously that makes the image appear much brighter on my main monitor (and then subsequently in print) than it should be - unnaturally so. I toyed with the idea of creating virtual copies of all images for export so that I can make adjustments without affecting my masters and then bumping up the brightness by some set amount - but I can't think of a way of batching that and that may also unintentially introduce highlight clipping.

Has anyone else come across and solved this dilemma? Thanks in advance for any help!

(a good set of examples if you need them is here where I have been using flash - on my monitor I still have good detail in the background, but on my work PC they look practially black - but if I boost brightness then the faces will look stupid. Note: I'm aware that my flash skills could do with work (2nd outting!) and certainly if that fixed the problem would take advice on that, but this is also a more general problem when e.g. taking photos of sunsets and losing detail in the foreground).

[Jon Meddings]

(a good set of examples if you need them is here where I have been using flash - on my monitor I still have good detail in the background, but on my work PC they look practially black - but if I boost brightness then the faces will look stupid. Note: I'm aware that my flash skills could do with work (2nd outting!) and certainly if that fixed the problem would take advice on that, but this is also a more general problem when e.g. taking photos of sunsets and losing detail in the foreground).

Duncan, I am no expert but looked at these on my work (non calibrated) monitor. Most look just fine to me. There are a few that might be considered dark but it looks like many of these are with flash and I'd expect darker backgrounds.

I tend to worry more about getting my prints correct but the brightness you set your monitor at when you calibrate/profile is important. I've gradually been bringing mine down and now use 110 as a point that gives me a very good match. I also assume that you've been converting your images to sRGB profiles on export - not doing this has certainly led to issues in the past.  Better color aware browsers now should help with that but I still convert all my web stuff to sRGB on export.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Dunc]

Duncan, I am no expert but looked at these on my work (non calibrated) monitor. Most look just fine to me. There are a few that might be considered dark but it looks like many of these are with flash and I'd expect darker backgrounds.

I tend to worry more about getting my prints correct but the brightness you set your monitor at when you calibrate/profile is important. I've gradually been bringing mine down and now use 110 as a point that gives me a very good match. I also assume that you've been converting your images to sRGB profiles on export - not doing this has certainly led to issues in the past.  Better color aware browsers now should help with that but I still convert all my web stuff to sRGB on export.

Hope this helps a bit.

Thanks Jon. Maybe I just need to get all my friends to turn up their monitor's brightness!  

Part of the callibration process involved setting the brightness to the correct value but maybe I should double check that the callibration is correct (although if it looks ok on your monitor then I guess I've got it right - it's everyone else I need to sort out!).

In fairness I spend most of my time putting stuff on the web rather than printing, so one thing I should do is check that my prints match the monitor - maybe that will indicate that it's too bright. Ultimately if the prints and the web output are too dark then there's not much point if *my* monitor is showing it correctly, as obviously that's no good unless I invite everyone round to view on it!

[BradSmith]

Thanks Jon. Maybe I just need to get all my friends to turn up their monitor's brightness!  

Part of the callibration process involved setting the brightness to the correct value but maybe I should double check that the callibration is correct (although if it looks ok on your monitor then I guess I've got it right - it's everyone else I need to sort out!).

In fairness I spend most of my time putting stuff on the web rather than printing, so one thing I should do is check that my prints match the monitor - maybe that will indicate that it's too bright. Ultimately if the prints and the web output are too dark then there's not much point if *my* monitor is showing it correctly, as obviously that's no good unless I invite everyone round to view on it!

I also looked at the images on my calibrated NEC 2690.  They look a little dark to me in the background also.  A couple points to consider.    First, your monitor could be too bright.  But then again, almost all other LCD's in business or general home use are much too bright compared to a properly calibrated monitor.   So if anything, the more normal situation would be that the pictures optimized on a lower brightness, calibrated monitor would tend to be too BRIGHT on most people's non calibrated monitors.   And as far as checking against prints, you'll need to judge this on your own printer using ICC profiles for printing because if you use commercial, mass market printing, their printer control software automatically brightness adjusts the prints to try to deal with under and over exposed images.   So that isn't a good test.

Good luck

[Jon Meddings]

Duncan, I just had a chance to look at them on my calibrated photo monitor (not my crummy little work machine) and they ARE dark.... I understand what you mean now.

I also opened one of them in PS and noted it was in sRGB and also very dark on my screen. It seems to me that you must have your screen set too bright Duncan.

[jpegman]

I agree, on my calibrated Samsung monitor, they appear very dark. Something with your setup since I don't have a darkness problem with my LR processed prints.

[James R]

Duncan, the shots dark on my laptop and desktop (calibrated Ezio monitor).  You might slow down your shutter speed on your interior flash shots.   In general you are consistently under exposed and could use a little pop in your exterior shots.  

As to your monitor:  Your brightness issue is very common.  Many monitors are set to bright.  It is appealing, but, it doesn't represent what your computer program sends to the printer.  

[Dunc]

Duncan, the shots dark on my laptop and desktop (calibrated Ezio monitor).  You might slow down your shutter speed on your interior flash shots.   In general you are consistently under exposed and could use a little pop in your exterior shots.  

As to your monitor:  Your brightness issue is very common.  Many monitors are set to bright.  It is appealing, but, it doesn't represent what your computer program sends to the printer.

Thanks all. Double checked this last night and my monitor is too bright (as you all say!) - doh! I think I miscalibrated. The eyeOne software's UI sucks a bit in that it uses a wizard with back/next buttons, but it also has that silly Start button you need to use to e.g. change luminance and contrast - think I must have missed it on by just pressing next, next, next.

Tried recalibrating last night and the situation has improved, although my monitor apparently won't get dark enough! I couldn't get it below 160 (with 0 brightness!) when I should be getting it down to 120. I don't know if the generated profile is then adjusted to darken it further to get it to the right luminance or if I'm just stuck with an overbright monitor?

I tried doing some prints to compare, and did side-by-side comparisons on my "callibrated" and non-callibrated monitor and they seem closer (although it seems perverse using my non-callibrated monitor as the desired end goal!). The prints compared better except for an over eagerness in the reds/magentas on the prints - but that's one for another post!

James, certainly agree with your comment re: underexposure. I'm a total novice with the flash and am struggling to get to grips with it. Obviously I don't want to increase my flash power and blow the foreground more, but by slowing the shutter I'm going to have problems with shake. Do I need to work on my flash technique more, or is it a matter of trying to improve my shooting technique so I can handhold with slower shutter speeds, or is it gear, or is it all of the above?

On the outside shots lacking pop, my outdoor shots are actually what I'm most happy/comfortable with so I'm probably more concerned by that! Would you be able to explain a little what's not quite right, point me at a couple of examples and things I could do to improve them? I would be very appreciative of your help if so!!

Thanks for your help to date guys.

[jpegman]

Dunc

The monitor brightness limitation (or rather lack of adjustability down low enough) is why manufacturers of graphic arts monitors can charge much higher prices than the consumer models which are overbright by design, since the average person interprets brightness as an asset.  To get a monitor that lets you adjust down to the 120-100 range, plan on spending a minimum of around a $1000. For the rest of us with the $200-$300 monitors, we live with overly bright monitors.

I read somewhere that you should never set your brightness below 20% for non-desirable secondary effects, (and in any case, the brightness change you will see (or measure on your calibration device) is very small.

At least you found your primary problem, and know that even on consumer displays, your brightness level was so high, that it was very visible. Now that your brightness is down in the mid 150's, it will look much better, and if you "notch" up your brightness another 1/2 stop over what looks good, it should even look better on standard displays.

[James R]

Thanks all. Double checked this last night and my monitor is too bright (as you all say!) - doh! I think I miscalibrated. The eyeOne software's UI sucks a bit in that it uses a wizard with back/next buttons, but it also has that silly Start button you need to use to e.g. change luminance and contrast - think I must have missed it on by just pressing next, next, next.

Tried recalibrating last night and the situation has improved, although my monitor apparently won't get dark enough! I couldn't get it below 160 (with 0 brightness!) when I should be getting it down to 120. I don't know if the generated profile is then adjusted to darken it further to get it to the right luminance or if I'm just stuck with an overbright monitor?

I tried doing some prints to compare, and did side-by-side comparisons on my "callibrated" and non-callibrated monitor and they seem closer (although it seems perverse using my non-callibrated monitor as the desired end goal!). The prints compared better except for an over eagerness in the reds/magentas on the prints - but that's one for another post!

James, certainly agree with your comment re: underexposure. I'm a total novice with the flash and am struggling to get to grips with it. Obviously I don't want to increase my flash power and blow the foreground more, but by slowing the shutter I'm going to have problems with shake. Do I need to work on my flash technique more, or is it a matter of trying to improve my shooting technique so I can handhold with slower shutter speeds, or is it gear, or is it all of the above?

On the outside shots lacking pop, my outdoor shots are actually what I'm most happy/comfortable with so I'm probably more concerned by that! Would you be able to explain a little what's not quite right, point me at a couple of examples and things I could do to improve them? I would be very appreciative of your help if so!!

Thanks for your help to date guys.

Look at pic 9239:  Horizon cuts through the middle of photo, foreground and middle ground has no detail, the sky is nothing special, and not sure why there are branches on the top right.  Remember, landscapes need the holy trinity--foreground, middle ground and background.  They work together.  In this pic, what do you want the viewer to look at?
Image 9204 is underexposed, which results in pretty dull pic.  That photo has potential if properly exposed.  BTW, in general, photos look static when the subject is located dead center and always look at the edges to make sure they don't distract from the image.  One last point, the viewers eyes are drawn to the brightest point in a picture, so, use this to your advantage.

I would recommend a couple of books:  Bryan F Peterson's "Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera" and a new book from David duChemin, "Within the Frame, The Journey of Photographic Vision."

[Dunc]

Look at pic 9239:  Horizon cuts through the middle of photo, foreground and middle ground has no detail, the sky is nothing special, and not sure why there are branches on the top right.  Remember, landscapes need the holy trinity--foreground, middle ground and background.  They work together.  In this pic, what do you want the viewer to look at?
Image 9204 is underexposed, which results in pretty dull pic.  That photo has potential if properly exposed.  BTW, in general, photos look static when the subject is located dead center and always look at the edges to make sure they don't distract from the image.  One last point, the viewers eyes are drawn to the brightest point in a picture, so, use this to your advantage.

I would recommend a couple of books:  Bryan F Peterson's "Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera" and a new book from David duChemin, "Within the Frame, The Journey of Photographic Vision."

Thanks James. I'd certainly say that these aren't the best examples of my work, I just chucked them in there for people interested in the party to look at - but fair comments none the less, so thank you very much! In terms of the exposure, that's basically the problem I'm talking about in this thread - that it looks perfect on my monitor but not everywhere else - probably explains why I keep pulling the exposure *down*! In fact, 9204 started out over-exposed (in the sky, to get the right exposure on the horse) and you can probably tell by the left hand horizon it didn't come all the way back. Either way, the exposure is off though (should have had the flash on for fill I guess - it was inside!).

Believe it or not I actually own "Understanding Exposure" and think/thought I did - but often it's one thing to read a book, and another to put it into practive for every shot. I tend to read, think I've absorbed it and go back to shooting by instinct - I'll pick that and my other books up again tonight!

Thank you very much again for your feedback!

(ps can you suggest a good forum to get - and give where appropriate - such feedback on a regular basis? Obviously I'm on Flickr, but you generally only get praise on there and only if you get the traffic!)