Calibration brightness level

[memoriaphoto]

Hi all,

If I never print, just deliver images for screen viewing. What would be a good choice for brightness level when calibrating. I have always been in the 100-110 range but I wonder if that is too dark if I only deliver images that are viewed on a computer/phone. I figure most consumer displays out there are way brighter? So I wonder if my images might appear too bright.

[krseals]

I think you are good at that level, even for social media posts. I use 105 cd/m2 as my brightness level with the I1 Pro system. The reason I am convinced that is approximately the right value, I have some friends on iMacs that have never been calibrated and the brightness might be as high as 300 cd/m2. Most of the photos they post online are muddy and way too dark, no matter my viewing device,

[digitaldog]

It doesn't matter because you can't control how others view images; calibrated display (and how), color managed browsing or applications? They have auto color and brightness set on a mobile device?

[Alan Klein]

Here are my settings for a NEC PA242W monitor using Spectraview II calibration software and puck. Like you, for display only.  Not used for printing.  I like a bright display.  It's calibrated for max. 211.7cd/m2. Now that I'm looking at it, it looks like I haven't calibrated in close to a year.     Well I haven't noticed any difference and it probably doesn't matter if it changed a little.  As long as it looks good to my eyes. I've used Lightroom and PS Elements to calibrate the photos.  If you want to see what they look like, click on my Flickr link below. 

[Alan Klein]

Where can we see your pictures?

[HerveCornette]

It doesn't matter because you can't control how others view images; calibrated display (and how), color managed browsing or applications? They have auto color and brightness set on a mobile device?

+1
and you don't know the image viewing environment (dark, light, sun .....): for exemple if your viewing environnement is 500lx your monitor is 200cd , if your environment is 50lx your monitor is 80cd, the visualization of the same photo will be identical.

[digitaldog]

I've used Lightroom and PS Elements to calibrate the photos. 

That “concept” or lack of proper language is nearly as silly and off base as when you told us “all prints are 300 DPI”:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136760.msg1194660#msg1194660

[digitaldog]

Here are my settings for a NEC PA242W monitor using Spectraview II calibration software and puck.

Great illustration of what not to do with such a fine display system. Or any display system, getting back to the topic of setting Cd/m2.
Author hasn't calibrated it in nearly a year. NEC recommends once a month at least.
Author has upped the brightness to max for so long, the max Cd/m2 has been driven down from 340 cd/m2 (stated max of new unit**) to 211 Cd/m2 as shown a year ago. Author could calibrate again and see what Cd/m2 he now gets after a year of running the display so high. The rub for those who care: the brighter you up the backlight, the sooner it will lower and lower over time. So here's what 12 thousand hours of aiming for such a high backlight will do for you; 340 cd/m2 new, to 211 Cd/m2 a year ago.
Wide gamut display (99.3% of Adobe RGB), funneled into sRGB for who knows what reason.
Spec for contrast ratio is 1000:1, after driving the display so high, a year ago, it is now maxing at 776:1.
So again, this is a great illustration of what not to be doing for no benefit to your display, your eyes and as provided with an outside link, his photos.

**https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/products/displays/pa242w-bk

[Alan Klein]

Rather than knock my settings, why don't you recommend what you think are correct for the OP?  You haven't provided any guidelines only negative comments about what others have done effectively.  Additionally, my monitor was set up for web display with deliberately higher settings and not for printing.  Had I set it for printing, then the CD would have been less maintaining the unit's original design parameters longer.  But that's not what I'm using it for.  So your point seems to be beside the point at least for my non-print application.

My NEC monitor was bought in 2007, fourteen years ago.  I don't believe that any reduction of the display properties have negatively affected my ability to post properly and provide more than acceptable images on the web.   Here are some of those photos I posted on Flickr.  The viewers can determine whether my settings and calibrations with both the NEC and with my editing programs have produced good images.  In fact, I'd appreciate if those who look would post their views about those images here.  Are they lighted and colored properly?  I'm actually giving images that are easier to find fault with since these are from my own scans of film that require a lot of editing of scans to get right. Harder than digitally shot pictures.

I'm willing to put my photos and processes where my mouth is.  These were posted from 1 1/2 years ago to just a few months ago, before and after the last calibration of the monitor.  What do you viewers think?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157715763486212

[jrsforums]

I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room.  Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.

What ‘Dog’ said, however, is correct….you have no control of how others watch.  I find iPhone/iPads fairly well and automagically set for good (enough) viewing.  Computer monitors are, for the most case, potluck.  If it’s a photographer, it is probably set pretty well,nthe average person….well….all they probably care about is that they can recognize ‘Aunt Sally’ and will never notice the time you did (or didn’t) spend getting the image ‘just right’. 😀

[Alan Klein]

I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room.  Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.

What ‘Dog’ said, however, is correct….you have no control of how others watch.  I find iPhone/iPads fairly well and automagically set for good (enough) viewing.  Computer monitors are, for the most case, potluck.  If it’s a photographer, it is probably set pretty well,nthe average person….well….all they probably care about is that they can recognize ‘Aunt Sally’ and will never notice the time you did (or didn’t) spend getting the image ‘just right’. 😀

I agree you can't control what others do on theirs.  But you want to start with a standard for yourself and others who do care and get within the ballpark.  Plus, when you look at your own pictures on a TV or monitor, or wherever, you want to be within the ballpark just for your own good viewing.  If others have lousy settings, well that's their problem. 

I:m curious how your setting of 80cd affects your adjustments and edits.  What do you do to change the result to the image in post-processing?  Do you ignore the histogram?  In other words, let's say you have a photo that fully ranges 0-255 out of the camera.  How does the CD setting you use affect the change you make when editing?  Does the histogram move and to where?

[digitaldog]

Let's start here: ”The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it!” - The Digital Dog
PLEASE STOP SHARING.

Rather than knock my settings, why don't you recommend what you think are correct for the OP?

I did, in my first post here. It doesn't matter in terms of what others see. Thanks to your post, I was able then illustrate with facts on the subject of color management and an actual understanding of display technology that what you've shown is about the worst settings imaginable and why. Why pointing out that you are wasting a really good reference display system and Colorimeter (you call it a 'puck') you're not using.

You haven't provided any guidelines only negative comments about what others have done effectively.

Yes, negative comments about how not to deal with a display. Did you understand why? Seems not. Since you ignored all previous posts by myself and others about this topic.

Additionally, my monitor was set up for web display with deliberately higher settings and not for printing.

That's simply a misunderstanding of your concepts of display calibration. A process you've let go nearly a year. Explain that. Actually don't, enough fables for one day.

My NEC monitor was bought in 2007, fourteen years ago.

 
Once again, you are wrong. That display was introduced in 2013:
https://www.techpowerup.com/186876/nec-announces-pa242w-24-inch-monitor-with-gb-r-led-backlight
NEC Announces PA242W 24-inch Monitor with GB-R LED Backlight
PRESS RELEASE by btarunr Jul 9th, 2013 10:24 Discuss

So you are only off by 6 years and change. More fabulist NONSENSE from your end. That works well in the Bear Pit where facts are ignored. This is a forum about color management which is a technical discussion that requires facts from people who understand the topic. Go back to the Bear Pit. 

I'm willing to put my photos and processes where my mouth is.  These were posted from 1 1/2 years ago to just a few months ago, before and after the last calibration of the monitor.  What do you viewers think?

As an actual professional photographer (it was how I fed my family for decades), you really don't want me to critique your snapshots Alan and yes, I've seen them. And those snapshots have nothing to do with this topic you've nearly got totally wrong.

You could tell us what you did for a living. You will not. Or why you bought a color reference display and Colorimeter you don't use. You will not.

I don't believe that any reduction of the display properties have negatively affected my ability to post properly and provide more than acceptable images on the web. 

What you believe and what is factual isn't the same. Hasn't been in the past, no different today. You can believe in god, unicorns and the Easter Bunny. And perhaps you do.
Here are the facts, something I outlined only for your readers:
1. Not all prints are 300DPI.
2. The settings you provided are in my professional opinion, about the worst advise for others who know as little about this topic as you do.
3. Your display was released in 2013, not as you assume or simply don't know, in 2007.

Your readers here need to know that in a topic as complicated as color management, peer review is kind of useful and dismissing assumptions and nonsense are par for this course. IOW, you're far better off writing in the Bear Pit Coffee Corner where most of your readers (as a former one) don't take you seriously.

[digitaldog]

But you want to start with a standard for yourself and others who do care and get within the ballpark.

There are no such standards. You're again making crap up. People can alter their displays and phone settings, they are not locked down. So much for your imaginary 'standards'.
Next you'll tell us, without a lick of fact, your NEC calibration settings are a standard. Fabulist writings.

Plus, when you look at your own pictures on a TV or monitor, or wherever, you want to be within the ballpark just for your own good viewing. 

Generalizations and assumptions. What is the deltaE of your ballpark? That can't be answered, probably the question isn't even understood.

I:m curious how your setting of 80cd affects your adjustments and edits. 

Asked by a person who obviously never used a CRT display. Asked by a person who will not accept factual answers if provided. You are curious; that's hilarious. Move on.

Do you ignore the histogram?  In other words, let's say you have a photo that fully ranges 0-255 out of the camera.  How does the CD setting you use affect the change you make when editing?  Does the histogram move and to where?

Asked by a person who obviously has no idea that a Histogram knows nothing about the display or its conditions.
So along with a massive misunderstanding of display calibration and resolution, let's add Histograms. Here's a video you will likely ignore but maybe other who know just a bit more about the topic than you and need more understanding will watch.

Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms
Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining:
What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.
Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.
Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.
Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).
Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.
Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).
Are histograms useful and if so, how?

Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov

The bold above is especially configured for you to view then ignore. 
Bear Bit Alan, Bear Bit. Leave the technical photographic and factual discussions to others. 

[digitaldog]

I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room. 

Bingo! And to back up what both of us know, here's a good piece from the color scientist who developed both the Sony Artisan and Radius PressViews, both of which I've owned, both CRTs that are hard pressed to get a lot higher than 80-90 cdm2. But never an issue of course.
http://lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf

[Alan Klein]

As usual Andrew.  You're more interested in attacking people than providing useful information that non- experts can use effectively.

[digitaldog]

As usual Andrew.  You're more interested in attacking people than providing useful information that non- experts can use effectively.

As usual Alan, I'm more interested in disproving your amazing BS, misunderstandings and posts to others.
Yes, you do expertly qualify posting in this forum as a non expert. Which is why the Bear Pit is ideal for your posting agenda.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1228434#msg1228434
"Stupidity is always amazing, no matter how used to it you become."-Jean Cocteau

[GWGill]

I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room.  Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.

When I switched to an LCD monitor, I also decided to boost all the light levels of my work situation to be as bright as was practical for the sake of my circadian rhythm (the old CRT was lucky to hit 50 cd/m^2). Too low light level means poorer alertness as melatonin isn't being effectively suppressed, also leading to lower levels at night when you want it. I couldn't quite get the levels recommended, but I got as close as I could. So the display is running about 80% of max with a brightness around 180 cd/m^2, and the adjacent desk brightness from the four (D50'ish) LED downlights is about 500 lux. This about the bare minimum level from an alertness and sleep point of view - it would be better if it was at least twice that.
If I'm still working in the evenings I reduce the ambient and display levels to less than half this.
It's fair to point out that I'm rarely doing color critical viewing in this setup although I'm happy enough with that aspect, but it's worth making the point that there are other considerations in peoples display/work situations.

[ghostwind]

Wide gamut display (99.3% of Adobe RGB), funneled into sRGB for who knows what reason.

I agree with your post, but not with the above. If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision. Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need? Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.

As for the OP's question, 100nits is good for sRGB. Keep the ambient light down when editing to see details. You can't control what others see, but more than 120nits -> darker images for most folks.

[digitaldog]

If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision.

That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision?

Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.

Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors?

Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need?

Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.

100nits is good for sRGB.

"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.

Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

[Alan Klein]

I agree with your post, but not with the above. If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision. Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need? Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.

As for the OP's question, 100nits is good for sRGB. Keep the ambient light down when editing to see details. You can't control what others see, but more than 120nits -> darker images for most folks.

I agree.  I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print.  If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB?   This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.