Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: walter.sk on December 18, 2008, 12:32:31 pm
-
I came across this in another thread in the Printers, Papers & Inks forum. The writer said that when editing her images in Photoshop using an LCD display whose brightness previously caused her to have prints that were too dark, she changed the background to white. Apparently, this creates a different viewing environment for her images, which, when optimized on the display, result in the right settings to result in prints that match.
Does this make sense? Has anybody tried it? There are a lot of bright monitors out there, and perhaps this would be a better solution than lowering the luminosity of the monitors beyond what they can actually do.
-
as larry small, an old farmer friend used to say... that doesn't make a particle of sense, (to me anyway).
he used to say "pahhtuckle" though.
-
It's better to use a grey surround for your image and reduce the brightness of the display. Display luminance ion the range of 90~110 with little ambient light should be capable of delivering what you need.
-
It can be hard to reduce the brightness of some displays to that point. I think my old Dell was around 150-180 at minimum brightness.
-
Purely a guess, but if the background is white and there's enough of it, then it would make the white of the image less apparently white to the eye (since your brain will be balanced on the whiter-white) which may help to simulate paper-white in some way. Also, if there is simply more light coming from the monitor (due to the white instead of grey) then your pupil may be further constricted which would have the effect of reducing the apparent brightness of the image on the screen - perhaps making it more similar to the printer's output on paper.
To me, though, I have to admit it sounds an awful lot like the squinting called for when using Adobe Gamma and thus not a great idea. That said, if it's workign for someone then that's a good thing!
-
Purely a guess, but if the background is white and there's enough of it, then it would make the white of the image less apparently white to the eye (since your brain will be balanced on the whiter-white) which may help to simulate paper-white in some way. Also, if there is simply more light coming from the monitor (due to the white instead of grey) then your pupil may be further constricted which would have the effect of reducing the apparent brightness of the image on the screen - perhaps making it more similar to the printer's output on paper.
To me, though, I have to admit it sounds an awful lot like the squinting called for when using Adobe Gamma and thus not a great idea. That said, if it's workign for someone then that's a good thing!
No - screen white and paper white wouldn't necessarily match at all unless the white is part of the image being soft-proofed with Simulate Paper White active. And I agree with you about the latter thought not really being a good idea.
One of the advantages of using an LCD display capable of low levels of luminance, for those of us working many hours per day in front of our displays - this kind of set-up is really easy on the eyes. I kind of treasure my vision and think having a display with this capability worthwhile. Displays are just merchandise - eyes aren't. Furthermore a neutral grey surround is an ideal way not to either understate or exaggerate the tonality of the image in our minds' eyes. Those are the reasons why I recommended as I did.
-
No - screen white and paper white wouldn't necessarily match at all unless the white is part of the image being soft-proofed with Simulate Paper White active. And I agree with you about the latter thought not really being a good idea.
One of the advantages of using an LCD display capable of low levels of luminance, for those of us working many hours per day in front of our displays - this kind of set-up is really easy on the eyes. I kind of treasure my vision and think having a display with this capability worthwhile. Displays are just merchandise - eyes aren't. Furthermore a neutral grey surround is an ideal way not to either understate or exaggerate the tonality of the image in our minds' eyes. Those are the reasons why I recommended as I did.
I totally agree, Mark. I was really just trying to figure out why it was being suggested as a viable solution (and presumably works for those doing it).
-
Understood - and one must have time for things that do, after all, work for some people regardless of the reasons or logic of it! Whether it's best practice or not in a general sense is another matter.
-
Understood - and one must have time for things that do, after all, work for some people regardless of the reasons or logic of it! Whether it's best practice or not in a general sense is another matter.
Sorry, but I have to disagree, after spending as many years as I have working to explain this stuff... calibrating a display using a simple device is a basic, inexpensive first step to solving any color management issue, and understanding why that is important is the first step to understanding how the system works. I've seen it time and time again. A workaround like this takes as much, if not more effort, than simply doing it right.
I guess this just seems about as ill-advised to me as the old, "make a print and adjust your monitor to match it..." caper.
...sorry if that seems harsh, I'm cranky, my coffee maker just broke. bah! (anybody know how to make coffee by rubbing two sticks together?)
-
AFAIK,
The origins of this is advice I attribute to Joseph Holmes (as in www.josephholmes.com). That's where I first heard it:
You view your image in PS with a neutral grey/gray background to help ascertain colour/color casts (even ones you weren't aware of before...), and viewing it on the white bg gives you a more accurate idea of the true contrast of your image. (ie. viewing your pic on a black bg on a monitor will always make it look more fabulous and contrasty than it really is, and as a result your printed image will look washed out).
All assuming viewing a file on a calibrated monitor, etc.
And an Elektra Micro-Casa Leva coffee machine. As reliable as two sticks, they don't break down, and make unreal coffee. If you take the time to learn how to handle it... just like colour management and listening to Joseph Holmes. I wonder, how many colour-management fanatics are also coffee and coffee-machine fanatics...
For what it's worth,
Kaisa Breeden
-
AFAIK,
The origins of this is advice I attribute to Joseph Holmes (as in www.josephholmes.com). That's where I first heard it:
You view your image in PS with a neutral grey/gray background to help ascertain colour/color casts (even ones you weren't aware of before...), and viewing it on the white bg gives you a more accurate idea of the true contrast of your image. (ie. viewing your pic on a black bg on a monitor will always make it look more fabulous and contrasty than it really is, and as a result your printed image will look washed out).
All assuming viewing a file on a calibrated monitor, etc.
And an Elektra Micro-Casa Leva coffee machine. As reliable as two sticks, they don't break down, and make unreal coffee. If you take the time to learn how to handle it... just like colour management and listening to Joseph Holmes. I wonder, how many colour-management fanatics are also coffee and coffee-machine fanatics...
For what it's worth,
Kaisa Breeden
absolutely, and predicated on the statement: "All assuming viewing a file on a calibrated monitor, etc."
I'm not commenting on the importance of the background color, or even the bigger issue of the viewing impression of colors in context, that particular issue is undeniably huge. Besides, I'd never presume to disagree with Joe. I am, however, talking about the idea that this is somehow a substitute for a good monitor calibrated properly. ("There are a lot of bright monitors out there, and perhaps this would be a better solution than lowering the luminosity of the monitors beyond what they can actually do.")
Thanks for the tip, I'm doing the cowboy-coffee route right now. Now where did I put my socks?
-
ok wow. just wow.
http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress_story.htm (http://www.aerobie.com/Products/aeropress_story.htm)
-
Sorry, but I have to disagree, after spending as many years as I have working to explain this stuff... calibrating a display using a simple device is a basic, inexpensive first step to solving any color management issue, and understanding why that is important is the first step to understanding how the system works. I've seen it time and time again. A workaround like this takes as much, if not more effort, than simply doing it right.
I guess this just seems about as ill-advised to me as the old, "make a print and adjust your monitor to match it..." caper.
...sorry if that seems harsh, I'm cranky, my coffee maker just broke. bah! (anybody know how to make coffee by rubbing two sticks together?)
I don't know what you are disagreeing with, because we both know what "best practice" is and that is what I would always encourage readers to do. Profile and calibrate the display, use appropriate luminance values in the process, and surround the image with a grey frame or full-screen. But at the same time we should cut some slack for people who have found other solutions that give them results they find satisfactory for themselves - it's simply, as I said, one wouldn't endorse those "sub-optimal" solutions in a more general sense.
-
I don't know what you are disagreeing with, because we both know what "best practice" is and that is what I would always encourage readers to do. Profile and calibrate the display, use appropriate luminance values in the process, and surround the image with a grey frame or full-screen. But at the same time we should cut some slack for people who have found other solutions that give them results they find satisfactory for themselves - it's simply, as I said, one wouldn't endorse those "sub-optimal" solutions in a more general sense.
Simply, I disagree with accepting, encouraging or reinforcing an erroneous assumption or practice, regardless of the results...
I say this, with respect, simply because of the very nature of Color Management and the confusion surrounding it. I have seen, time and time again, completely wrong policies that gave acceptable results... I kind of wish I'd complied a list of them at this point, but, for instance, setting the working color space at the monitor profile is one practice that sometimes actually works fine, but is not correct. This does nothing more than increase the user's confusion.
We obviously are in agreement about the basic principles here, and I don't mean to make an issue out of it... the question was simply, is this a valid practice, and I feel that the answer is simply, no.
-
The writer said that when editing her images in Photoshop using an LCD display whose brightness previously caused her to have prints that were too dark, she changed the background to white.
As far as my eyes have taught me, the brightness of the screen should be set based upon the ambient light working conditions. If you are in a bright room, the screen should be brighter and in a dark room the screen should be darker. This makes it easier for the eye to adjust while viewing the screen or the proof prints and reduces eye strain. I personally avoid a white background (I use RGB 50,50,50) because of my perceived eye strain. Of course, a suitably bright viewing lamp should be used for print evaluation.
With my monitor settings (relatively dark in a darkish room), the edited image is perceived as "very good" however is still brighter than a print. When I use the Soft Proof (CTL/Y) the print and the screen are virtually a perfect match for colour and for brightness when I have the print suitably illuminated by a bright fluorescent lamp with high CRI.
The lamp I use comes from one of the fluorescent continuous lighting systems that are commonly available at your local camera emporium. When I compare the print to the soft-proof, the lamp is about 30-40 cm away from the print. I suspect that too many people are using an insufficiently bright viewing lamp that is too far away from the print for proper evaluation of colour and brightness.
-
"Valid practice" - interesting concept. What's "valid"? "best practice", "the generally accepted correct way of doing something", or more flexibly "what works"? I'm on the same page with you about adopting "best practice", but to say that something which works for someone is not "valid" I guess raises a philosophic issue, even though you won't find me, nor yourself, actually recommending sub-optimal workflow set-ups to others.
-
"Valid practice" - interesting concept. What's "valid"? "best practice", "the generally accepted correct way of doing something", or more flexibly "what works"? I'm on the same page with you about adopting "best practice", but to say that something which works for someone is not "valid" I guess raises a philosophic issue, even though you won't find me, nor yourself, actually recommending sub-optimal workflow set-ups to others.
Well, I'd say a "valid" practice is one that works within the color management system, as it was designed to work If "best" works for you, then that's fine, no need to mince words.
-
I think I'm with Mark on this, purely from a philosophical point of view.
I recommend orthodox monitor calibration based colour management every day to our end users, but there is a real value in attempting to understand how someone's unorthodox method works, particularly if it gives them accurate or good (not always the same thing) results.
Every now and then, a little gem is discovered. It may only be a tiny part of the whole but it may add then to our own methods or at least to our understanding of the subject (even if that then reinforces the orthodox view). By understanding the unorthodox it is often easier to then suggest the orthodox approach by explaining the differences and thus pros and cons more effectively.
-
Ted and Phil,
Yes, that's one of the real interesting aspects of digital imaging - while in a general sense there is something called "best practice" as we've come to understand it - and encourage others to do so as well, there are so many ways of "skinning a cat" in this field one is sometimes surprised by what works and what doesn't for some folks, so best to keep the antennae up. Anyhow, I think we've beat this one pretty much to the ground - we all know what eachother means here.
-
The appropriate monitor brightness depends on ambient lighting level, and vice versa. There is no single perfect monitor luminance value; the important thing is to adjust the balance between the monitor luminance and ambient luminance so that a good match between monitor image and print is achieved. This is the point of print viewing boxes with dimmable illumination. Changing the brightness of the border around the image can affect the perceived brightness of the monitor image, but it's not a very effective strategy--you can't change the perceived brightness of the image very much that way. Adjusting ambient lighting offers far more control. If you can't lower the brightness of the monitor any further, put brighter bulbs in the fixtures around your work area.
-
Ther person in question that mentioned using white as background was me and, yes in many cases it works well for me. I work on an apple 30 inch display carefully calibrated using Coloreyes Display Pro to a L value of about 115. This gives me a good working luminance and very accurate grayscale. The purpose of the white background is that I can very quickly determine what my highlights are going to look like on paper white and see how far I can push my highlight values without blowing out any areas. I have a history in large and medium format film and extensive experience in printing..... While I'm completely converted to digital these days, I'm not opposed to trying something that doesn't necessarily "go by the digital imaging book" as long as I get excellent results. Having a white background also lets me with a quick glance check the neutrality of the image in question especially in the highlights. We need not get to 'left brained" here. If something works, go for it. Eleanor
Purely a guess, but if the background is white and there's enough of it, then it would make the white of the image less apparently white to the eye (since your brain will be balanced on the whiter-white) which may help to simulate paper-white in some way. Also, if there is simply more light coming from the monitor (due to the white instead of grey) then your pupil may be further constricted which would have the effect of reducing the apparent brightness of the image on the screen - perhaps making it more similar to the printer's output on paper.
To me, though, I have to admit it sounds an awful lot like the squinting called for when using Adobe Gamma and thus not a great idea. That said, if it's workign for someone then that's a good thing!
-
While I'm completely converted to digital these days, I'm not opposed to trying something that doesn't necessarily "go by the digital imaging book" as long as I get excellent results.
The problem with that "logic" is that while deviating from "the book" may work fine for you with your particular set of hardware, it probably will not work very well for others who don't have an exact replica of your equipment and configuration. This is one of the main reasons people have so many problems with color management--you can do all kinds of stupid things and given a specific combination and configuration of hardware, they may not cause any obvious problems. But when others try to do the exact same thing, they will have all kinds of problems.
Having a white background also lets me with a quick glance check the neutrality of the image in question especially in the highlights. We need not get to 'left brained" here. If something works, go for it. Eleanor
Again, while this may work for you and your particular hardware, it is not something you should recommend as general advice. Most devices are the most inaccurate in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows, and using the brightest white your monitor can display as your neutral reference is usually a recipe for trouble. If something isn't recommended by the experts, there's usually a very good reason why. Just because you can get away with something foolish doesn't mean your experience will benefit others.
-
Jonathan - you never disappoint - no diplomatic doubletalk here - just the straight goods, eh?
-
Jonathan - you never disappoint - no diplomatic doubletalk here - just the straight goods, eh?
I love this guy...
Yeah, Mark we have beat this to death I guess, sorry, but I just have a little more to add... As a "Digital Imaging Specialist" at a couple of places for more than a few years I've heard this kind of question over and over... and the answer is very, very simple. Get a good display, and calibrate it.
For every person who's come to me with issues, I've heard some new form of creative workaround. My answer is simple and straightforward. Get the right tools, and set them up correctly, and move on (so we all can, too... ) I will also add that I have never, not yet anyway, had anyone come back to me and say that they made a mistake taking this advice.
The other thing that gets me going on this is, for all the issues in color management, this is the simplest and easiest to solve.
OMG I just remembered these two old coots from MIT who walked in all full of attitude who I had to hammer and hammer on about setting up a good display rather than trying to make a POS display do something it couldn't... perfect mix of tight-fisted Yankee who didn't want to part with a buck and arrogant engineers. 2 months later the guy walks in with his jaw all tight and fists clenched and I'm like, oh crap, here we go. He was coming in to thank me! Practically offered me his first borne, he did...
OK, sitting down now...
-
I also learned this little "trick" of using a white background in PS to evaluate overall image brightness in preparing a file for print from Joe Holmes. He suggested it as a soft proofing technique. He was certainly not suggesting it as a substitute for a properly calibrated and profiled monitor! His advice has proven invaluable for me in my workflow. My prints were often too dark relative to what I was seeing on my monitor, and this has solved the problem. There are probably two reasons. First, my prints are mounted with a white mat. The perceived brightness of a color varies depending upon the brightness of the background against which you view it. We perceive brightness on a comparative basis. A print viewed against a darker background will look overall brighter than the exact same print viewed against a white background. Second, my monitor is set to 120 cdm, the recommended level for work destined for print. It's probably still too bright for effectively evaluating files for print, but anything lower is either not practical or looks so lousy for all other purposes that no one wants to do it.
BTW, my impression was that Joe Holmes did not view this advice to me as a "trick", but rather as a "best practice." In my case, he suggested it before he had any idea that I had issues with my prints being too dark.
-
Second, my monitor is set to 120 cdm, the recommended level for work destined for print.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no such thing as "THE recommended level for work destined for print". There is an operationally useful range depending on the kind of paper you are printing with and perhaps more importantly, the ambient illumination in which you are working. Everyone should run tests to determine which luminance value works best in their conditions.
-
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no such thing as "THE recommended level for work destined for print". There is an operationally useful range depending on the kind of paper you are printing with and perhaps more importantly, the ambient illumination in which you are working. Everyone should run tests to determine which luminance value works best in their conditions.
I was not clear in that respect. The 120 cdm number I mentioned was a specific recommendation for my monitor, the NEC 2690wuxi, from a number of sources. Depending upon your viewing conditions, another number may be "better". I tried lower numbers and they did not work for me.
-
Thank you.....Your post (below) echos very well the point I was trying to get across also. A white background can quickly show me issues about my image file destined for print (white paper, white mat) that a dark background won't. I have my mouse set so I can cycle from white to middle gray back to white, back to gray, etc. with a push of a mouse button. I never "tell" people what to do, I only say what works for me under what circumstances. I don't teach color management nor do I do commercial work. I'm an artist first and I feel if I need to bend the "rules" that's my right. If it works for me that means someone else might benefit, so that's why I mention it. Apparently it works for Joseph Holmes too. Eleanor
I also learned this little "trick" of using a white background in PS to evaluate overall image brightness in preparing a file for print from Joe Holmes. He suggested it as a soft proofing technique. He was certainly not suggesting it as a substitute for a properly calibrated and profiled monitor! His advice has proven invaluable for me in my workflow. My prints were often too dark relative to what I was seeing on my monitor, and this has solved the problem. There are probably two reasons. First, my prints are mounted with a white mat. The perceived brightness of a color varies depending upon the brightness of the background against which you view it. We perceive brightness on a comparative basis. A print viewed against a darker background will look overall brighter than the exact same print viewed against a white background. Second, my monitor is set to 120 cdm, the recommended level for work destined for print. It's probably still too bright for effectively evaluating files for print, but anything lower is either not practical or looks so lousy for all other purposes that no one wants to do it.
BTW, my impression was that Joe Holmes did not view this advice to me as a "trick", but rather as a "best practice." In my case, he suggested it before he had any idea that I had issues with my prints being too dark.
-
His advice has proven invaluable for me in my workflow. My prints were often too dark relative to what I was seeing on my monitor, and this has solved the problem. There are probably two reasons. First, my prints are mounted with a white mat. The perceived brightness of a color varies depending upon the brightness of the background against which you view it. We perceive brightness on a comparative basis. A print viewed against a darker background will look overall brighter than the exact same print viewed against a white background.
Ambient lighting conditions have a much greater effect on perceived monitor image brightness than mat color, which is why you are much better off adjusting the ambient lighting level (which gives you far more control over your print/monitor luminance matching) rather than tweaking background color on-screen.
Second, my monitor is set to 120 cdm, the recommended level for work destined for print. It's probably still too bright for effectively evaluating files for print, but anything lower is either not practical or looks so lousy for all other purposes that no one wants to do it.
There is no universally-accepted best value for monitor luminance. The optimal value depends on ambient lighting conditions and the capabilities of a given monitor. 120 cd/m is a fairly common average, but is not an ironclad value you must achieve for best results.
-
I agree with Eleanor and hcubell that using a white background is one of many useful tools for working with images on screen. It's not a "work around" or substitute for proper display profiles etc. When I learned fine black and white printing in college one of the useful tools we used was to have a strip of photo paper handy which had been processed but not exposed (also a strip processed which had been fully exposed for max black) , so we would have a white frame of reference for the maximum white possible for the paper we were printing on. This could be held next to a print in the tray to help evaluate the highlight areas. Working on a computer screen I often have found that there is no pure white on the screen to compare to, leading me think images are lighter than they really are. (Software backgrounds, window borders etc often seem to be pure white but really aren't.) Using a white crop around my images in Capture One in my daily work flow has shown me that I was often about a half stop underexposed before- and yes I know how to read a histogram, but photography is a visual art, requiring us to make some judgements on visual basis. --Ben
-
I agree with Eleanor and hcubell that using a white background is one of many useful tools for working with images on screen. It's not a "work around" or substitute for proper display profiles etc. When I learned fine black and white printing in college one of the useful tools we used was to have a strip of photo paper handy which had been processed but not exposed (also a strip processed which had been fully exposed for max black) , so we would have a white frame of reference for the maximum white possible for the paper we were printing on. This could be held next to a print in the tray to help evaluate the highlight areas. Working on a computer screen I often have found that there is no pure white on the screen to compare to, leading me think images are lighter than they really are. (Software backgrounds, window borders etc often seem to be pure white but really aren't.) Using a white crop around my images in Capture One in my daily work flow has shown me that I was often about a half stop underexposed before- and yes I know how to read a histogram, but photography is a visual art, requiring us to make some judgements on visual basis. --Ben
Interesting point, Ben, and very much to the point of some of my work I've been doing lately. This definitely speaks to how I worked in the darkroom as well, and the fact that I print, keep on my desktop, and use constantly a 0-255 step wedge to "see" pure black, pure white, and how my printer renders the ramp (especially very close to the margins- from 0-25, and from 245-255).
FYI, help yourself to that here... http://www.teddillard.com/graphics/step.jpg (http://www.teddillard.com/graphics/step.jpg)
Thanks!
-
Cool! Thanks Ted! --Ben