Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Rant 23  (Read 39282 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Rant 23
« Reply #80 on: October 04, 2009, 11:46:51 pm »

Hi,

Interestingly there are a lot of scientists who also are excellent photographers.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Christian Miersch
Oh and I forgot someting, what we have here at LL is some mixup of the both. The analytical side arguing why the artists are ignorant.  //edit:// And sometimes also the other way around //edit end// This is unfortunate. Obviously the artist can make his image without being a physicist. At the end I am not required to be an engineer to do photos. Quite the contrary. Also the artist is not obliged to take the position of a scientist into account. He will do his art without it. Intuition and analytic thinking, different beasts. Not do downtalk the importance of the technical happenings in the camera through. And no doubt the best people out there in the business of computer graphics utilize both their artistic and scientfic knowledge, thats out of dispute. But what we had happen here in the past where no enlightening technical discussions. Everything else but that. These where to large parts absurd, academic and childish disputes. But I dont want to expand on that.

At the end no question both sides scientific and artistic, have each their merit in their own respective context. But most importantly they should respect - and hopefully also value each other (through the latter being maybe a bit of a far call currently).

Christian
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #81 on: October 05, 2009, 12:11:10 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
If you want to see small gamut shortfalls in print, an easy way to do it is this:

1)  download this printer evaluation image (it's a 40MB, Pro RGB tiff): http://www.outbackprint.com/printinginsigh...i048/essay.html

2) It is in Prophoto RGB and already sized to fit on a letter-size sheet,  so save a native copy somewhere safe, then print it out properly using whatever your favorite paper and profile combination is -- I recommend Epson's Premium (or Canon's or HP's) Luster as it has a larger gamut than most matte papers and is readily available. Go ahead and use Epson's (or HP's or Canon's) canned profile for your printer if you don't have a custom one.

3)  Now convert the test image to sRGB and print the sRGB version on the same paper using the proper paper profile -- the only difference is this time you'll be printing from sRGB converted to your paper profile, not Prophoto RGB to your paper profile as above.  

4) Now compare the prints side-by-side.  You should easily be able to see the poor rendering of the sRGB print on the greens and blues of the test patch squares just under the grayscale image in the test image.  If you can't see any differences there, you are not printing properly or your printer/paper combo has an inordinately small gamut to begin with...

Cheers,


Thanks for the link to that test image, Jack. (You're not such a bad bloke after all   .)

I've downloaded the image, printed the ProPhoto version next to the sRGB conversion (which I reconverted to the Prophoto profile for ease of printing since I'm on a 24" roll).  I have to say that your test image merely confirms what I either knew already or suspected might be the case.

I know that Premium Lustre has a slightly wider gamut than Enhanced Matte. I have both profiles loaded in my system, but unfortunately for me, changing matte black ink on my Epson 7600 is too much of a hassle. I'll leave that chore till my matte black cartridge is empty, or my Enhanced Matte roll is finished (I use the South African method). I'd like to upgrade to an Epson 7900 but apparently my old 7600 has no resale value, and it's currently performing flawlessly (touch wood).

Some comments. First, I don't need to be convinced that ProPhoto RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB and ARGB and that Epson printers are capable of printing certain shades that are outside the gamut of both sRGB and ARGB.

The issue, in relation to Michael's rant, is whether such differences in shades of color, reproducible on the print with embedded ProPhoto profile, are significantly different to what one might see on the monitor. My view is, they are not, based on the performance of my own equipment and profiles (courtesy of Bill Atkinson - thanks! Bill).

Examining the differences between the two images on Epson Enhanced Matte, I see there are very few areas in the real-world sections of that test image where the Prophoto print is different. The differences are mostly apparent in the colored squares where a couple of shades of green and a couple of shades of cyan have merged into one shade in the sRGB image.

I've long been of the opinion that a major difference between sRGB and ProPhoto RGB is in the rendition of yellows. If we examine the autumn scene of the woods in your test image (at 100%), there's no doubt in my mind that, on both print and monitor, those yellow, fading leaves are more golden in the ProPhoto image. That difference, oddly enough, is not reflected as significantly in the yellow squares.

I should stress also that such differences are more apparent on the monitor when proof setup is enabled, with either Enhanced Matte profile or Premium Lustre profile selected, in my situation.

The following crop of the colored squares from your test image shows the merging of the two shades of green and (separately) the two shades of cyan. The differences in the autumn woods' scene are only apparent in relation to my profiles for the Epson 7600. I tried to upload the two images of the autumn leaves with embedded Premium Lustre profile, to demonstrate the more golden effect of ProPhoto RGB, but failed. I presume the web cannot handle such profiles.

The image below has an embedded ProPhoto RGB profile. It's only meaningful in a program like Photoshop.

[attachment=16962:Colored_Squares.jpg]

Edit: Actually, the differences are so great that on my monitor those merged shades in sRGB, as opposed to the distinct shades in ProPhoto, are obvious without even opening the image in PS.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 12:35:51 am by Ray »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Rant 23
« Reply #82 on: October 05, 2009, 12:33:32 am »

Hi,

I have also printed the images, and noted the differences in the green patches after reading Jack Flesher's advice on reading the test images. After that I went back to Lightroom  and looked at the patches in comparison mode. On my iMac screen (essentially sRGB)  the patches were essentially the same. On my right screen (which essentially Adobe) I could see the same differences as in print.

This was interesting, thank you all!

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
Thanks for the link to that test image, Jack. (You're not such a bad bloke after all   .)

I've downloaded the image, printed the ProPhoto version next to the sRGB conversion (which I reconverted to the Prophoto profile for ease of printing since I'm on a 24" roll).  I have to say that your test image merely confirms what I either knew already or suspected might be the case.

I know that Premium Lustre has a slightly wider gamut than Enhanced Matte. I have both profiles loaded in my system, but unfortunately for me, changing matte black ink on my Epson 7600 is too much of a hassle. I'll leave that chore till my matte black cartridge is empty, or my Enhanced Matte roll is finished (I use the South African method). I'd like to upgrade to an Epson 7900 but apparently my old 7600 has no resale value, and it's currently performing flawlessly (touch wood).

Some comments. First, I don't need to be convinced that ProPhoto RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB and ARGB and that Epson printers are capable of printing certain shades that are outside the gamut of both sRGB and ARGB.

The issue, in relation to Michael's rant, is whether such differences in shades of color, reproducible on the print with embedded ProPhoto profile, are significantly different to what one might see on the monitor. My view is, they are not, based on the performance of my own equipment and profiles (courtesy of Bill Atkinson - thanks! Bill).

Examining the differences between the two images on Epson Enhanced Matte, I see there are very few areas in the real-world sections of that test image where the Prophoto print is different. The differences are mostly apparent in the colored squares where a couple of shades of green and a couple of shades of cyan have merged into one shade in the sRGB image.

I've long been of the opinion that a major difference between sRGB and ProPhoto RGB is in the rendition of yellows. If we examine the autumn scene of the woods in your test image (at 100%), there's no doubt in my mind that, on both print and monitor, those yellow, fading leaves are more golden in the ProPhoto image. That difference, oddly enough, is not reflected as significantly in the yellow squares.

I should stress also that such differences are more apparent on the monitor when proof setup is enabled, with either Enhanced Matte profile or Premium Lustre profile selected, in my situation.

The following crop of the colored squares from your test image shows the merging of the two shades of green and (separately) the two shades of cyan. The differences in the autumn woods' scene are only apparent in relation to my profiles for the Epson 7600. I tried to upload the two images of the autumn leaves with embedded Premium Lustre profile, to demonstrate the more golden effect of ProPhoto RGB, but failed. I presume the web cannot handle such profiles.

The image below has an embedded ProPhoto RGB profile. It's only meaningful in a program like Photoshop.

[attachment=16962:Colored_Squares.jpg]
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 01:16:20 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #83 on: October 05, 2009, 09:20:31 am »

Quote from: Ray
Thanks for the link to that test image, Jack. (You're not such a bad bloke after all   .)

SNIP

I know that Premium Lustre has a slightly wider gamut than Enhanced Matte. I have both profiles loaded in my system, but unfortunately for me, changing matte black ink on my Epson 7600 is too much of a hassle.
SNIP
Examining the differences between the two images on Epson Enhanced Matte, I see there are very few areas in the real-world sections of that test image where the Prophoto print is different. The differences are mostly apparent in the colored squares where a couple of shades of green and a couple of shades of cyan have merged into one shade in the sRGB image.

Ray,

You are welcome .

FWIW, I have found that the "slightly wider" gamut you mention between x600 UC MK on art paper and x600 UC PK on Luster is in actuality a pretty significant difference visually, especially on vegetation; EPPLuster just holds ink really well compared to most any MK alternative -- and more so on x800 and x900 printers.

PS: Another thing you'll immediately note with the MK art papers versus Luster, is comparing the overall print DR separation by using the light gray on white patches and and the dark gray on black patches.  With a good Luster profile you can see differences far closer to the edges of each transition zone than you will with any art paper -- and actually if you want to be really geek about analyzing it, you can continue to measure differences on a few of the edge patches with your spectro you cannot see visually.  FWIW...

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 09:33:50 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
Rant 23
« Reply #84 on: October 05, 2009, 09:33:54 am »

Along the lines of Jack's post, I have some gamut plot examples here (two papers, plus an old ~sRGB display):

http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Ep...800/gamuts.html

the take-home point being that sometimes there are two different colors that can be seen on the display, which may not be seen in print, and similarly sometimes there are two different colors that appear in print, but cannot be distinguished on the display.
Logged
Eric Chan

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #85 on: October 05, 2009, 01:18:37 pm »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
FWIW, I have found that the "slightly wider" gamut you mention between x600 UC MK on art paper and x600 UC PK on Luster is in actuality a pretty significant difference visually, especially on vegetation; EPPLuster just holds ink really well compared to most any MK alternative -- and more so on x800 and x900 printers.

Jack,
For maximum gamut I actually prefer Premium Glossy which has an even wider gamut than Premium Lustre, but unfortunately suffers more from metamerism. There are always trades-off and compromises.

Examining your test image with the Bill Atkinson 'PrmGlossy PGL2' profile applied in Proof Setup (PGL2 for 2880 dpi printing), I see that none of the yellows are out of gamut except for very slight traces in the autumn scene. It would be interesting to compare effects with the Epson profiles for the 7900, but all I can find for download is the MK profile. With regard to the yellows, the 7900 MK profile performs about the same as the 7600 PrmGlossy, but is worse in other areas.

I hope that PS gamut warning is accurate.

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #86 on: October 05, 2009, 01:21:45 pm »

Quote from: madmanchan
...the take-home point being that sometimes there are two different colors that can be seen on the display, which may not be seen in print, and similarly sometimes there are two different colors that appear in print, but cannot be distinguished on the display.

Eric,
Interesting article! As I understand, LCD monitors are generally technically inferior to CRT monitors with regard to color gamut and contrast ratio, which is why I'm still using my Sony Trinitron. However, it seems difficult to get any precise information on what the color gamut of various monitors actually is, except for the ARGB standard that applies to very expensive LCD monitors. I have the impression that an old CRT monitor may well have a color gamut equivalent to a very expensive LCD monitor. Perhaps that used to be the case but is no longer.

Plasma displays seem to be closer to the old CRT with regard to contrast ratio and other factors. I'm very impressed with the latest HDTV displays from Panasonic. A contrast ratio of 40,000:1 is fantastic.

Is there any reason that you know of, why plasma monitors could not be used for processing images for print?

Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #87 on: October 05, 2009, 01:37:24 pm »

Quote from: Ray
As I understand, LCD monitors are generally technically inferior to CRT monitors with regard to color gamut and contrast ratio (...)
? no. CRTs have smaller gamut and less contrast than current LCD monitors.

Quote from: Ray
A contrast ratio of 40,000:1 is fantastic.
what for?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #88 on: October 05, 2009, 01:44:09 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
? no. CRTs have smaller gamut and less contrast than current LCD monitors.

 what for?


Please provide the evidence. I can't find it through a Google search, and as I've already demonstrated with my crops of sRGB versus ProPhoto RGB images, my Sony Trinitron is doing very well.

Quote
what for?

Out-of-gamut color shades are often dark. You need a monitor with a good contrast ratio to see them.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #89 on: October 05, 2009, 02:44:06 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Please provide the evidence.
If you could provide a profile of your monitor...

Quote from: Ray
Out-of-gamut color shades are often dark. You need a monitor with a good contrast ratio to see them.
with too high contrast you are actually blind as it is intensely demanding and stressing for the eyes. It takes some time to adapt from bright to dark tones if the contrast is too high ... so basically you'll see less in dark tonal values (as the eyes adapt for the brightest tones).
Too, you can't see out of gamut colors as they are simply out of gamut - they are clipped to the monitors color space. What you can do in Photoshop is to set you monitor profile as proof profile, switch off preview but turn on color warning. This way you'll see at least if there are colors in a certain image your monitor can't display. If there are out of gamut colors check by numbers if the colors have modulations/transitions. A handy and helpful tool here is Chromix Color Think - you can load images and compare the colors of the respective images with your printer (or monitor) profile. Color Think does not only show that colors are clipped, it shows how far the clipping goes.
Logged

JeffKohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
Rant 23
« Reply #90 on: October 05, 2009, 02:51:50 pm »

Quote
Interesting article! As I understand, LCD monitors are generally technically inferior to CRT monitors with regard to color gamut and contrast ratio, which is why I'm still using my Sony Trinitron.
The only thing CRT's are better at is black-point, and the latest LCD's have improved in that area a lot. But total contrast is much higher on LCD's because they can reach much higher luminosity. As for gamut, there were a few CRT's with extended gamut but not many. With LCD's there are many models with wide gamut support now.

Quote
A contrast ratio of 40,000:1 is fantastic.
A contrast of 40,000:1 is ridiculous. Those are marketing numbers.  You're not going to get that kind of contrast in real-world viewing, nor would you _want_ to.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 02:53:07 pm by JeffKohn »
Logged
Jeff Kohn
[url=http://ww

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #91 on: October 05, 2009, 09:18:30 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
If you could provide a profile of your monitor...


I can find no inherent profile specified for my monitor. However, my monitor is profiled with an Eye-One colorimeter. All I have to go by is that some differences between the sRGB color space and the ProPhoto RGB color space are clearly visible on my monitor, comparing Jack Flesher's test image with a copy converted to sRGB. That would imply that the gamut of my monitor is wider than sRGB, would it not?

My monitor is a budget Sony Trinitron, nothing special, and was not marketed as being capable of displaying the full ARGB gamut. I've seen no difference yet between ProPhoto RGB and Adobe RGB on my monitor.

Quote
with too high contrast you are actually blind as it is intensely demanding and stressing for the eyes. It takes some time to adapt from bright to dark tones if the contrast is too high ... so basically you'll see less in dark tonal values (as the eyes adapt for the brightest tones).

I think that's nonsense. You are confusing contrast with brightness. Two monitors can be equally bright but the one with the higher contrast ratio will reveal more detail in the deeper shadows. The eye adapts almost instantly to changes in brightness level. It takes some time for that adjustment only when moving from a prolonged period in extreme darkness to extreme brightness such as bright sunlight.


Quote
Too, you can't see out of gamut colors as they are simply out of gamut - they are clipped to the monitors color space.


Of course. The issue we're discussing is 'out-of-gamut colors' in relation to the monitor which can however be seen on the print. This is what we've been exploring during the last few posts. There are also colors that are within gamut that you can't see. The ProPhoto color space has a few.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 09:23:50 pm by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #92 on: October 05, 2009, 09:52:30 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn
The only thing CRT's are better at is black-point, and the latest LCD's have improved in that area a lot. But total contrast is much higher on LCD's because they can reach much higher luminosity. As for gamut, there were a few CRT's with extended gamut but not many. With LCD's there are many models with wide gamut support now.

A contrast of 40,000:1 is ridiculous. Those are marketing numbers.  You're not going to get that kind of contrast in real-world viewing, nor would you _want_ to.


That doesn't sound right to me. I admit the contrast ratio of LCDs is improving all the time and the really expensive LCD monitors may well be as good as any CRT monitor was, for all I know. Whilst the greater luminosity of the LCD monitor may be very good for sales (nice and shiny), it's not necessarily good for calibration and photographic processing, as I understand. Relatively low luminosity but very high contrast ratio is best for photographic purposes. The plasma display would seem to be ideal in this respect.

Quote
A contrast of 40,000:1 is ridiculous. Those are marketing numbers.  You're not going to get that kind of contrast in real-world viewing, nor would you _want_ to.

You may be right, but what makes you think that only manufacturers of plasma displays exaggerate their specifications? The fact remains that plasma displays have a reputation for having significantly better CR than LCD displays. I'm not aware that there is any disadvantage in the monitor having a higher contrast ratio than is required to display a particular scene, just as I can see no disadvantage in a camera having a higher dynamic range capability than is required to capture a particular scene with a low SBR.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #93 on: October 06, 2009, 03:00:02 am »

Quote from: Ray
I think that's nonsense. You are confusing contrast with brightness. Two monitors can be equally bright but the one with the higher contrast ratio will reveal more detail in the deeper shadows.
no nonsense. Contrast is the relation form absolute brightness (i.e. white) to black. With, say, a brightness of 120cd/m2 and a black point of 0.3cd/m2 the contrast is 400:1. At the same brigthness you can increase contrast by lowering the black point (but of course not below 0cd/m2). Still begs the question how well you can differentiate dark tonal values if the contrast is too high.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10291
Rant 23
« Reply #94 on: October 06, 2009, 03:33:34 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
no nonsense. Contrast is the relation form absolute brightness (i.e. white) to black. With, say, a brightness of 120cd/m2 and a black point of 0.3cd/m2 the contrast is 400:1. At the same brigthness you can increase contrast by lowering the black point (but of course not below 0cd/m2). Still begs the question how well you can differentiate dark tonal values if the contrast is too high.

I don't see how it's possible to have a contrast ratio that's too high. If the contrast ratio in the image you are displaying on your screen is 500:1 but your screen is capable of only 400:1, then you would have to flatten your image to see full detail in the shadows. On the other hand, if the CR of your screen is 2,000:1, then no problem. As long as the CR of the screen is higher than the 'subject brightness range' of the image you are viewing, then I see no problem.

As I understand, the advantage of the plasma display (and the old CRT) is that the luminance of any individual pixel can be completely turned off to provide a true black. LCD monitors rely upon back-lighting which is on to some extent all the time.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #95 on: October 06, 2009, 03:56:11 am »

Quote from: Ray
If the contrast ratio in the image you are displaying on your screen is 500:1 but your screen is capable of only 400:1, then you would have to flatten your image to see full detail in the shadows.
You seem to think that the contrast ratio cuts the scope of tonal values at the low end. This is not the case due to color management - the entire tonal range is displayed (from RGB 0-0-0 to RGB 256-256-256 in a certain color space) ... just within a lower contrast ratio. Of course you are running into problems if the contrast is below 1:256. I boost the black point of my display to avoid too high contrast. I calibrate to lum. 105cd/m2 (matching my viewing conditions) and black 0.3cd/m2... which is something like 1:330. That is still a higher contrast as any print can reproduce. And I still can differentiate the entire range of tonal values (e.g. in a greyscale target with very fine steps or whatever).

edit: you can simlulate the effect of too high contrast regarding adaptation quite easy: make a big white square in Photoshop. Now make three small squares in the center of the white image side by side - first with RGB 0-0-0, second with RGB 2-2-2, third with RGB 4-4-4.
Hopefully you can differentiate the color patches. Now fill the white background with a mid grey and wait a few seconds - you will be able to differentiate the 3 color patches much better now, no?
Of course this is just a simulation... but it shows clearly how much our perception is affected by the brightest tonal values (white). Hell, even the small white planes in the tool panes of Photoshop may affect adaption as our eyes always adapt to white.
Theoretically a high contrast might be better (as there is more differentiation from, say, RGB 3-3-3 to RGB 4-4-4) ... you just do not profit of a too high contrast as you simply see less in dark tonal values due to adaption... try it out. It's basically the same if you climb on a glacier and than stop off at a chalet without windows but only candlelight... you won't see anything for a few minutes.






« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 04:30:07 am by tho_mas »
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1788
Rant 23
« Reply #96 on: October 06, 2009, 06:13:28 am »

I don't know numbers and I don't understand the figures. What I do know is that I've never seen an LCD that can match my 20 2nd hand CRT's for brightness control or contrast. They (after calibration) are all too bright, too contrasty and too punchy. My CRT's are WYSIWYG for print in both brightness, colour and contrast when the brightness is correct. I could'nt do that with my ACD and I've got friends who say that they have to estimate because their screens are too contrasty, all using latest calibrators. Having to use extremely expensive screens which still can't show the gamut you people all like to use, work in a specific brightness working station to match the overbright screens - and still not get WYSIWYG - doesn't sound like progress to me.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 06:14:05 am by pom »
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #97 on: October 06, 2009, 06:37:59 am »

Quote from: pom
I don't know numbers and I don't understand the figures. What I do know is that I've never seen an LCD that can match my 20 2nd hand CRT's for brightness control or contrast.
that says something about the LCDs you have seen but nothing about the capabilities of good LCDs. A problem with medicore LCDs is often that you can't adjust them very well below a certain luminance level... which might still be too bright for some. That's true. Then again good LCDs can be calibrated to low luminance levels.
As to standarized viewing conditions CRTs are simply too dark. The recommended 500lux for a viewing booth translates to 160cd/m2 luminosity for the display (by numbers). Then again this applies to industry standards and might not affect your particular viewing conditions at your personal working station.
Logged

madmanchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2115
    • Web
Rant 23
« Reply #98 on: October 06, 2009, 07:01:12 am »

Hi Ray, the plots in my article are from an old LCD with a narrow gamut. I did not mean to suggest that all LCDs behave this way. Several current LCDs have a much larger color gamut. This alone does not necessarily make them great for photo editing, but it would change the shape of the plots significantly. Even with the wider gamut LCD displays, however, the basic conclusions for the article still apply -- namely, that there are some colors that can be printed but not previewed on these (wider gamut) displays, and vice versa. Stated mathematically, neither gamut is a proper subset of the other.
Logged
Eric Chan

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1788
Rant 23
« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2009, 08:53:48 am »

Quote from: tho_mas
that says something about the LCDs you have seen but nothing about the capabilities of good LCDs. A problem with medicore LCDs is often that you can't adjust them very well below a certain luminance level... which might still be too bright for some. That's true. Then again good LCDs can be calibrated to low luminance levels.
As to standarized viewing conditions CRTs are simply too dark. The recommended 500lux for a viewing booth translates to 160cd/m2 luminosity for the display (by numbers). Then again this applies to industry standards and might not affect your particular viewing conditions at your personal working station.

The newer ACD which I owned, a friends iMac 23" and others that I don't remember about. My point is that you need to spend BIG bucks to get an LCD with which you can control the contrast and brightness to what pretty much any simple CRT can do. That stuff about CRT's being too dark is nonsense. I have mine turned down to 28/100 to match print in a brightly lit room. 160 luminosity is stupidly bright for normal conditions, funnily enough not one single one of my clients ows a 'viewing booth'. Real world people, real world....
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Up