Blocked Up Blacks on New Monitor

[Michael Bailey]

Hi,
I just bought a Dell U2713H to replace my trusty old Trinitron on a Windows 7 Professional (64) machine. The graphics card is an AMD Radeon 7700.

The problem: no matter what I do the blacks on screen are blocked up. Pictures look the way I remember them from last week, except that the shadows are heavy. When I make a 128 step gradient in Photoshop I can't see any distinction in the blacks until I get up to 18-18-18. Even if I turn off the room lights I can't see any lines below 14-14-14.

I've calibrated the monitor several times, with the i1 Display and its own software, the i1 again with the dedicated Dell Color Calibration Solution, and even an old Optix XR. All of the results are very similar, but not identical, so I know that the profiles aren't being ignored.

Any suggestions as to what I'm missing? This is my first experience editing photos with LCD monitors.

Thanks,    MB

P.S. This little adventure reminds me of a tip that might be useful if you still have an old Monaco Optix XR calibrator. For reasons completely beyond me, it still works if you make sure to plug it in through a powered USB hub. (I found that factoid on the internet several years ago.) If you plug it in directly, with Vista or 7: instant blue screen.

[D Fosse]

Which i1 sensor are you using? The U2713H is LED and wide gamut, which means that older sensors will be unreliable. Only the i1 Display Pro (aka i1D3) can be used here. If that is the one you have, I'd test it on a different display if that's possible.

Where do you see this? Only in Photoshop or everywhere?

Also I'd check that the profile is correctly loaded. If this is your only display, look under Photoshop > Color Settings > RGB > Monitor RGB. The profile should be listed there. If this is a multi-monitor setup, make sure the correct profile is loaded for each display. See under Control Panel > Color Management > Devices. While there, make sure "use my settings for this display" is checked.

[Michael Bailey]

Thanks for your quick reply, D Fosse.

Unfortunately, the answer to all your questions is yes. It is an i1 Display Pro. I do have the right profile assigned to the right monitor. Photoshop does see the profile on its list. And "use my settings..." is checked.

Aside from Lightroom, I don't have anything else to really look at photos, but it shows them the same way as Photoshop.

As I say, the images look fine on the whole. Color and saturation look right. It's just this one problem with blocked shadows that has me stumped.

Thanks again.   MB

[D Fosse]

Hmm. Check the monitor's OSD settings, maybe a "movie" preset? Here's a full technical review, maybe you'll spot something there: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713h.htm

At this point I'd suspect a faulty monitor. If this happens everywhere, including applications that are not color managed, that rules out the profile. It has to be the monitor itself.

[D Fosse]

How does it look if you reset the monitor to factory defaults, and set Adobe RGB as monitor profile?

[Michael Bailey]

Thanks again for the suggestion, D. I tried it, but no luck. The screen didn't look terrible, but I still couldn't see separation from 0-20.

Aside from this problem with the shadows, it's remarkable how good the image is otherwise. Every point on the grayscale ramp is perfectly neutral and colors fall out just the way I've come to expect. With that in mind, how crazy would it be to try and fix the shadows by tweaking the monitor's brightness, gamma or contrast after I generate an otherwise good calibration? Yeah, I can hear you already. Very crazy.

[D Fosse]

Well, this is certainly not normal. You should be able to separate an sRGB file all the way down, at least in a darkened room. Even a cheap laptop display will manage 5 or 6.

Note that the larger color spaces are more compressed in the shadows, so visual separation diminishes (by numbers; not in real life when numbers are compensated accordingly).

But I'm basically out of suggestions. Video driver perhaps? OpenGL can do this within Photoshop, but not outside PS.

[D Fosse]

how crazy would it be to try and fix the shadows by tweaking the monitor's brightness, gamma or contrast after I generate an otherwise good calibration?  Yeah, I can hear you already.

You heard right...

[Czornyj]

Check settings of display card driver and system "calibration" - make sure nothing is changed. How do you connect the monitor to the computer? DP, DVI, HDMI, D-SUB?

[kaelaria]

I calibrate a ton of local displays including for those that try it themselves.  A common mistake I find especially with Dells is trying it with the RGB levels way too high or maxed out as they frequently come from the factory.  If you didn't already, start with them all at 60 and go from there.

[mlewis]

Check your video card is not outputting the limited RGB video range instead of the full RGB range as well.  If you connect the monitor with a HDMI cable it may do this automatically.

[Michael Bailey]

Thank you all for your suggestions.
-To answer your questions, first, I am connected with the DVI cable that came with the monitor.
-The brightness settings on the monitor are well down, especially after profiling (brightness 15, contrast 49). The gain settings are all at 100, but I haven't seen or heard of anything suggesting I should lower them.
-Everything in the video card controls (AMD Catalyst whatever...) is set to neutral or default so I'm pretty sure I'm not doubling up on any settings.
-The monitor preset is "Cal 1." That's what I understand I should use when I want to set my own calibration, which I do.

One update. When I make a new step wedge in Photoshop using sRGB, and reopen it with Photoshop Color Settings defaulted to sRGB, I can see right down to 4-4-4. Maybe even 2-2-2 if I turn out the room lights. Regular photos look a little softer, of course, and look more like what I remember on my Trinitron CRT.

By the way, my room lighting is moderate office type lighting. No windows, just ceiling fluorescents. If I remember right, the calibrator described it as close to 80.

[kaelaria]

Thank you all for your suggestions.
 The gain settings are all at 100, but I haven't seen or heard of anything suggesting I should lower them.

Yes, you did.  Now do it like I suggested.

[Michael Bailey]

Hi Kaelaria,
Two words: Ohhh... and Duh.
I read your note and immediately translated it into my head as, "He's talking about the monitor settings for 'Brightness' or 'Offset.'"
By the way, I don't remember the word "Offset" as a setting on other monitors. Is that Dell's term for "Level?"
Thanks again.  MB

[kaelaria]

They can call it whatever they like - level, offset, gain etc. - RGB levels

[Michael Bailey]

Well that makes sense.
Sadly, still no luck with near-black visibility, at least in Adobe RGB '98 land, even with three gain levels turned down to 60. (Turning the gain down does lead the calibration to raise the Brightness to 72. I figure that's a better place for it to be than scraping bottom, so thanks again for your suggestion.)

[Tim Lookingbill]

Sadly, still no luck with near-black visibility...

Can you see a thin bar in black in the LabRamp image below? If so, you're seeing enough to edit images.

I believe you've created confusion by not indicating just how you're viewing "near black" data whose perception can change depending on the surrounding darkness viewing a grayramp surrounded by bright graphic elements within PS. You should be able to see a luminance increase between absolute black and at least 3RGB gray conducting the black point test by creating a new doc and assigning your custom monitor profile and fill it with black and view it turning all graphic elements off (the entire display is totally black) by hitting the "F" key in Photoshop several times. Open Curves and raise the black level by adjusting the corner node for black by one RGB step up.

Download the labramp image and view in Photoshop (not your browser).

[Michael Bailey]

Thanks, Tim.
I have been viewing the wedges, including yours, in the way you recommend. And, you're right, a black field should make it easier to distinguish one black from another, and 3-3-3 from the black background. Unfortunately, it still ain't happening. At 8-10 I can just barely distinguish the background, but anything below that is lost.

Your suggestion has made my thoughts go off on a tangent, though. Is there a single proper background density when viewing photographs on a computer? I think a lot of people choose black, but for me that's difficult. It makes the picture appear too contrasty (and I'm speaking here in general, not related to my near-black problem) and just plain hard to see. That's even why I prefer editing my raw files in ACR instead of Lightroom. Lightroom, for all its zillions of preferences, doesn't allow me to lighten the menu areas, so my eyes never get comfortable. This is all probably my own eccentricity, but I wonder if anyone out there feels the same.

I remember Norman Sanders in his great book Photographing for Publication wrote about the proper way to view a transparency on a light table. The "pretty" way is to move those black L masks right into the edge of the image (especially if you're worried that you underexposed your shot a little, and the client is looking over your shoulder!) but the more informative way is to back the L's away a bit. The transparency won't look as rich and punchy, but you'll get a truer idea of the film's usable information. (The original soft proof?)

Thanks again.   MB

[Tim Lookingbill]

Thanks, Tim.
I have been viewing the wedges, including yours, in the way you recommend. And, you're right, a black field should make it easier to distinguish one black from another, and 3-3-3 from the black background. Unfortunately, it still ain't happening. At 8-10 I can just barely distinguish the background, but anything below that is lost.

Your suggestion has made my thoughts go off on a tangent, though. Is there a single proper background density when viewing photographs on a computer? I think a lot of people choose black, but for me that's difficult. It makes the picture appear too contrasty (and I'm speaking here in general, not related to my near-black problem) and just plain hard to see. That's even why I prefer editing my raw files in ACR instead of Lightroom. Lightroom, for all its zillions of preferences, doesn't allow me to lighten the menu areas, so my eyes never get comfortable. This is all probably my own eccentricity, but I wonder if anyone out there feels the same.

I remember Norman Sanders in his great book Photographing for Publication wrote about the proper way to view a transparency on a light table. The "pretty" way is to move those black L masks right into the edge of the image (especially if you're worried that you underexposed your shot a little, and the client is looking over your shoulder!) but the more informative way is to back the L's away a bit. The transparency won't look as rich and punchy, but you'll get a truer idea of the film's usable information. (The original soft proof?)

Thanks again.   MB

A thread I started linked below addresses issues of perception of shadow detail editing on a transmissive display similarly to your workarounds viewing slides on a light table. I had to come up with minimum number for viewable shadow detail so my prints could be seen (not color matched) in regular dim household lighting.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89689.0

Concerning your seeing only 8-10RGB gray above black in the black point test I'm assuming you're assigning your custom display profile, right? If so, I'ld suspect you may be seeing the limits of your Dell's hardware and how it affects the calibration/profile hardware/software. I can't be sure.

Not to push a brand or product but I had a refurbed Dell 2209WA that wasn't calibrated at the factory where I had to use an old i1Display and i1Match software to calibrate/profile it and noticed my blacks weren't has dense and neutral as I'ld liked. My black test showed 2-3RGB gray. The Dell developed CFL backlight artifacts after 3 years of use and decided to get a display from a company that manufactures its own panel which turned out to be an LG 27ea63vp I bought at Best Buy for a little over $300.

This model was certified and measured and calibrated to 2.2 gamma, 6500K out of the box at the factory by a high end Minolta Color Analyzer. Even though it came with documentation certifying this I still calibrated it with the Colormunki Display which barely showed a difference between the factory supplied ICC profile.

The blacks are much more denser and neutral and I can see a difference between absolute black and 1RGB gray in the Photoshop black test. I've had to re-edit a few high contrast HDR type images to tweak and lift shadow detail due to old edits made using the Dell. Also Clarity slider isn't as harsh on Raws as it was on the Dell. Less solarized effect for some reason and it seems a lot easier to punch up the definition overall even using ACR 4.6. Can't put my finger on it, but this LG offers a better feel when working the sliders and tweaking curves over the Dell. Maybe it has something to do with using old calibration software, not sure, but I'm not going back to that Dell.

[Michael Bailey]

Thank you, again, Tim. Yes, the profiles are assigned correctly.

Halfway through a long session of research on color management and calibration last night I decided the hell with it. I'm going to send this monitor back. I have spent too many hours trying to fix something that the manufacturer claims should be correct right out of the box. I don't know what good 99.4% of Adobe RGB is supposed to do me if I can't see it.

I have recited my problem on a Dell forum, and found help there, but not from anybody at Dell. I don't crawl forums a lot, but I figured a manufacturer would want to monitor, pardon the pun, those things. I recall from using the Adobe site years ago that they had some slightly snarky but surprisingly high-up and knowledgeable staff responding to forum questions.

Small update: After a phone conversation, Dell tells me they're going to send me a replacement monitor. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Thank you all. D Fosse, it looks like you called it right. You win the prize. I think.      MB