Improving image quality

[JBW]

Hi all, I'm back for more mentoring.

First off a parameter. I am primarily interested in monitor rather than print image quality.

Since I connected my Sony Alpha a58 to the Tamron 90 272 my shots have improved a whole bunch. I believe that there is a whole lot more improvement possible.

But I'm curious (curious means no where near buying) what equipment would I need reach the next plateau of monitor image quality?
Brian

[dennybeall]

More info is needed. But some general suggestions.
Monitors can be color corrected so that you know the colors are correctly displayed.
You can spend some time on learning about methods to sharpen your images.
You can work on clarity and color when you take the shots.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I don't think 'equipment' is the answer to improving your present image IQ. You have a lens and camera that can provide excellent IQ for screen viewing.

Image viewing quality is proportional to the amount you crop, so aim to produce lets say a 1400 px wide image that does not need cropping from the original frame. So in other words, get in closer.

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Print quality is much higher than monitor quality. I think the only equipment you need is in the form of print, there are many other texts that'll get you there but a good starting point is Fine Art Printing for Photographers by Uwe Steinmueller and Juergen Gulbins.

[James G]

Brian, you are staring another 'interesting' journey.

you may find the quick introductory guides at this site helpful...http://spyder.datacolor.com/learning-and-training/ These are rather basic, but they do 'position' the issues with colour management quite well, and there are other useful articles across the site.

But as has already been advised by others already, you are moving into the area of monitor calibration initially. There is a lot of information out there on the web but it all starts with monitor calibration.

That said, it may also be useful to review your workflow when processing your images. I know you have been learning more of the 'techniques' of sharpening, vibrance control, white balance correction etc, but it is usefull to review the way you bring these together and challenge your own practices and look to refine them. ( I suspect you already do this )

[JBW]

Brian, you are staring another 'interesting' journey.

you may find the quick introductory guides at this site helpful...http://spyder.datacolor.com/learning-and-training/ These are rather basic, but they do 'position' the issues with colour management quite well, and there are other useful articles across the site.

But as has already been advised by others already, you are moving into the area of monitor calibration initially. There is a lot of information out there on the web but it all starts with monitor calibration.

That said, it may also be useful to review your workflow when processing your images. I know you have been learning more of the 'techniques' of sharpening, vibrance control, white balance correction etc, but it is usefull to review the way you bring these together and challenge your own practices and look to refine them. ( I suspect you already do this )

Windows comes with a calibration tool but I'm guessing most people use something else?

[James G]

Windows comes with a calibration tool but I'm guessing most people use something else?

Brian, the Windows tool relies on your vision to carry out the adjustments. this makes it less than 'definitive' when it comes to scientific accuracy because your brain automatically responds to varying light conditions such as colour casts from reflected light from walls furniture etc. Additionally, if you are calibrating in artificial light this can all be much more difficult.

Given all the above, I and others, use a calibration device which measures the brightness, and colours being generated by the monitor and then creates a a customised profile for that monitor which ensures colour consistency conforming with the sRGB or RGB colour space standards.
The point is that the measurements and resultant profile mean that the monitor is calibrated to a standard that is not influenced by local lighting conditions or the inherent weaknesses in my own sight.

That said the only advantage to this is that I know if I send an image to another person who also has a calibrated screen, they will see what I intended. So to an extent, if have a 'closed sytem', and you have adjust your monitor using, say, the windows tool, and are satisfied with the quality of the display for your own purposes (ie, sharp enough, correct colour balance, tone etc, ), and you do not need to transfer the image elsewhere where it is important to know it is being seen exactly the way you processed it, then further (more expensive), investment in calibration is not needed.

Having said all the above, you shoot a lot of wildlife/macro which 'requires' truth and accuracy when it comes to display on the monitor. 'Artistic' interpretations of the subject are perfectly reasonable, bit in my case the starting point for me is an accurate reflection of reality before I interpret the subject further. I would still want to apply the a calibration process to my monitor to limit 'subjective' related issues caused by my less than perfect visual capabilies, during initial processing.

I know you are less concerned about print, put this arguably becomes much more important if you do want to print your work. Subsequent print calibration then becomes important to establish a controlled 'end-to-end' management of colour from camera to monitor to printer.

As I said earlier there are number of calibration tools available, I use the Datacolor Spyder system and find it quite adequate. Others use Color Munki and I believe there a few others out there.
There are lots of 'camps' out there arguing the relative merits of different systems, but unless you are an imaging professional .....

My final point though is that although I would always advise the use of these tools, I would also think that they are, to a degree, only as good as the monitor that you are trying to calibrate. They are (relatively?) expensive and if the monitor is an older model or was never intended for more than general 'office' work, it limits the value of the exercise. You just might get more initial benefit from a new monitor (imo).

There are lots of books etc about Colour Management but a 'favourite', that I refer to a lot, is True Color (e-Book) by Gry Garness.

http://www.grygarness.com/videos-dvd-e-books/

It is less academic, and cheap, compared to the Juergan Gulbins book mentioned in a previous post (which I do also have). i think that the section on calibration is partivularly good....

[MitchellKrog]

Certainly don't want to get myself into a Windows vs Mac argument here. I worked exclusively on Windows for years since Windows existed. When I got into photography there was this constant calibrating and playing with color profiles that nearly drove me insane.

Not being able to rush out at that point in my career and buy the latest Macbook or iMac I built myself a Mac using normal PC hardware and installing OSX on it. I ran that way for nearly 5 years until I actually bought a Macbook.

What I can tell you is from that very first day, there was no calibrating anything. What I saw on screen is what other people saw on their screens. What I saw on screen and what I sent to print was also exact and precise. This was using OSX's default monitor profiles and nothing else.

The same goes for my current Macbook and the one before it, no calibrating of anything and when I send something to my lab and I go and collect it it is exactly what I had on my screen, colors true in every regard.

There's a lot to be said for being able to focus on working on images, getting stuff out to clients and knowing without a shadow of a doubt it's always perfect.

[JBW]

Certainly don't want to get myself into a Windows vs Mac argument here. I worked exclusively on Windows for years since Windows existed. When I got into photography there was this constant calibrating and playing with color profiles that nearly drove me insane.

Not being able to rush out at that point in my career and buy the latest Macbook or iMac I built myself a Mac using normal PC hardware and installing OSX on it. I ran that way for nearly 5 years until I actually bought a Macbook.

What I can tell you is from that very first day, there was no calibrating anything. What I saw on screen is what other people saw on their screens. What I saw on screen and what I sent to print was also exact and precise. This was using OSX's default monitor profiles and nothing else.

The same goes for my current Macbook and the one before it, no calibrating of anything and when I send something to my lab and I go and collect it it is exactly what I had on my screen, colors true in every regard.

There's a lot to be said for being able to focus on working on images, getting stuff out to clients and knowing without a shadow of a doubt it's always perfect.

no argument from me. It will be a while before I get a new laptop but I've known some happy mac users

[James G]

What I saw on screen and what I sent to print was also exact and precise. This was using OSX's default monitor profiles and nothing else.

Mitchell, I have no experience of OSX or Apple since the late 70's. I do know that Macbook's are 'infinitely' better than their Window's equivalents when it comes to colour management and screen quality, but, I have always used a freestanding 3rd party monitor where possible.
Without being too derogatory about any vendor, I have an HP Monitor which is a bit long in the tooth for photography but is still perfectly good for other purposes. The monitor profile provided by HP was always inadequate for photography, as was the default profile from Microsoft.

I have always assumed Datacolor provide profiling software for both OSX and Windows to address the issue that generic profiles from monitor vendors will always be precisely that, generic.

[Manfred M]

Mitchell, I have no experience of OSX or Apple since the late 70's. I do know that Macbook's are 'infinitely' better than their Window's equivalents when it comes to colour management and screen quality, but, I have always used a freestanding 3rd party monitor where possible.
Without being too derogatory about any vendor, I have an HP Monitor which is a bit long in the tooth for photography but is still perfectly good for other purposes. The monitor profile provided by HP was always inadequate for photography, as was the default profile from Microsoft.

I have always assumed Datacolor provide profiling software for both OSX and Windows to address the issue that generic profiles from monitor vendors will always be precisely that, generic.

James - as someone who has done a lot of photo and video editing on both Windows and Apple platforms, I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree with you. From a pure editing standpoint (other than when using Final Cut Pro or other Apple only software) there is no difference in functionality on either type of machine.

The Apple screens are good mid-range screens, but certainly not top of the line like some of the products that ViewSonic and Eizo produce. Windows machines are often bundled with low end screens to keep the price down, but there are quite a few mid-range AdobeRGB compatible screens from other manufacturers that are every bit as good as the Apple ones, usually at a fairly significant discount.

Now, are Apple machines close to being correct right out of the box? That I can't answer because I have no personal experience there, but I have been told that the desktop machines are often fairly close, especially when it comes to calibration (but not profiling). I've also found that higher end screens from other manufacturers can be very close as well. My main higher end Dell was extremely close in terms of both profile and calibration, whereas my cheap secondary screen was off quite far. So far as I can tell, this seems to be a fairly typical. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing this unless you use a hardware calibration / profiling device.

Bottom line - both types of machines are quite good, especially the Mac Pro line (these ship with pro graphics as opposed to consumer graphics cards). When it comes to laptops, the screens in these machines are built to maximize battery performance and give the choice, I would only use them plugged into a decent external screen that has been calibrated and profiled with an external tool like the x-Rite or DataColor products (the same goes for any desktop, to be quite frank).

[TonyW]

I have a newish iMac with a 27" screen which appears to be fairly good but have not compared it with Eizo or similar. When I bought a calibrator, there was not a dramatic difference but it was quite noticeable.

[JBW]

For what it's worth B&H now sells monitors and calibrators as a package deal.

[MitchellKrog]

Mitchell, I have no experience of OSX or Apple since the late 70's. I do know that Macbook's are 'infinitely' better than their Window's equivalents when it comes to colour management and screen quality, but, I have always used a freestanding 3rd party monitor where possible.
Without being too derogatory about any vendor, I have an HP Monitor which is a bit long in the tooth for photography but is still perfectly good for other purposes. The monitor profile provided by HP was always inadequate for photography, as was the default profile from Microsoft.

I have always assumed Datacolor provide profiling software for both OSX and Windows to address the issue that generic profiles from monitor vendors will always be precisely that, generic.

Hi James, having worked extensively on both Windows and Mac Platforms now I do find their color management absolutely precise. Apple however seems to be going a little South with their OS in recent years and I hope they do not start messing with things that have always worked fine, that age old saying it if aint broke don't fix it, somehow someone at Apple will "fix" something one day that aint broke

When I first ran OSX on my "Hackintosh" I invested in a high end NEC LCD 3090WQXi Monitor which is one of the best monitor's I've ever worked on, that monitor too just worked out of the box with OSX without any color profile adjusting or calibrating of any sort.

I think the biggest issue comes along with what monitor choice one makes. I've seen a lot of people not thoroughly look into all the technical aspects of a monitor and then spend their lives calibrating and "trying" to get them right when spending the money on the right monitor with the right color space and panel type would save them all that hassle in the first place.

[MitchellKrog]

James - as someone who has done a lot of photo and video editing on both Windows and Apple platforms, I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree with you. From a pure editing standpoint (other than when using Final Cut Pro or other Apple only software) there is no difference in functionality on either type of machine.

The Apple screens are good mid-range screens, but certainly not top of the line like some of the products that ViewSonic and Eizo produce. Windows machines are often bundled with low end screens to keep the price down, but there are quite a few mid-range AdobeRGB compatible screens from other manufacturers that are every bit as good as the Apple ones, usually at a fairly significant discount.

Now, are Apple machines close to being correct right out of the box? That I can't answer because I have no personal experience there, but I have been told that the desktop machines are often fairly close, especially when it comes to calibration (but not profiling). I've also found that higher end screens from other manufacturers can be very close as well. My main higher end Dell was extremely close in terms of both profile and calibration, whereas my cheap secondary screen was off quite far. So far as I can tell, this seems to be a fairly typical. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing this unless you use a hardware calibration / profiling device.

Bottom line - both types of machines are quite good, especially the Mac Pro line (these ship with pro graphics as opposed to consumer graphics cards). When it comes to laptops, the screens in these machines are built to maximize battery performance and give the choice, I would only use them plugged into a decent external screen that has been calibrated and profiled with an external tool like the x-Rite or DataColor products (the same goes for any desktop, to be quite frank).

Indeed poor choice of monitor or being landed with a cheapy bundled with a PC is what sends most people off on these calibration "holidays". The Macbook Pro screens are certainly in a league of their own, the quality of most other Macbooks is not quite the same and of course their Mac Pro's are also in a league of their own if one can fit the bill for that. Certainly nothing wrong with Windows, I grew up on Dos and Windows so sticking with Windows and buying a top notch monitor is the key to having a hassle free color process.

[James G]

as someone who has done a lot of photo and video editing on both Windows and Apple platforms, I'm going to have to STRONGLY disagree with you. From a pure editing standpoint (other than when using Final Cut Pro or other Apple only software) there is no difference in functionality on either type of machine.

Sorry Manfred, I think we are somewhat at cross purposes, I havn't expressed myself very well.
I was not criticising either OS or their 'own brand' monitor solutions. I was saying that monitors/(profiles) from other vendors are not necessarily going to be that good a fit and would need correction of some sort. I agree with you that there are a lot of high quality monitors from other vendors that would not require any investment in calibration, a point which I had made indirectly in my response to Brian to qualify any investment decision.

I did say that I have no real experience of modern Apple systems but from hearsay understood they are 'better straight out of the box' than Microsoft.
My puzzlement with Mitchell's post was more to clarify the position regarding 'other than Apple' monitors and the potential need to calibrate or not when used with.

[billtils]

This thread from a few days ago may help you Brian: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread54656.htm#post623855

[Manfred M]

I think the biggest issue comes along with what monitor choice one makes. I've seen a lot of people not thoroughly look into all the technical aspects of a monitor and then spend their lives calibrating and "trying" to get them right when spending the money on the right monitor with the right color space and panel type would save them all that hassle in the first place.

I'm not sure how that can be completely correct without calibrating and profiling the screen using an appropriate tool (hardware and software solution)..

A generic profile for a specific video card and screen is just that. Likewise, these devices are set up for casual users and the screen defaults tend to be far to bright (nowhere near the 120 candela / square metre that is the most common setup from photo editing). The same has to be said for any profile. Again these are very specific to the hardware components connected to / installed in your computer, not some theoretical video card and screen profile.

[ccphoto]

An interesting thread and one I find interesting on almost any forum. Calibration tools are only as good as the manufacturers say they are. I have a Spyder 5 and it has worked nicely for me for several years on an HPZR24W whose out of the box screen quality was already quite good. Out of curiosity, I had a friend bring over his Munki to which he swore out performed the Spyder by leaps and bounds. Using my Epson 2880 (yes, it still works and yes the print quality is quite good), we began making test prints using my Spyder setup to start with, mid-morning muted window light with external incandescent as a fill. Later, we did a second calibration mid afternoon window light and later in the evening, with only the incandescent room light.

Interestingly, the output from each calibration to the printer stayed pretty much constant whereas the screen view varied a bit in the blue channel. Neutralizing the Spyder and going back to the HP default gave a slightly decreased screen gamma and the prints tended a bit more to having to color correct for the red channel.

The Munki was off significantly from the Spyder in the morning light, but relatively dead on in the afternoon light and the evening light was almost impossible to get a decent calibration. Perhaps it has to do with how each system reacts to differing ambient light, or the pixel quality of the monitors, or who-knows-what.

The conclusion I came to was to calibrate back to my Spyder settings using mid-morning window light and incandescent fill because that's when I do 90% of my editing and where I get my best print quality and that brings this conversation to a whole new arena: Print quality, and really, "how good are your eyes" and is what you are seeing on your monitor and what the test gamut print reveals exactly the same?

Advice: Pick a calibration tool, couple it to a top of the line monitor, buy the best graphics card you can afford, calibrate to the lighting (this is the reflective qualities of the ambient room light) you will experience when you do most of your editing, and lastly either buy a quality printer or work with a commercial printer and set up good printer profiles that you can apply from your end or let them apply from their end and then quit worrying. Or, don't bother with all the crazy stuff and just let the commercial printer color correct. In the end, standing 6 feet away, viewing height with corrected lights, it's just harder than doo-doo to tell the difference.

[Manfred M]

buy the best graphics card you can afford,.

I would dispense this advice very cautiously. Video card pricing is generally related to 3-D gaming frame rate (at a given image size), and this is something we don't need to pay for when doing photo editing. Any graphics card that has a decent amount of RAM and supports OpenCL will do.

The pro cards (nVidia Quadro and AMD FirePro (soon to be called Radeon Pro) are going to have some advantages especially in driving 30-bit screens.