Clashnessie Bay

[Donald]

One quick check if you don't have a screen hardware calibration device is to set up your screen with a white image. If you set your camera up to get just the white, 100 nits is when your camera's light meter shows a correct exposure of 1/30th sec at f/6.3 at ISO 200.

The 'problem' is that I have a new monitor with a build in calibration device. It just pops up at the bottom. I Have a Spyder 3 still for the Dell monitor (I am running two monitors).

I was keeping the images dark for stylistic purposes, but wanted to ensure as far as I could, that the gamma was still okay. Getting the two monitors to appear exactly the same is impossible, bit I am now satisfied that the Eizo is properly calibrated and profiled.

The lovely thing about that is I don't ever have to worry about again. The Eizo will check adjust the calibration as required.

[Manfred M]

The 'problem' is that I have a new monitor with a build in calibration device. It just pops up at the bottom. I Have a Spyder 3 still for the Dell monitor (I am running two monitors).

I was keeping the images dark for stylistic purposes, but wanted to ensure as far as I could, that the gamma was still okay. Getting the two monitors to appear exactly the same is impossible, bit I am now satisfied that the Eizo is properly calibrated and profiled.

The lovely thing about that is I don't ever have to worry about again. The Eizo will check adjust the calibration as required.

Which Eizo model do you have?

The other variable is the illumination level in the room you are looking at your work, as this affects the contrast ratio. I finished my CAPA (Canadian Association for Photographic Art) judging course last weekend, so I am a bit more sensitized to this topic right now. The contrast ratio, which is what we are writing about regarding this image is also important. Ideally we want a 1000:1 or better contrast ratio, which suggests working in a low light environment. Get into an office environment, that quickly drops to 100:1. Look at the screen outdoors and we can get contrast ratios of 10:1 or lower.

The recommendation is a maximum of 70 lux. My i1 Display Pro reports I'm working in a 40 lux environment, so that is good. Does the Eizo give you that type of reading too?

[Donald]

Eizo ColourEdge CG 277.

[Manfred M]

Eizo ColourEdge CG 277.

Very nice unit! The Dell is definitely not in the same league.

[Donald]

I have to say it's a bit of over-indulgence, but it is one hell of a unit.

[ScoutR]

Absolutely love this Donald. Wish I could help with your question, but my monitor is not set up properly. However, based on what others are saying I think I am seeing pretty close to what they see and I like the original As Is, however when I saw what Manfred had done, I very much like the detail that he has brought out in the rocks. Manfred's version does not have the same moodiness though and that is what makes the shot for me, so I wonder if you could maybe pick a point in between so we could see more detail in the rocks (maybe not as much as in Manfred's version, but enough to hint at what is there) , but still keep that overall darkness, punctuated by the symbolic (to me) lonely isolated white house.

[DanK]

I hope that somebody will respond to say whether this is Richard's problem or not. This is the sort of information I wanted to hear about the gamma. I am seeing the split very clearly, but is everybody else?

I've delayed responding until I had the opportunity to view this on my main monitor. I can see the differentiation, but it is very slight.

You have a good tonal range, but I think you have a problematic tonal distribution, which is what causes the problem that both Richard and I see. The histogram shows that you have much of the image concentrated in a very narrow tonal band, from 0 to roughly 70. That gives the image the dark and brooding feeling that I assume you aimed for, but it also means that the darker areas in the image are crammed into a narrow tonal range, making variations in those areas hard to see. One such is the one Richard pointed out. Another is the interesting textures in the rocks on the spit and cliffs, which are nearly impossible to see. I expanded the shadows with a curves tool, and the details on those surfaces popped out.

This image also shows an issue about which you posted in a later posting: halos. Look at the top edge of the cliffs, particularly toward the right side. I suspect the same heavy application of contrast that I suggested in response to the other image.