Try as I will I cannot get my new monitor to look like my laptop. too light or dark?

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

What have you tried so far?

[Geoff F]

Which one is correct though, Brian?

Have you tried using any calibration equipment? Even those simple printed or downloaded charts which look like a paint colour card can be helpful if you measure the brightness values against the appropriate shade.

That image looks about correct to me, but this is an old monitor which is showing a bit on the dark side even at maximum brightness setting. I will need to transfer it to my main work computer for a true test.

I usually find that most new monitors have the brightness and saturation/contrast set way too high even when they have a photo quality default option.

ps. I am intending to replace this monitor as soon as I can decide on a replacement.

[Manfred M]

Again, without being able to comment on colour accuracy, it looks reasonable to me, but as I and others have suggested calibration and profiling are really the only way that you can get the two to be as close as they can be with regards to how the image looks.

As a high level view, your stand-alone computer screen is more likely to produce "better" results. With a laptop power use (and the display is the highest power use component on your laptop) and light weight are the primary parameters that go into the screen. The "correct" angle to look at the display tends to be quite narrow as well, so all things being equal, I would suggest that your standalone screen is more likely to be the one I would trust. When I look at the histogram of the image, the shot looks well exposed.

That being said, the flower petals do have a noticeable red colour cast to them, but I don't know how white they are in real life.

[xpatUSA]

That being said, the flower petals do have a noticeable red colour cast to them, but I don't know how white they are in real life.

Indeed, Manfred, the 'Show Image' app. gives a range of petal hues from 11-21 degrees in HSB/HSV/HSL terms, although the exposure is very good and there are no saturation problems

And what that means for Brian is that the petals should indeed have a slight reddish cast on either screen.

I note that the embedded profile is "sRGB IEC61966-2-1 black scaled" - both screens should therefore honor the 'black scaled' bit, otherwise . . .

Also, the profile rendering intent is tagged as 'perceptual' which is quite normal but, if the profile is a simple matrix type which it likely is, your screens will get rendered as 'relative colorimetric' and there is no guarantee that the rendition will be done identically betwixt the two . . .

[Dave Humphries]

As a high level view, your stand-alone computer screen is more likely to produce "better" results. With a laptop power use (and the display is the highest power use component on your laptop) and light weight are the primary parameters that go into the screen. The "correct" angle to look at the display tends to be quite narrow as well, so all things being equal, I would suggest that your standalone screen is more likely to be the one I would trust.

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, when I looked up Brian's stand-alone monitor spec. (Acer V246HL), I think that was only a TN type too; so the vertical viewing angle will probably be critical with both - the only way to approach that is to be consistent and the easiest way to do that is always view it at exactly 90 degrees (i.e. perpendicular).

Which isn't always possible if the screen is glossy/reflective and you have light shining on your face, since you'll see yourself superimposed on the images

[Manfred M]

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, when I looked up Brian's stand-alone monitor spec. (Acer V246HL), I think that was only a TN type too; so the vertical viewing angle will probably be critical with both - the only way to approach that is to be consistent and the easiest way to do that is always view it at exactly 90 degrees (i.e. perpendicular).

Which isn't always possible if the screen is glossy/reflective and you have light shining on your face, since you'll see yourself superimposed on the images

You are right Dave. It looks like a TN and sRGB, with all of the warts that implies. I also suspect it is a 6-bit display that is dithered to emulate 8-bits.

[JBW]

What have you tried so far?

windows comes with a calibration program which i have used. I think the problem is that the new monitor is a HD whiz bang monitor and my laptop is a 5 year old LCD that ks just not in the same league.

[JBW]

Indeed, Manfred, the 'Show Image' app. gives a range of petal hues from 11-21 degrees in HSB/HSV/HSL terms, although the exposure is very good and there are no saturation problems

And what that means for Brian is that the petals should indeed have a slight reddish cast on either screen.

I note that the embedded profile is "sRGB IEC61966-2-1 black scaled" - both screens should therefore honor the 'black scaled' bit, otherwise . . .

Also, the profile rendering intent is tagged as 'perceptual' which is quite normal but, if the profile is a simple matrix type which it likely is, your screens will get rendered as 'relative colorimetric' and there is no guarantee that the rendition will be done identically betwixt the two . . .

Just to throw a wrench into the meat grinder neither Myra nor i can see a reddish tint on either of the screens. And the petals are an Ivory white in real life.

[JBW]

Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, when I looked up Brian's stand-alone monitor spec. (Acer V246HL), I think that was only a TN type too; so the vertical viewing angle will probably be critical with both - the only way to approach that is to be consistent and the easiest way to do that is always view it at exactly 90 degrees (i.e. perpendicular).

Which isn't always possible if the screen is glossy/reflective and you have light shining on your face, since you'll see yourself superimposed on the images

actually the view from a modest angle doesn't seem to change very much.

[Manfred M]

Indeed, Manfred, the 'Show Image' app. gives a range of petal hues from 11-21 degrees in HSB/HSV/HSL terms, although the exposure is very good and there are no saturation problems

And what that means for Brian is that the petals should indeed have a slight reddish cast on either screen.

There is no way of determining that information from the file data, unless you have a reference colour you can calibrate to. The jpeg will have all the "sins" of the capture / processing included in it.

Shoot a gray card or a colour swatch; then you're talking.

Also, the profile rendering intent is tagged as 'perceptual' which is quite normal but, if the profile is a simple matrix type which it likely is, your screens will get rendered as 'relative colorimetric' and there is no guarantee that the rendition will be done identically betwixt the two . . .

In theory, rendering intents only deal with out of gamut colours, although from a real world standpoint I suspect that this statement might not be 100% accurate for colours that are not out of gamut. In a perfect world both rendering intents should produce "identical" results if there are no OOG colours.

[Manfred M]

Just to throw a wrench into the meat grinder neither Myra nor i can see a reddish tint on either of the screens. And the petals are an Ivory white in real life.

Thanks Brian, I can't think of any flower that is actually pure white and all have a slight shading, so something that has a red and / or yellow tint is what I would have expected.

The reason you are not seeing what I am is likely because your screen is not profiled and only partially calibrated.

Without going through the process of completely doing both operations you cannot know if the colours you are seeing are accurate. This was the gist of a previous comment I made on one of your posts recently. My screen was calibrated and profiled about two weeks ago, so I know my colour rendition is quite good. It's also an IPS technology screen so the colour rendition is natively 8-bit and I get another 2 bits through dithering.

[xpatUSA]

Just to throw a wrench into the meat grinder neither Myra nor i can see a reddish tint on either of the screens. And the petals are an Ivory white in real life.

Yes, Brian, but not being able to see a reddish tint doesn't mean it's not there. In fact the petal at right is orange (in color circle terms) albeit a very light tint thereof - which, to some, could look white.

In RawTherapee:


The picker was somewhere in the red circle. The hue of 33 degrees is close to orange (30 deg) in color circle terms. I won't insult you by posting an additive color circle.

"Ivory White" has a hue somewhere between orange and yellow. And Manfred himself said "I can't think of any flower that is actually pure white and all have a slight shading, so something that has a red and / or yellow tint is what I would have expected."

RGB values for an Ivory White can be found here:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/FFF6E5/ivory_white

And the conversion to hue:


source:

http://serennu.com/colour/hsltorgb.php

So we're both right and I should have emphasized that "hue" is not quite the same as "color" which of course includes tint or shade, and saturation. Which in turn means that stuff that looks white ain't necessarily so.

Sorry for any confusion . . .

[JBW]

Yes, Brian, but not being able to see a reddish tint doesn't mean it's not there. In fact the petal at right is orange (in color circle terms) albeit a very light tint thereof - which, to some, could look white.

In RawTherapee:


The picker was somewhere in the red circle. The hue of 33 degrees is close to orange (30 deg) in color circle terms. I won't insult you by posting an additive color circle.

"Ivory White" has a hue somewhere between orange and yellow. And Manfred himself said "I can't think of any flower that is actually pure white and all have a slight shading, so something that has a red and / or yellow tint is what I would have expected."

RGB values for an Ivory White can be found here:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/FFF6E5/ivory_white

And the conversion to hue:


source:

http://serennu.com/colour/hsltorgb.php

So we're both right and I should have emphasized that "hue" is not quite the same as "color" which of course includes tint or shade, and saturation. Which in turn means that stuff that looks white ain't necessarily so.

Sorry for any confusion . . .

and you think you have cleared it up? I think I am going with the KISS principle. I will do my shots to the new monitor because i like the way it shows colours.

later as i learn ore and figure things out more and can buy the needed hardware things will change. But for now i use the KISS technique.

[xpatUSA]

and you think you have cleared it up?

Sorry, Brian. I should know better

[Wavelength]

Very nice

[Andrew1]

I'd suggest you forget trying to set the laptop to any dependable benchmark. I know a few people who have never had any luck trying that. As for knowing if your photo came across properly I'd need that flower beside my screen for reference to compare. I could say it looks great but be way off on the colour. To make a comparison like you are suggesting you would need to display something more definable like a ColorChecker Passport along with a grey scale.

Prior to using Colormunki I used the attached exercise which proved pretty reliable and even after getting the more sophisticated tool found it changed very little. It takes awhile to go through all the steps but well worth it in my case.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

[xpatUSA]

Prior to using Colormunki I used the attached exercise which proved pretty reliable and even after getting the more sophisticated tool found it changed very little. It takes awhile to go through all the steps but well worth it in my case.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

I second that opinion. The link resolved some recent uncertainty of mine about monitor black level adjustment.

[JBW]

I second that opinion. The link resolved some recent uncertainty of mine about monitor black level adjustment.

ted, Grumpy et alii, allow me to tell you a story. There was a time when i was on the path to ordination. I was being trained in an Indian village on the west coast of canada to be a village pastor. 11 months in the village one month outside taking university Master level courses. There were maybe 20 or so of us being trained this way. I may have been the only one with a bachelor's degree.

One day one of our profs said that we would be looking at the bible in he way we were taught in our ..... courses. I held up my hand and pointed out that I had never had those courses. he was puzzled. He got even more puzzled when the rest of the class admitted that they had never had those courses either.

This is pretty much the same situation. I don't have (yet) the background to make sense out of 90% of this thread. That doesn't mean you have wasted your time. it just means that I have to find a way to get the background to make more sense out of it.

I appreciate what all of you are doing for me and the others. But in my case don't get annoyed when my limitations reduce your teaching. Okay?

[Manfred M]

Andrew - I'm afraid I find all of these tests that rely on human vision to be rather unreliable at best. We humans have evolved to adapt to changes in colour temperature changes rather quickly (I've been told adaptation takes less than 1/10th of a second). So all these approaches are frankly rather useless.

The only way to set up a computer screen correctly is to use a colorimeter. I wish there was a less costly way of doing so, but there isn't.