Laptop screen: I’m confused

[Thornton]

I’d appreciate some advice on my laptop. It is a new Dell XPS 15 with the cheaper “FHD” screen, not the 4k. I have recently started using it after moving from a 17” Dell which I must have had for quite a few years (it has Vista!). The new laptop screen seems very white and bright when blank, and I tend to turn down the brightness a bit.

I have recently edited a couple of landscapes which seemed to look pretty nice to me on screen, in fact I’d reined in the saturation and contrast here and there, thinking I was maybe overdoing it. Yet when viewed on my iPad (the 5th gen version, not a fancy one) they seem disappointingly subdued. I checked the settings to ensure I was using sRGB, in case I’d messed up there, but I hadn’t. Generally my old-Dell-edited photos look better on my iPad than on the old Dell. (I could post a shot here of one of the photos which seems good on the new Dell but poor on the iPad, if it would be useful).

So it seems I need to think about screen calibration. I read somewhere that laptop screens are too poor to make calibration worthwhile, but maybe that was only true of older models? If it is worthwhile to get a calibration tool, which is the most economic decent quality tool for my case (essentialy, just for screen display and sharing on the web rather than for high quality printing).

Thanks,

T

[Stagecoach]

(I could post a shot here of one of the photos which seems good on the new Dell but poor on the iPad, if it would be useful).

Thanks,

T

It would certainly be useful as those of us with a calibrated monitor could give an indication as to whether we consider the images OK or 'subdued'.

[DanK]

I don’t know anything about that screen. But I was able to calibrate the screen on my Lenovo Carbon laptop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

I'm not quite sure why you are using the iPad as a reference; the screen is neither calibrated nor profiled on that device and while some limited calibration and profiling can be done with an xRite i1, most software running on it ignores it anyways.

The only way that you can reasonably expect to have your laptop (or any computer screen, for that matter) to give you accurate output is to use a hardware profiling device on it (Datacolor Spyder or xRite Colormunki or i1) and set the output level to somewhere between 80 and 120 candela / sq meter.

[DanK]

I searched very quickly online, and it looks like the FHD monitor covers 98% of the sRGB gamut: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-X....308420.0.html. I don't see why you wouldn't be able to calibrate this.

[Thornton]

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't trying to suggest that I view my iPad as a reference standard. It is simply that having got used to seeing my photos look generally "punchier" on my iPad than on my old laptop, I was I expected the "punchier" looking edits on the new laptop to look even "punchier" yet, if that makes sense.

Anyhow, I'll get a calibration tool for the use-level I need.

For what it's worth, this is the photo.

[pschlute]

Colours and saturation looks spot on to me.

[Thornton]

Colours and saturation looks spot on to me.

Thanks Peter. I think that one issue may be that I was looking at this immediately after looking at a different version I’d done previously where there was a lot more contrast but probably a less realstic look overall, and that made this version look a bit anaemic. I’m mindful of what I read recently about inexperienced photographers often tending to overdo processing, and was trying to get away from that a bit.

I’d still be interested to know what others with a calibrated monitor think too. I know you mentioned that yours is calibrated. Can I ask what device you use? I was thinking of a Spyder 5 Express, but there are some very mixed reviews on Amazon.

[DanK]

Julian,

I have never used any of the Spyders, so I will leave it to others to comment on them. I use the X-Rite i1Display Pro, and for years I used an earlier X-Rite model that annoyingly won't work with Windows 10. Both worked well and are simple to use, but the X-Rite i1Display Pro is more expensive than many of the Spyder models.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Julian,

I have never used any of the Spyders, so I will leave it to others to comment on them. I use the X-Rite i1Display Pro, and for years I used an earlier X-Rite model that annoyingly won't work with Windows 10. Both worked well and are simple to use, but the X-Rite i1Display Pro is more expensive than many of the Spyder models.

Dan

The xRite ColorMunki line is much less expensive than the i1 line.

[Thornton]

Thanks for the info.

T

[pschlute]

I’d still be interested to know what others with a calibrated monitor think too. I know you mentioned that yours is calibrated. Can I ask what device you use? I was thinking of a Spyder 5 Express, but there are some very mixed reviews on Amazon.

I am no expert in the field, but I use a Spyder 5 hardware together with software provided by the screen manufacturer Eizo. I think the hardware device is the same whatever version of Spyder you buy.

[Astro]

SpyderX, Spyder5, Spyder4... within each range the device is the same but not across the ranges.
I use Spyder5 and have used it to calibrate my desktop monitors and my laptop. Even though the laptop screen is about 75% of sRGB, calibration does make a difference.

[Polar01]

Also the ColorMunki but the Photo as I use to print and produced my own paper ICC profiles with it.

Cheers: Al

[Thornton]

Thanks for the help. I think I’m going for the Spyder 5, simply because it seems the cheapest here. As I said, I only want it so that I can hopefully be reasonably confident that others with a calibrated screen are seeing pretty much what I see. If I do get prints done, it is by high street outfits who I understand use sRGB in any case.

On a slightly different matter, I am certainly more confident of being able to get more consistent results with my new laptop than with my old one because it doesn’t seem to suffer from the problem of greatly varying screen brightness depending on screen angle, which the old one did. The non-reflective screen is also nice.

T

[dje]

Julian my monitor is profiled using a Spyder 5 and your image looks fine on it. Lovely image actually with great colors!

Dave

[DanK]

Tim Grey, whose photography e-mail list you might find useful, just recommended the x-Rite Color Munki Smile, which costs only $99.

[Thornton]

Julian my monitor is profiled using a Spyder 5 and your image looks fine on it. Lovely image actually with great colors!

Dave

Thanks Dave. I’ve gone for the Spyder 5 Express.

[Thornton]

Tim Grey, whose photography e-mail list you might find useful, just recommended the x-Rite Color Munki Smile, which costs only $99.

Thanks Dan. I was going to order this Color Munki model yesterday but it was quite a lot more on Amazon over here than the Spyder, though I have since found it for only a bit more than the Spyder with a different retailer here, but by then I’d already opted for the Spyder (and I thought that this other retailer’s website said “out of stock” yesterday, though it doesn’t seem to today!). Anyhow, hopefully the Spyder will be fine.

[Hevii Guy]

The xRite ColorMunki line is much less expensive than the i1 line.

A bit behind the times! There is no longer a "ColorMunki" line. X-rite replaced them all with the i1Studio

https://www.xrite.com/categories/cal...iling/i1studio