Annoying problem...normal?
02-24-2009, 02:49 AM
#1
Former Moderator
Thread Starter
Annoying problem...normal?
Over the last year or so, I edit my photos on my 23" Cinema Display. I edit them until I think they look good in all aspects, color, sharpness, etc etc etc. Viewed full screen, they look amazing. When I view them on other monitors, they are softer, not as vibrant, etc etc etc. Now, I know that a non calibrated monitor is going to be off in color, and a cheaper monitor will not be able to reproduce the same sharpness/contrast as my Cinema display. So my question is, is this normal? Should I be over-sharpening and over-editing my photos for the "regular joes" to view? How to I get my images to look as good on crap monitors as they do on my nice personal monitor? Is it something I need to live with? It's driving me crazy. Everytime I want to show off a photo to someone, a huge injustice is served, as I KNOW that the photo looks MUCH better in actuality......or....is my Cinema Display a liar?
02-24-2009, 04:01 AM
#2
This is an interesting consideration, though unfortunately I feel as though it is going to be a compromise of either how it looks on your monitor, or the average joe's. Though there are some considerations and steps you can take to try and make it the best for both worlds.
First, how is it that you are viewing images on other peoples computers? For example are you bringing over your camera and hooking it up, are you putting them on your website, etc? The main difference between these different ways of moving your images is the software that will be opening them; image viewers if you are bringing a physical copy (camera, cd, etc) or web browser if it is on your website.
For either, the first and probably best option would be to change their monitor settings to as closely represent your images as you think they should look. This is much easier if it is a client, where a friends computer may be somewhat awkward to change (though this just depends on how you normally are, my friends would expect it of me
).
The second more realistic option is to convert your images for the average user before posting them to your site (while of course keeping your original edits for print etc). Contrary to what most people first inclination would be, I actually find that you need to bump the exposure/brightness of the image down slightly as most have they monitor set really hot. Next the average viewer likes to see bold colors, so bump up the saturation some, keeping in mind the intended over all color-cast. If your image is meant to be a cold morning, then bump the blues a little more then you bump the other colors. Contrast should also get a little bump as normally an average user will have their monitor washed out with white or gray. And of course as you asked about, yet you should over-sharpen images that are meant to be sharp, and possibly over soften images that are meant to be soft (some monitors have a way of creating some noise that will make color etc less smooth).
Basically it is as you alluded to, you need to exaggerate your images somewhat for a website that is meant to be viewed by the average person (forgot to mention that point earlier, if your sight is to be viewed primarily by clients/professionals then dis-regard the above advice and edit them to your best satisfaction).
A couple things to consider no matter the viewer. First make sure your image settings are correct for internet, that they are set to RGB color-space, 72 px/inch and 8-bit color. Also make sure that your images are appropriately sized so that the browser won't have to do any auto-sizing for you (destroys images completely in my opinion). Preferably JPEG file type, although I prefer PNG there are still some users who haven't updated their web browser in years and it may not be compatible. Flash galleries are ok, as well under most circumstances, but make sure the movie is made at and appropriate size with scaling turned off and the size set concretely in browser (same as image auto-resizing).
On a last note consider the page that your images are contained within, especially the background color can make a huge impact on the photo. Normally a black background will give you the most vibrant perception of colors, gray giving a more natural range that will bring out shadows, and white giving more emphasis on form and shapes within the image.
I realize you may know all/most of this already, but figured I'd write it all out for anyone else who may stumble across this. Unfortunately this is just something we have to live with, and I can not tell you how many times I've designed a website when I was starting out with beautiful, delicate color shifts that became invisible blocks of color or white when viewed on a client's computer.
Forgot: Also make sure your calibrate your monitor, either with a professional kit or using my ghetto calibration: get a magazine etc that has the same logo/picture as you can find on a website and adjust your monitor until they match as close as possible. I suggest Best Buy blue, Circuit City red (here-by replaced with Target red) and Dick's Sporting Goods green.
First, how is it that you are viewing images on other peoples computers? For example are you bringing over your camera and hooking it up, are you putting them on your website, etc? The main difference between these different ways of moving your images is the software that will be opening them; image viewers if you are bringing a physical copy (camera, cd, etc) or web browser if it is on your website.
For either, the first and probably best option would be to change their monitor settings to as closely represent your images as you think they should look. This is much easier if it is a client, where a friends computer may be somewhat awkward to change (though this just depends on how you normally are, my friends would expect it of me
).The second more realistic option is to convert your images for the average user before posting them to your site (while of course keeping your original edits for print etc). Contrary to what most people first inclination would be, I actually find that you need to bump the exposure/brightness of the image down slightly as most have they monitor set really hot. Next the average viewer likes to see bold colors, so bump up the saturation some, keeping in mind the intended over all color-cast. If your image is meant to be a cold morning, then bump the blues a little more then you bump the other colors. Contrast should also get a little bump as normally an average user will have their monitor washed out with white or gray. And of course as you asked about, yet you should over-sharpen images that are meant to be sharp, and possibly over soften images that are meant to be soft (some monitors have a way of creating some noise that will make color etc less smooth).
Basically it is as you alluded to, you need to exaggerate your images somewhat for a website that is meant to be viewed by the average person (forgot to mention that point earlier, if your sight is to be viewed primarily by clients/professionals then dis-regard the above advice and edit them to your best satisfaction).
A couple things to consider no matter the viewer. First make sure your image settings are correct for internet, that they are set to RGB color-space, 72 px/inch and 8-bit color. Also make sure that your images are appropriately sized so that the browser won't have to do any auto-sizing for you (destroys images completely in my opinion). Preferably JPEG file type, although I prefer PNG there are still some users who haven't updated their web browser in years and it may not be compatible. Flash galleries are ok, as well under most circumstances, but make sure the movie is made at and appropriate size with scaling turned off and the size set concretely in browser (same as image auto-resizing).
On a last note consider the page that your images are contained within, especially the background color can make a huge impact on the photo. Normally a black background will give you the most vibrant perception of colors, gray giving a more natural range that will bring out shadows, and white giving more emphasis on form and shapes within the image.
I realize you may know all/most of this already, but figured I'd write it all out for anyone else who may stumble across this. Unfortunately this is just something we have to live with, and I can not tell you how many times I've designed a website when I was starting out with beautiful, delicate color shifts that became invisible blocks of color or white when viewed on a client's computer.
Forgot: Also make sure your calibrate your monitor, either with a professional kit or using my ghetto calibration: get a magazine etc that has the same logo/picture as you can find on a website and adjust your monitor until they match as close as possible. I suggest Best Buy blue, Circuit City red (here-by replaced with Target red) and Dick's Sporting Goods green.
02-24-2009, 04:23 AM
#3
Former Moderator
Thread Starter
My monitor is calibrated monthly with a Spyder 3 PRO. I guess I will have to live with the fact that they just won't look as good on the average joe's monitor. I don't usually like to edit twice...once for my perfect image, and another for a.joe. To hell with them. 
02-24-2009, 05:27 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. I do not consider an image viewed on a monitor to be a "final" image. No image should be judged as "final" unless it is viewed as a print.
Nature of the beast: monitors vary far to much to be able to trust that you're image is going to look good on more than a few of them.
Nature of the beast: monitors vary far to much to be able to trust that you're image is going to look good on more than a few of them.
02-24-2009, 08:57 AM
#5
No image should be judged as "final" unless it is viewed as a print.
Also while it may sound like a lengthy process to correct, a quick Photoshop patch process can create scaled down and Joe-corrected images from an entire album in minutes.
Though I am slightly biased since I am primarily a web designer at this point in my life.
02-24-2009, 02:03 PM
#6
Registered User
Every image needs to be sharpened to match its intended media. If you're posting stuff for Joe Public then it makes sense to aim at his inexpensive monitor.
It is an annoying item, in that I have to keep multiple "final" versions of images since sharpening is also affected by resolution. I can't just turn on or off sharpening layers in a single file for all purposes.
It is an annoying item, in that I have to keep multiple "final" versions of images since sharpening is also affected by resolution. I can't just turn on or off sharpening layers in a single file for all purposes.