Computer screen

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4058
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

clarnibass wrote:What I found is that even on the calibrated screens in the printing lab, it's not always the same. It could be quite different on two different types of papers.
Clarnibass,

To me, reading what you wrote sounds like a mistake is being made somewhere in the chain between work on your computer and work on/making of the final print by the lab--mistakes that likely happen all too often. This said, I still respect the value of this process if carefully and correctly done by a high-quality printing lab, in cooperation with a careful photographer. And yes, your printing lab should provide you a profile for each printer/paper combination, which you should incorporate into your Photoshop printing instructions. In my experience, if a very good lab does this properly, and I incorporate their information correctly in Photoshop, using a calibrated monitor under the light conditions for which it was calibrated, predictable, as-desired, prints have been the result.

--Chris S.

chris_ma
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:23 pm
Location: Germany

Post by chris_ma »

clarnibass wrote:What I found is that even on the calibrated screens in the printing lab, it's not always the same. It could be quite different on two different types of papers. Non-colourblind people there seem to agree with me (looking at their prints and mine).
that usually means the lab has bad printer profiles.
printed images will always look a bit different from screen, mostly the screen images have more glow due to the backlight.
also bright saturated colors can't be translated to prints since dye absorption can never be as pure bright as additive RGB colors.

but for normal images, lets say an indoor portrait, the colors should look very similar to the screen appearance, and using different papers with the right profiles should look very similar.
Also for something important I always do a test on the actual type of paper before and adjust based on that.
that's always good practise, even with a properly calibrated workflow since the feel of an image depends a lot on the medium.
but I can't see how calibrating my screen would help, unless maybe you adjust it for a specific paper/printer/etc. that you use?
without a properly calibrated monitor all bets are off and you're basically working blind. it does kinda work if you do a final tune up at the printer stage and are lucky that your monitor is in the reasonable ballpark.
theoretically if all devices are calibrated then we'd always have accurate color everywhere, the problem with this is (apart that even professional print shops often don't get it right or are too lazy to even try) is that the *appearance* of an image on even the same monitor depends heavily on the surround area/light.

make this test:
edit an image at night at your screens until you're happy. then open it again the next morning in bright daylight. it now will look darker, with lost shadow detail, and bit washed out color.

that's why in professional critical environments the surround is also calibrated in color temperature and brightness of the light.

the frustrating bit is then if you later on see your work on somebody elses cheap screen which is not calibrated ;)

it's still worth it though to get at least your side right.
chris

clarnibass
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 pm

Post by clarnibass »

You might be right, I don't know for sure. They do have a profile for each paper they have and I make sure to choose the correct one when printing. They have good screens they calibrate. This is at the local photography school where I'm taking a few courses, so I print at cost :)

I have pretty much the same experience at other labs i.e. the print looking different on different papers from the same place. By different, being colour blind, I can't really say if the colours are accurate or not... usually it's more or a saturation and brightness difference.

Anyway I decided to go for the U2415. The extra height is important. I'm not sure if any difference in colour accuracy would be noticeable to me, even if there is any, especially since I do tests before printing. Also decided not to get the higher res for all sorts of reasons... even if it means upgrading in less than 15 years this time :)
Either way it would be a huge upgrade from my current screen.

Thanks again everyone

clarnibass
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:33 pm

Post by clarnibass »

Just got the new screen.
Very glad I went with the 16x10 ratio.
It is huge! Hope I just get used to it.
Probably great for editing (haven't tried it yet) but for regular browsing it is ridiculous :)

Alan Wood
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:09 pm
Location: Near London, U.K.
Contact:

Post by Alan Wood »

I have an older version, the Dell U2410, and I really like the 1920x1200 format.

I don't need widescreen (I have a television for watching films), and I like the extra height as well as the colour fidelity.

Alan Wood

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic