A Different Person: Two Versions
June 30th, 2007
I started with the version on the left, but I noticed that this was a little washed out on the Mac Book that I’ve been using at work (I’m learning to support Macs). I think the version on the right has a bit more texture in the highlights without sacrificing too much in the shadows. There’s an etherealness to the original that is now missing, but I think, overall, that the darker one is better. Opinions appreciated.
June 30th, 2007
There must be a happy medium between the two. I feel like the one on the right is underexposed, like the highlights in her hair are for the most part missing, but the one on the left is maybe a touch overexposed, her right cheek is pretty hot in that one… so maybe there is some place between these.
With regards to essentially different photos because of different monitors, I finally just decided to make the photo match what I want on my monitor at home, which is at least somewhat calibrated for my printer at home, for the most part just accept variances on other monitors.
June 30th, 2007
Yeah, the one on the right is probably a bit too far. The original version is pushing the highlights, but checking the histogram, it is still well under the limit. I think the lcd just doesn’t show as much detail in highlights, because his looks fine printed.
This question of how things look on other monitors is particularly problematic with B&W where so much of the impact and intent of the photo is determined by luminance variations.
June 30th, 2007
I’m on an iBook and prefer the first version. The second looks more technically accurate (and possibly closer to the original lighting?) But, for me, the first picture has more presence. Ghostly. Reminded me of the apparition from Wuthering Heights.
July 1st, 2007
“Ghostly. Reminded me of the apparition from Wuthering Heights.”
James, that’s an interesting way to put it. As I said earlier, there is something ethereal about the first version that is missing in the second. I suspect you are seeing the same thing.
July 1st, 2007
Matt, since you’re asking for opinions I’d say that neither version is quite right. One is heavily over-exposed, the other a little under-exposed. I’m sure this is almost certainly a monitor calibration issue, and since the only definitive assessment of an image is in the print, only you know what they should actually look like. But on my monitor (SRGB-IEC1966-2.1) many of the images in your site are heavily washed out. Don’t know if you have a calibrated colour space, but if you don’t then I’d recommend one. Otherwise you’ll never be quite sure if what you see is what other people are seeing.
July 2nd, 2007
Neil, thanks for the input. I do appreciate it. The closest I’ve ever gotten to a calibrated workspace is taking a peak out of how these pics look on the wide variety of systems I’ve always got available at work. On the Macs, they tend to look kind of out of wack. On the PC’s it depends on the monitor. This variation has always made me shy away from bothering with the calibration; why bother if I can’t know what other people are seeing anyway? Perhaps it’s time to start bothering.