jforkner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Alien Road | |
Mark Metternich wrote:
This has always made laugh a bit on this particular forum. We seem to enjoy giving very careful, even critical feedback on images often with no real standards to ensure we are looking at the same thing. One person may say too dark, the other too bright, the other too saturated, the other too mute... Even arguments erupt over this stuff sometimes. But the real question for me has always been, how many of us are carefully calibrating to common industry standards that help us to be as close as possible to being on the same page?
Then a few years ago I experimented with posting a disclaimer that said to the effect:
\"Best viewed, or most accurately viewed on a calibrated monitor to 2.2 Gamma, 6500 White Point and 130CD (luminance or candelas).\"
Then when I did that, a couple people jumped on me saying I only said that so that people could not critique my images! Seriously...
So, in my minds eye (and I have been a full time teacher of color management for over 10 years) if we are really going to nitpick people\'s images, we better be on the same page or as close to the same page as possible! Or all that hair splitting can be meaningless and quite untrustworthy.
BTW 100CD is low unless you work in, or nearly in the dark. Industry standard for a softly diffused room is 120-130CD. I choose the higher end (130CD) due to monitors constantly getting brighter.
Mark,
Seems to me that suggesting that an image is “best viewed” under certain conditions is a bit naive & arrogant.
First…when one puts anything on the Internet, control of that item is pretty-much lost. There is no way to ensure or control how that thing is viewed and/or used. To assume there’s some standard that all viewers will adhere-to seems naive to me.
Second…posting an image on the Internet & suggesting how I should view it for my best experience seems seems somewhat arrogant to me—as though I don’t know how to view an image unless you tell me. While stating the conditions under which you produced the image may lend some awareness as to why it looks as it does; telling me how to view it is too much, IMO.
Finally…I believe the primary reason people post their images on forums like this is to either solicit criticism or state, “Look what I’ve done.” Regardless of the reason, when you do post an image, you are inviting comment. To want or assume that all who view the image will do so under the exact same conditions as you created it seems highly unlikely to me.
BTW, would you please point me to the accepted industry standard for room lighting—I do work in a fairly dark room & the sites I visited for calibration tutorials suggested starting out at 100 cd/m². And as I stated previously, my settings are intended to ensure my printed output matches what I see on the screen.
Jack
|
