Colors on different computers

[Artemisia]

Okay, I'm sure this will seem like a newbie question, and that's because it is:

I know that colors appear somewhat differently on every computer. I've also
heard that colors generally appear brighter on Mac monitors than PC monitors.
The problem is that I'm creating a site of artwork, so the accuracy of the
colors is really important. I've looked at a bunch of JPEG files on at least
one Mac and one PC monitor, and they all look pretty good, except for one.

The problem file looks perfect on the Mac monitor (matches the original
artwork), but a red area is practically nonexistent on the PC monitor. A
friend tried to enhance the red area in Photoshop, and that made the red
appear only slightly better on the PC but horribly bright on the Mac.

Is this just the way it is? I hate to leave this image off the site, but at
this point, I don't see any alternative.

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

What color space is the problem image in? What color management profile was
used? Is it an image you took with your camera? Or ??

When was the last time you calibrated your monitor ? - this won't effect
other peoples out of wack monitors but at least you'd know where you are if
you're in sync.

Spyder Pro is a good monitor calibration tool, I use Huey Pro by Pantone
(it's a little cheaper and pretty ok for what I do).

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression





| Okay, I'm sure this will seem like a newbie question, and that's because
it is:
|
| I know that colors appear somewhat differently on every computer. I've
also
| heard that colors generally appear brighter on Mac monitors than PC
monitors.
| The problem is that I'm creating a site of artwork, so the accuracy of the
| colors is really important. I've looked at a bunch of JPEG files on at
least
| one Mac and one PC monitor, and they all look pretty good, except for one.
|
| The problem file looks perfect on the Mac monitor (matches the original
| artwork), but a red area is practically nonexistent on the PC monitor. A
| friend tried to enhance the red area in Photoshop, and that made the red
| appear only slightly better on the PC but horribly bright on the Mac.
|
| Is this just the way it is? I hate to leave this image off the site, but
at
| this point, I don't see any alternative.

 

[Artemisia]

Well, to show you what a newbie I really am, I didn't understand most of your
questions. Here is what I do know:

I have a painting that was done in black ink and red watercolor on paper.
The watercolor is intense, not washed out.

At a photo lab, where they know what they're doing and have high-end
equipment, they took a picture of the painting with a digital camera, made
some minor adjustments to make the image file match the original artwork, and
then gave me a JPEG file. They are using a Mac, but I don't know exactly
which one.

I looked at the file on their monitor. It looks exactly like the original
artwork. However, the red is practically nonexistent on my PC (Sony Trinitron
CRT monitor).

I'm less concerned about the calibration of my particular monitor than the
fact that the image looks so dramatically different on mine. That means it's
going to look bad on other people's monitors, too. Which would defeat the
purpose of putting it on a Web site. (Also, all my other JPEG files look good
on both monitors, and things in general look good on my monitor, so...?)

Someone at the lab mentioned that the red area was "pretty delicate."

 

[Ian Haynes]

I'm less concerned about the calibration of my particular monitor than the

fact that the image looks so dramatically different on mine. That means
it's
going to look bad on other people's monitors, too. Which would defeat the
purpose of putting it on a Web site. (Also, all my other JPEG files look
good
on both monitors, and things in general look good on my monitor, so...?)

It's probably the calibration of your monitor that makes it look so
different. It may well look correct on other peoples monitors. Your monitor
could be seriously out of calibration. Bear in mind that unless all users
calibrated their monitors (and very few do) it is going to look different on
almost every one.

The first step has to be to confirm that your own isn't wildly out.

Although no substitute for a proper calibration tool there are several
tutorials that may give you an indication of how well you monitor is set up.
See http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html for example or
http://downloads.zdnet.co.uk/0,1000000375,39283423s,00.htm

 

[Ronx]

I have 2 monitors - on 1, all colours (except blue) are washed out, and
I cannot get them to look right. The other looks correct, to my eyes.
That first monitor did look right to me until I started using the
second. I suspect the same situation will prevail for most users - they
won't know the difference unless they have something to compare with,
and even then some monitors/video-cards only allow brightness, contrast,
and, perhaps, preset colour temperature to be adjusted.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.

http://www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp

 

[Paul M]

Hi
I am sure this must be correct I think the eyes are self calibrating and
unless the users monitor is way off then the brain will see all the images
on the screen and self correct a great deal, knowing that the grass is
green and the ballon is red and adjust other colours and know when a
light tint of colour is red and adjust that in the context of the other
colours on the screen.
When you look at two photographs taken at different times of the day and
you compare the white objects within the photos they will look totally
different but you still know the colour as white by comparing it against
other colours in the photo

Here is some more on how the eye can be tricked and how it adjusts
http://library.thinkquest.org/27066/theeye/nlsimcontrast.html

I need to take a rest
Paul M

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

If the image looks bad on your monitor and you make any adjustments to it
then they will look even worse on the web.

Can you post a link to the unadjusted image so we can see it?




--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression





| Well, to show you what a newbie I really am, I didn't understand most of
your
| questions. Here is what I do know:
|
| I have a painting that was done in black ink and red watercolor on paper.
| The watercolor is intense, not washed out.
|
| At a photo lab, where they know what they're doing and have high-end
| equipment, they took a picture of the painting with a digital camera, made
| some minor adjustments to make the image file match the original artwork,
and
| then gave me a JPEG file. They are using a Mac, but I don't know exactly
| which one.
|
| I looked at the file on their monitor. It looks exactly like the original
| artwork. However, the red is practically nonexistent on my PC (Sony
Trinitron
| CRT monitor).
|
| I'm less concerned about the calibration of my particular monitor than the
| fact that the image looks so dramatically different on mine. That means
it's
| going to look bad on other people's monitors, too. Which would defeat the
| purpose of putting it on a Web site. (Also, all my other JPEG files look
good
| on both monitors, and things in general look good on my monitor, so...?)
|
| Someone at the lab mentioned that the red area was "pretty delicate."
|
|
|
| "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
|
| > What color space is the problem image in? What color management profile
was
| > used? Is it an image you took with your camera? Or ??
| >
| > When was the last time you calibrated your monitor ? - this won't effect
| > other peoples out of wack monitors but at least you'd know where you are
if
| > you're in sync.
| >
| > Spyder Pro is a good monitor calibration tool, I use Huey Pro by Pantone
| > (it's a little cheaper and pretty ok for what I do).
| >
| > --
| > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| > Rob Giordano
| > Microsoft MVP Expression
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Okay, I'm sure this will seem like a newbie question, and that's
because
| > it is:
| > |
| > | I know that colors appear somewhat differently on every computer. I've
| > also
| > | heard that colors generally appear brighter on Mac monitors than PC
| > monitors.
| > | The problem is that I'm creating a site of artwork, so the accuracy of
the
| > | colors is really important. I've looked at a bunch of JPEG files on at
| > least
| > | one Mac and one PC monitor, and they all look pretty good, except for
one.
| > |
| > | The problem file looks perfect on the Mac monitor (matches the
original
| > | artwork), but a red area is practically nonexistent on the PC monitor.
A
| > | friend tried to enhance the red area in Photoshop, and that made the
red
| > | appear only slightly better on the PC but horribly bright on the Mac.
| > |
| > | Is this just the way it is? I hate to leave this image off the site,
but
| > at
| > | this point, I don't see any alternative.
| >
| >
| >

 

[Artemisia]

Okay, I put it at http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages. "The
Fury" is the one that I am talking about. There should be a red area in the
middle of the painting. I also posted "Portal" (another watercolor) for
comparison. These images are not full size because this was the quick and
easy way to post them, so you won't see all the subtleties, but you should at
least get an idea of what I'm talking about.

(Re some of the other posts: Haven't had a chance to look into calibration
yet, but I'm still thinking that my monitor as is may be representative of
others' monitors....)

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Fury is muddy...looks like a bad photo to begin with. Someone who is good
with Photoshop may be able to pull out a better image for you. I tried and
got it a little better by photo doesn't have the range to play with. Did
they use a tripod and lights when they shot it?...doesn't look like it.

Portal is a little better but it's a little out of focus...same comment..did
they use lights and tripod when they shot it? Portal is fixable.



--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression





| Okay, I put it at http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages. "The
| Fury" is the one that I am talking about. There should be a red area in
the
| middle of the painting. I also posted "Portal" (another watercolor) for
| comparison. These images are not full size because this was the quick and
| easy way to post them, so you won't see all the subtleties, but you should
at
| least get an idea of what I'm talking about.
|
| (Re some of the other posts: Haven't had a chance to look into calibration
| yet, but I'm still thinking that my monitor as is may be representative of
| others' monitors....)
|
| "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
|
| > If the image looks bad on your monitor and you make any adjustments to
it
| > then they will look even worse on the web.
| >
| > Can you post a link to the unadjusted image so we can see it?
|

 

[Artemisia]

I agree that "The Fury" looks a little muddy (aside from the red not showing
up) on my computer. It doesn't look muddy at all on the computer at the photo
lab. The white areas stand out better on their computer.

Hmmm, "Portal" doesn't seem out of focus to me. However, I've seen that
image so many times at full size that I wonder if that makes a difference.

For both, I know they used lights but I don't know about a tripod. They did
have to shoot the images through glass because the paintings were already
framed and I didn't want to take them apart. I pretty much left the work
there for them to work on. They've done other work for me before that I've
been happy with, so I trusted them to know what they were doing. However, I
did see the images on their computer and they looked very, very close to the
original pieces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, since I wrote the above reply, I added two more images to the site
(http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages), just for comparison.
They are from actual photographs that I took, one B&W and one color. (Both
were taken with a 35-mm camera, not digital.) The funny thing is that neither
looks the same on the site as in my Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I looked
at them side by side and at the same size. They look better in the Windows
Picture and Fax Viewer. So now I don't know what's going on.

However, "The Fury" is the only one that doesn't look good in my Windows
Picture and Fax Viewer. The biggest problem is the missing red, and a
secondary problem is that the white areas don't stand out as well as they
should. IMO, the image doesn't represent the original work.

 

[Artemisia]

I just looked at the first site that you gave. Although it was pretty
technical at first glance, I did try changing a couple of things just to see
what would happen, and voila! Increasing the brightness suddenly made the
images look a lot better, and the red in that one image suddenly appeared.

This might require some more work on my part. I didn't really understand
most of what I was reading. I could also call the photo lab that created
these digital images for me and see what calibration they used, to see if I
should match.

Now I'm not sure what this means as far as putting these images on a Web
site. Do I just not worry about people's calibrations? After all, I can't
control them.

I'm also not sure why the last two images that I posted ("Like Blowing Ink
Through a Straw" and "Rainierscape" at
http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages) look different than they
do in the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I want to say that they look more
pixelated, although it's kind of hard to tell exactly what the problem is
with such a small picture frame.

I can't tell you how happy I was to see my images suddenly start looking
more like the original pieces!

 

[Paul M]

Hi
Another problem is that the image (The fury) is 749px X 1024px which makes
the file size about 2.19MB butyou are displaying it at 169px 232px which
should make the file size about 152K. Use an image editor such as photoshop
to resize the image not front page, web browsers do a bad job of resizing
image.

If you dont have an image editor try this free one
http://www.irfanview.com/
Paul M

 

[Ian Haynes]

Now I'm not sure what this means as far as putting these images on a Web

site. Do I just not worry about people's calibrations? After all, I can't
control them.

That's exactly the point, you can't control it and it does cause problems
for art and photographic sites.

I'm also not sure why the last two images that I posted ("Like Blowing Ink
Through a Straw" and "Rainierscape" at
http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages) look different than
they
do in the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I want to say that they look
more
pixelated, although it's kind of hard to tell exactly what the problem is
with such a small picture frame.

This is probably down to them being resized in the browser. As Paul. M.
mentions further in this thread, they need to be reduced in size for use on
the web. They should be resized to the size you want them on the page.

If you don't have an image editor, Irfanview that Paul mentioned is good, as
is another free one, Paint.Net. See http://www.getpaint.net/ It's probably
easier for someone starting with image editing/manipulation.

I can't tell you how happy I was to see my images suddenly start looking
more like the original pieces!

Great!

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Get Fury into Photoshop and adjust it with Levels and/or Curves. You may be
able to get a little more out of it before you blow out the black/green
stringie things.

Shooting the paintings through glass didn't help your originals.

Personally...I'd take it out of the frame, take it outside but not in direct
sun, and shoot it yourself - then fix it in Photoshop.





--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression





|I agree that "The Fury" looks a little muddy (aside from the red not
showing
| up) on my computer. It doesn't look muddy at all on the computer at the
photo
| lab. The white areas stand out better on their computer.
|
| Hmmm, "Portal" doesn't seem out of focus to me. However, I've seen that
| image so many times at full size that I wonder if that makes a difference.
|
| For both, I know they used lights but I don't know about a tripod. They
did
| have to shoot the images through glass because the paintings were already
| framed and I didn't want to take them apart. I pretty much left the work
| there for them to work on. They've done other work for me before that I've
| been happy with, so I trusted them to know what they were doing. However,
I
| did see the images on their computer and they looked very, very close to
the
| original pieces.
| -----------------------------------------------------------------
| Okay, since I wrote the above reply, I added two more images to the site
| (http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages), just for comparison.
| They are from actual photographs that I took, one B&W and one color. (Both
| were taken with a 35-mm camera, not digital.) The funny thing is that
neither
| looks the same on the site as in my Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I
looked
| at them side by side and at the same size. They look better in the Windows
| Picture and Fax Viewer. So now I don't know what's going on.
|
| However, "The Fury" is the only one that doesn't look good in my Windows
| Picture and Fax Viewer. The biggest problem is the missing red, and a
| secondary problem is that the white areas don't stand out as well as they
| should. IMO, the image doesn't represent the original work.
|
|
| "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
|
| > Fury is muddy...looks like a bad photo to begin with. Someone who is
good
| > with Photoshop may be able to pull out a better image for you. I tried
and
| > got it a little better by photo doesn't have the range to play with. Did
| > they use a tripod and lights when they shot it?...doesn't look like it.
| >
| > Portal is a little better but it's a little out of focus...same
comment..did
| > they use lights and tripod when they shot it? Portal is fixable.
| >
| >
| >
| > --
| > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| > Rob Giordano
| > Microsoft MVP Expression
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Okay, I put it at http://www.geocities.com/paintinglinda/tempimages.
"The
| > | Fury" is the one that I am talking about. There should be a red area
in
| > the
| > | middle of the painting. I also posted "Portal" (another watercolor)
for
| > | comparison. These images are not full size because this was the quick
and
| > | easy way to post them, so you won't see all the subtleties, but you
should
| > at
| > | least get an idea of what I'm talking about.
| > |
| > | (Re some of the other posts: Haven't had a chance to look into
calibration
| > | yet, but I'm still thinking that my monitor as is may be
representative of
| > | others' monitors....)
| > |
| > | "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
| > |
| > | > If the image looks bad on your monitor and you make any adjustments
to
| > it
| > | > then they will look even worse on the web.
| > | >
| > | > Can you post a link to the unadjusted image so we can see it?
| > |
| >
| >
| >

 

[Paul M]

Yes I agree I like to photograph my work when the sky is overcast with light
cloud not rain clouds though
Paul M

 

[Artemisia]

Thank you all so much for taking the time to help me out. I think I know what
to do now:
-Calibrate my own monitor
-Don't worry about other people's calibrations
-Resize images in an image-editing program

Thanks again!