So I've had a calibrated monitor for a while that has, for the most part, corrected my colors. However, I've just realized the other day that the brightness of my monitor was more than twice what my Spyder calibrator recommended. At this point, I'm not sure how feasible it would be to go back and re-edit my entire portfolio at the correct brightness. It doesn't seem to be as simple as increasing the exposure, but rather, all of the tone curves need particular adjustments. Having said all this, I was hoping I could get some feedback on whether my current portfolio is okay, and I can just make sure my future images are edited with the right brightness, or whether I should go back and try to retouch all of my pictures.
I've included some of my images here in this thread; you can also look at my portfolio to see some others.
What do you think? Too dark, or okay?
Does not look dark too me. Looks fine.
Darkness or Lightness is an artistic quality that is subjective to the monitor and viewer. This are fine to me.
I think it’s fine
My suggestion from now on is to use the histogram when editing. Your monitor can be dark or bright, but the histogram doesn't care and will always show the distribution of tones in the image. When you get used to seeing what a normal histogram should look like, you'll be able to edit consistently no matter how your monitor is set. And all these images look fine to me.
Thanks for the recommendation. Generally my histogram has been a bit skewed towards the shaded side. Every time I attempted to correct it to be more central I hadn't liked the result, but that could have been because my monitor was so bright. I'll try that out from now on!
I’m not saying the subject of your photos should always generate a histogram with a similar shape as most of what you’ve posted would typically reflect a left-lumped histogram. But if you’re having trouble seeing where your shadows and highlights are and the monitor’s brightness seems to be skewing your perception, then the histogram is a good way to get an idea of what’s happening in the image.
You could ask, too dark for whom or what. It is subjective and also related to what you want to convey. Personally I think they are all really good images but yes they have a tendency to appear like they are at the shaded end of the scale - this could be related to the time of day? You could always experiment with subjects that require lighter tints to convey your thoughts and compare how they turn out. To reiterate, they are great images so light or dark is a matter of taste.
I think time of day has a bit to do with it. Most of my images come from sunrise, set, blue hour, or night, so there is generally less light available. Here is an image I shot in the middle of the day, and even edited with the monitor bright, the histogram was a lot more centralized than most of my others, which were skewed to the shadows. Thanks for the reply!
There you go. This is a great shot and a lot lighter.
Looks okay to me!
Hi Trevor. It looks ok to me. Carry on the good work
Looks Good. Its all about feel and little to do with Histrograms. Dont forget to add Darkness and Light to selective areas for impact. Its called Dodge and Burn !
On the screen, they're OK - but as prints, they might be like mine, too dark. Spyder made a big improvement when I got it but even so, the screen shows things differently than a print. Like cameras see differently than we do. For prints I've had to bump the brightness up. Stars are a Big Problem, on the monitor they're great, on paper they disappear.
This was mostly what I was concerned about. It's always a bit stressful sending off to print. I've used WHCC which has given me a test set. At the time I was mostly concerned with making sure the color was okay, looking at the test prints now though they definitely seem a bit dark.
My experience with prints, is that they often are darker than the picture on the screen. Thats because the screen presents pictures with light and not printed colours.
I therefor often lighten up pictures a little before I send them to print, but its important to preserve contrast in the lightening prosess.
But its often best to se to that there is enough light where the pictures is mounted.
I'd describe the images as having plenty of rich dark tones, Trevor, but with shadow detail preserved, it looks like a perfectly fine stylistic choice. No need to brighten any in my view - in fact, I might prefer the originals. It'll be interesting to see what happens when you start posting after adjusting your monitor.
Thanks for the feedback!
I see a mismatch between what I produce and what I see in the net when I post it - will give displaycal a go.
They look great to me. The only one I see that looks a bit dark is number 3, but it could be that is how you want it trying to highlight the sun ray. I think a good question is just to ask yourself if they feel to dark as you view them now after you adjusted the monitor. If it bothers you, then re-edit. If not, it looks like several of us think they look great they way they are so don't bother.
Im biased because I tend to prefer - and shoot -pretty dark images but I think yours are perfectly fine. As I see it, beyond the point at which the photos are legible, brightness is up to one's personal taste, and I find yours to be absolutely gorgeous.
For me the picture represent the light condition when the picture is taken. I don't think your pictures are to dark. They seem to give a good representation of the scene and the light.