OK then what is underexposed

[Starsphinx]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

I am staying with a friend in Chippenham, near Bath in June - I could bring it and leave it with him if you still want it at that stage?

 

Kumar

Wow.   That is close lol.
If you are sure I would love to have it - but I would have to buy you a coffee when you are down if you have time.  I am in Chippenham a lot as I work with their youth squads.  If you have time I can maybe point you to a couple of hidden gems in the area.
Thank you so much for your generosity. 
 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Starsphinx

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Wow.   That is close lol.
If you are sure I would love to have it - but I would have to buy you a coffee when you are down if you have time.  I am in Chippenham a lot as I work with their youth squads.  If you have time I can maybe point you to a couple of hidden gems in the area.
Thank you so much for your generosity. 
 

I am there the weekend of 7th June though most of my time is taken up in an old college meeting in Bath; - speak nearer the time? - Unless by any chance you are going to the Photography Exhibition at the NEC Saturday of this weekend??

 

Kumar

Edited March 13, 2019 by Doc

[Starsphinx]

30 minutes ago, Doc said:

I am there the weekend of 7th June though most of my time is taken up in an old college meeting in Bath; - speak nearer the time? - Unless by any chance you are going to the Photography Exhibition at the NEC Saturday of this weekend??

 

Kumar

I would love to be going to the exhibition - but afraid not.

Certainly chat nearer the time.

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Starsphinx said:

I would love to be going to the exhibition - but afraid not.

Certainly chat nearer the time.

 

Will do -

[dlmphotog]

20 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

...and I am generally looking to get it so the peak of the curve is in the middle or slightly to the right without blowing highlights ...

 

The subject will determine how the histogram looks. Subjects with lots white like snow scenes will have the histogram on the far right. Dark subjects will have the histogram on the left , so always having the histogram "hump" in the middle will only "muddy" or underexpose the image.

 

Hope this helps,

[Reimar]

20 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

That looks OK to me.

 

Have you tried checking/adjusting the Gamma of your monitor? Take a look at the picture below.  Screw your eyes up so it goes a bit blurry and check which vertical bar disappears or is least visible. I believe you should be aiming for a Gamma of 2.2. I think Windows software allows gamma to be adjusted.

 

 

 

If your monitor is way off and can't be adjusted, then it's very difficult to offer advice (other than go and buy a monitor, and/or calibration device). The histogram will allow you to ensure your peak highlights and deepest shadows are sensible levels but, depending on the subject, the highlights, shadows and mid tones may need a tweak so they look "good" (i.e. the subject of the image has sensible lightness and contrast). Looking "good" is hard to assess if the monitor is way off. Some images (e.g.a snow scene) will have a histogram that shows a broad peak that is well to the right. But a bright yellow flower with darker foliage behind is likely to have a small narrow peak towards the right and a broader bump to the left.

 

Mark

That's a good try Mark.  I have a calibrated monitor (Dell 32" 4K).  But this test doesn't work for me.  Why?  Because with a 4K monitor I have to have my display setting at 150% to read text.  At 100% the test works fine (I'm at 2.2). 

All is guesswork without proper calibration, for both light output and color balance.  If you get Doc's Dell, buy borrow or steal a simple colorimeter device to calibrate it.  If Doc has a calibration profile saved for the display, a jump drive with this may be enough since I find older monitors can be quite stable.

[Starsphinx]

6 minutes ago, Reimar said:

That's a good try Mark.  I have a calibrated monitor (Dell 32" 4K).  But this test doesn't work for me.  Why?  Because with a 4K monitor I have to have my display setting at 150% to read text.  At 100% the test works fine (I'm at 2.2). 

All is guesswork without proper calibration, for both light output and color balance.  If you get Doc's Dell, buy borrow or steal a simple colorimeter device to calibrate it.  If Doc has a calibration profile saved for the display, a jump drive with this may be enough since I find older monitors can be quite stable.

Suffice to say none of the bars disappears for me possibly but only possibly 2.0 might become less visible.  

Then again I am useless at eye tests as well because most of the time whatever I am supposed to be comparing to say what is the clearest look the same amount of unclear lol.

[John Mitchell]

10 minutes ago, Reimar said:

That's a good try Mark.  I have a calibrated monitor (Dell 32" 4K).  But this test doesn't work for me.  Why?  Because with a 4K monitor I have to have my display setting at 150% to read text.  At 100% the test works fine (I'm at 2.2). 

All is guesswork without proper calibration, for both light output and color balance.  If you get Doc's Dell, buy borrow or steal a simple colorimeter device to calibrate it.  If Doc has a calibration profile saved for the display, a jump drive with this may be enough since I find older monitors can be quite stable.

 

This test doesn't work at all for me, and monitor is calibrated. 😦

[Reimar]

So, if you have your monitor set to 100%, the follow tests should help some:

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

[Reimar]

1 minute ago, John Mitchell said:

 

This test doesn't work at all for me, and monitor is calibrated. 😦

John, check your display setting (scale and layout in Win 10).  As I say, mine is calibrated too, but these tests, and the more detailed ones I pointed to, will not work at other than 100%, regardless of calibration.  Of course, if your display is calibrated, you don't need to worry about that.  This is only for those trying to go cheap and eyeball it.

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Reimar said:

So, if you have your monitor set to 100%, the follow tests should help some:

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

 

Thanks. This one works for me. I appear to be at 2.2

[John Mitchell]

16 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Suffice to say none of the bars disappears for me possibly but only possibly 2.0 might become less visible.  

Then again I am useless at eye tests as well because most of the time whatever I am supposed to be comparing to say what is the clearest look the same amount of unclear lol.

 

  If, like me, you're on a slim budget, this inexpensive calibrator works fine.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by John Mitchell

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, Reimar said:

So, if you have your monitor set to 100%, the follow tests should help some:

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

 

That's a very useful set of tests. If I apply my i1 Pro calibration profile I see a little gradient banding that isn't there if I apply the monitor standard profile. I'll perhaps try tweaking my monitor settings so the i1Pro profile needs to make less correction to see if that reduces the banding.  I'd been using the factory settings on my monitor (which are pretty close) and letting the i1 Pro profile do all the necessary correction.

 

Mark

Edited March 13, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Starsphinx]

I have just had more photos accepted - and I have tried my hardest to correct the underexposure issues with these.  Can anyone tell me if it would make any sense for photos on Alamy to look darker than they do in Lightroom?

[M.Chapman]

17 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I have just had more photos accepted - and I have tried my hardest to correct the underexposure issues with these.  Can anyone tell me if it would make any sense for photos on Alamy to look darker than they do in Lightroom?

 

They may appear to be darker on Alamy than they do in LR because of the background colour. On Alamy they appear with a white background, whereas you probably have your LR set to a dark background? So it's a bit of an optical illusion. However... Alamy's customers will be choosing images based on how they see them on a white background, an that is how most images are used/displayed. So it's important that they look good with a white background.

 

That being said, the above images look OK to me 🙂

 

Mark

[MDM]

35 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I have just had more photos accepted - and I have tried my hardest to correct the underexposure issues with these.  Can anyone tell me if it would make any sense for photos on Alamy to look darker than they do in Lightroom?
 

 

It could make sense but you would probably be more likely to see a colour change as Lightroom Develop Module is automatically colour managed whereas your browser probably isn't. It may also depend on how you export the JPEGs (sRGB, aRGB ). Using a TV for a monitor is far from ideal though. If you can afford £36 to buy a decent grey card  before you get Kumar's monitor, you could save yourself a lot of trouble - spot meter it in the scene, shoot in in the scene and use the eyedropper and exposure controls in Lightroom to take the uncertainty out of the process. It may not look right to you but it should be right in the file. 

 

However, Mark may have hit the nail on the head there - it might be an optical illusion.

Edited March 14, 2019 by MDM

[wiskerke]

Testing if your browser is color managed: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

The story is a bit dated, but the roll-over tests are still valid and simple.

 

wim

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

However, Mark may have hit the nail on the head there - it might be an optical illusion.

 

OP could try changing the background colour in LR to white to see if their perception changes, or try switching to soft proofing mode (click S) in LR. Potentially try having both LR and Alamy windows open at the same time, displaying the same image and take a screenshot and then compare both images side by side, using an eyedropper if necessary to sample the RGB of a neutral grey area. I tend to make my final adjustments in PS where I have set the working space to Adobe RGB so that the histogram remains consistent between editing and the saved image, I believe that soft proofing in LR can be used to achieve the same consistency.

 

This page may prove useful https://www.damiensymonds.net/color-space-settings-for-the-lightroom-user.html. Just set Adobe RGB or sRGB whichever is your choice.

 

Mark

Edited March 14, 2019 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

38 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

OP could try changing the background colour in LR to white to see if their perception changes, or try switching to soft proofing mode (click S) in LR. Potentially try having both LR and Alamy windows open at the same time, displaying the same image and take a screenshot and then compare both images side by side, using an eyedropper if necessary to sample the RGB of a neutral grey area. I tend to make my final adjustments in PS where I have set the working space to Adobe RGB so that the histogram remains consistent between editing and the saved image, I believe that soft proofing in LR can be used to achieve the same consistency.

 

Mark

 I think a lot of this may be moot until she gets a monitor, preferably hardware calibrated,  rather than a TV.  It is very difficult to choose a truly neutral grey area (colour neutral that is) which is why I like to have a grey card to hand, especially if shooting portraits. Looking at the top image above (RYFMHK) I think there is probably a strong yellow cast and blown out the highlights on the doll's head. The trick in LR I think is to set the WB and the mid-tone exposure first (grey card very handy for both) and then pull back the highlights if necessary (or push them out to white if necessary either) - also deal with the shadows of course. Then deal with mid-tone contrast and make local adjustments as required. It becomes easy with practice. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by MDM

[Starsphinx]

I do know I need a new monitor - I have done the best calibration I can with this screen but it still sucks.  My immediate concern is if the photos I just posted look OK to people.  If the 3 above are OK then I know where I am aiming - if the greens are horrible and they look all highlight blown, or still way too dark to everyone then I am just going to have to stop until I have got that monitor.  

[MDM]

12 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I do know I need a new monitor - I have done the best calibration I can with this screen but it still sucks.  My immediate concern is if the photos I just posted look OK to people.  If the 3 above are OK then I know where I am aiming - if the greens are horrible and they look all highlight blown, or still way too dark to everyone then I am just going to have to stop until I have got that monitor.  

 

They look ok in terms of brightness levels, certainly a lot better than many of your other pics. There are two things to be considered there though - camera exposure and Lightroom exposure levels and they can be impossible to distinguish without seeing the raw files. The reason I suggested you were underexposing some time back is that images with sky in them were darker on the main subjects than images with no sky suggesting that you were allowing sky to influence your exposures and thereby underexposing. Spot metering on a mid tone is the way to fix that (grey card is ideal but not essential).

[Starsphinx]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

They look ok in terms of brightness levels, certainly a lot better than many of your other pics. There are two things to be considered there though - camera exposure and Lightroom exposure levels and they can be impossible to distinguish without seeing the raw files. The reason I suggested you were underexposing some time back is that images with sky in them were darker on the main subjects than images with no sky suggesting that you were allowing sky to influence your exposures and thereby underexposing. Spot metering on a mid tone is the way to fix that (grey card is ideal but not essential).

Thank you.  I am guessing it is going to be about 75% processing 25% camera on my other images - and the 25% camera is related to the processing.  The 3 I have just put up look blown out on this monitor - the dolls head and the small columns around the top of the boating thing are white - I cannot see any detail in them.  I will have to see if I can grab some time on a calibrated monitor to look through stuff away from here.  
I know there are other things - I have a liking for dark and moody lol but I can train myself out of that.  I can go back to the camera and start again with the settings (hopefully tomorrow will be a nice dry non windy day).  I got into the habit of using centre metering with my first camera taking photos of swans - and getting a complete blow out lol.  Must start revising what situations to use what metering in.

Thank you for all your help.  

Edited March 14, 2019 by Starsphinx

[M.Chapman]

On 13/03/2019 at 18:47, Reimar said:

So, if you have your monitor set to 100%, the follow tests should help some:

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

 

That's proved a very useful set of test images. My monitor is calibrated with an i1Pro. But the "Gradient" test image revealed some slight banding which turned out to be due to the Look Up Table corrections in the monitor calibration profile created by my i1Pro. The "Black Level" test image also revealed that my i1Pro generated profile was slightly too contrasty causing some loss of shadow detail. So, in the end I just used my i1Pro to help adjust my monitor's WB and Gamma using the controls built into the monitor and stopped using the i1Pro profile. The test images also revealed differences in how sRGB and AdobeRGB render deep shadow detail (previously I thought changing profile only affected the colour gamut).

 

I also discovered that the Color Calibration App (built into Mac OSX System Preferences>Displays>Color) has a hidden "expert" mode. Hold down Alt (Option) key when clicking calibrate to allow adjustment of Gamma and tone at 5 different brightness levels. I was very surprised how effective this App is (much better than the Gamma test image at www.lagom.nl). In the end I didn't use the profile the App generated, but it was very useful for comparison purposes and would provide a good low cost alternative for those who might not have access to a calibration device.

 

Mark

  

Edited March 18, 2019 by M.Chapman

[Nigel Kirby]

It might also help using a grey card for exposure settings or you can take a reading from the back of your hand which is around 18%.

 

https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/how-to-use-a-gray-card-for-custom-white-balance-and-metering/

 

Nigel

[spacecadet]

2 hours ago, Nigel Kirby said:

It might also help using a grey card for exposure settings or you can take a reading from the back of your hand which is around 18%.

 

https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/how-to-use-a-gray-card-for-custom-white-balance-and-metering/

 

Nigel

White skin is usually a stop brighter than mid grey. Try it.

Edited March 18, 2019 by spacecadet