to calibrate or not to calibrate display for web posting?

[Paratom]

Since I got back in more printing and have a newer Macbook Pro I also profile the Macbook.
The difference is quite visible and leads to a warmer white/display when using the calibrated profile.
Now: I fully understand this makes sense to calibrate my Eizo when preparing images for print.
And in one way it would mae sense to calibrate my Macbook so images look the same.
But then I think: Most Ipads and monitors of my friends and people who might look on my images on a computer are not calibrated.
If I process all images that they look good on my calibrated screen they might look too cold on displays of other people who dont calibrated.

So how do you handle this????
Now I think maybe just calibrated my monitor I use for printing but not my Macbook.

 

[Godfrey]

I have calibrated and profiled all my displays since 2004, and always post images with embedded color display profiles (sRGB). Yes, there is some variation in how photos will look on uncalibrated displays, but there's literally nothing you can do about that. At least if you render your work with a calibrated display and offer your photos tagged with a proper display profile, it has a chance of representing what you had in mind.

Some things simply aren't worth sweating over too much.

G

 

[Paratom]

I have calibrated and profiled all my displays since 2004, and always post images with embedded color display profiles (sRGB). Yes, there is some variation in how photos will look on uncalibrated displays, but there's literally nothing you can do about that. At least if you render your work with a calibrated display and offer your photos tagged with a proper display profile, it has a chance of representing what you had in mind.

Some things simply aren't worth sweating over too much.

G

Thanks Godfrey. I also ran the calibration another time and the Profile I got now seems too look better. I think I had too strong light in my room before.

 

[JohnW]

This is a particular issue in the PC world, where monitor factory defaults are often too bright. I guess they are trying to impress customers with their brilliance.

Sometimes I share my web site or tumblr with people and am aghast to see how they are viewing them. Dell is known to set its monitors too bright. The company I'm contracting at now has standardized on NEC and they are also way too bright. I expect in the Apple world things are a lot better.

I still think we have no choice but to calibrate to industry standard, even if only for printing. It's unfortunate that some OEMs don't do the same. Especailly since only a tiny fraction of the public even knows what calibration is.

John

 

[Paratom]

This is a particular issue in the PC world, where monitor factory defaults are often too bright. I guess they are trying to impress customers with their brilliance.

Sometimes I share my web site or tumblr with people and am aghast to see how they are viewing them. Dell is known to set its monitors too bright. The company I'm contracting at now has standardized on NEC and they are also way too bright. I expect in the Apple world things are a lot better.

I still think we have no choice but to calibrate to industry standard, even if only for printing. It's unfortunate that some OEMs don't do the same. Especailly since only a tiny fraction of the public even knows what calibration is.

John

My feeling also apple standard is tuned on the cold side and with too much contrast. So if I will postprocess on a calibrated screen the images will probably look too contrasty and way too cold on an uncalibrated apple display.

 

[Godfrey]

My feeling also apple standard is tuned on the cold side and with too much contrast. So if I will postprocess on a calibrated screen the images will probably look too contrasty and way too cold on an uncalibrated apple display.

Some years ago, Apple switched from their older 1.8 gamma, 6000K white point to 2.2 gamma, 6500K white point. I think this had to do with trying to be as close as possible to the native gamma and white point of current LCD screens so that adjustment configuration has the best available range. (After all, the older 1.8 gamma/5600K white point was in response to the fact that graphics adapters and displays in the late '90s did not have the range of adjustability needed to properly model printer output, so they split the difference which allowed some adjustment of monitor and other adjustment in the graphics adapter to give a larger range and model printer output properly.)

Modern hardware can accommodate a good deal more adjustment range than the equipment available when all these standards were defined. But I find the current standard gamma and white point a bit too contrasty and too cool for my taste as well, and it means more adjustment when I'm editing my photos to be printed.

So I just calibrate to targets that I find more pleasing in their unmodified state: 1.8 gamma, 5600°K white point, and 110 CDm^2 luminance for my office, which is average warm-white illumination. I find this nets near perfect fidelity output to the Epson R2400 and P600 with their color-managed profiles, and the tagged files display well on most systems. For instance, when I view my photos on the AppleTV to my Samsung television screen, the contrast and saturation is a bit hot compared to my computer display, but it's not objectionable.

As I said before, there's no perfect setup as long as there are many in the world who run uncalibrated displays (and non-adjustable displays ...!). A reasonable compromise is all you can achieve, and some bits will fall to the floor no matter what.

G

 

[JohnW]

On top of this is the way different browsers render, although that consistency has really improved.

And then there's this little online annoyance: I always process and display my photos on a white background. It's amazing how different they can look on a black or dark forum background. Sometimes I won't post a photo because it just doesn't look right in that context.

I guess the print remains king for sharing photos.

John

 

[Godfrey]

On top of this is the way different browsers render, although that consistency has really improved.

And then there's this little online annoyance: I always process and display my photos on a white background. It's amazing how different they can look on a black or dark forum background. Sometimes I won't post a photo because it just doesn't look right in that context.

I guess the print remains king for sharing photos.

One of the reasons I have used surrounds and edge trim is to get around that problem. Getting the balance right ... not taking up too much display space while allowing the photo to work well regardless of background window color, has been tricky (and is always a compromise as well, like everything else) but I'm happy with my current white 'mat' and 'thin but rough' border treatment ... It seems to look okay (to my eye) everywhere I post it.

G

 

[JohnW]

Yeah, I assumed that's why you do it. I use Flickr as my forum post repository and the wide borders don't work well there. I post on multiple forums sometimes and don't want different versions, so I live with it.

I once tried to figure out if BBCode could add a border. Then I could do what's needed on any forum. But if there's a way, I could not find it. Now, if HTML were enabled....

John

 

[Lars]

With more mobile devices in use these days, a large part of new displays are IPS or MVA displays made to approximate sRGB.
So target sRGB, make sure what you see on your screen is accurate - that's all you can do, really.