Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've noticed when profiling (I use a CRT, which seems to show less grain in B&W scans, more like what will come out on the print), there are different suggested luminance (term?) levels for CRT's and LCD's. So is this image highlights disparity likely to persist even on well calibrated LCD's vs. well calibrated CRT's? Scott pswango@att.net wrote: >Don Dory wrote: >"But then again, I have been trying to find just where zone IX turns >into zone X as displayed on the web. I think that there is a cultural >divide coming from those of us still using CRT's and almost everyone >else using LCD displays. My feeling is that the greater brightness of >the LCD is changing what is acceptable in the electronic community." > >I've wondered the same thing. I use LCD on a newish laptop. A lot of the >images posted to the LUG seem (to me) to have blown highlights. Even those >from obviously competent photographers, like Don and BD. Some others >(Nathan, GeeBee, Doug Herr come to mind) usually look "right" on my screen. > Now I'm wondering how my post-processing looks to others. Maybe some of >you could take a look at http://pswango.smugmug.com/ and let me know what >you think. One gallery is recent color stuff from a trip to DC and the >other two are B/W galleries from the distant past that have already been >discussed here. All the color is from Walgreen scans; all the B/W is >scanned from negatives on an Epson 3170. The color was tweaked slightly >for curves in Picasa2, taking care to avoid blown highlights. I'm >wondering how it looks on other monitors. > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >