Posted by Taylor Reed on March 30, 2012 at 11:38 AM
How many of you adjust and optimize files for web viewing rather than simply downsizing the same file you use for print? Because so many folks use uncalibrated monitors with ungodly brightness levels I was thinking of lowering the brightness of my web files so that what the average person sees might be closer to what they see if they buy a print. Any thoughts on this?
Posted by Richard Ditch on March 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM
That sounds like a loose-loose proposition to me.
1. you are only guessing at what "the average person sees" and have no way of knowing what the average monitor brightness setting might be.
2. you could make the problem worse instead of better.
3. you will be mis-representing your images to anyone who has a properly calibrated monitor.
Posted by Taylor Reed on March 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM
True. Though that's also assuming my client is going to have proper lighting for the print to match the calibrated monitor rather than being hung in a poorly lit room or office, which has been the case 100% of the time so far to my knowledge.
I agree with Richard. There are so many variables involved it would likely be a SWAG scenario.
If prints are your preferred output, you should optimize your processing to that end. That's what I do. My web posted images tend to look a bit brighter, a bit warmer and with slightly higher contrast because I process my images for print. I also print with Adobe RGB embedded, while web images are sRGB, so there is still another cause for differences.
Honestly, it would make me crazy trying to make web images look a print, and vice versa, so I don't really worry about it.
I would just reiterate what Preston and Richard said with some of my own methods. The variables are too many to predict what your potential customers will see, let alone be impressed with. But I save all web-based images to the sRGB color space and have Lightroom perform output sharpening that is intended for a display, rather than a print.
I calibrate my monitor (brighter monitor) for web (because most have a brighter monitor these days) to certain standards (Gamma 2.2, 120-130 candelas - brightness, and 6500 white point). For fine art printing (because they turn out so much darker) I darken my monitor substantially, and THEN calibrate it to the native brightness (darker). As long as I have a really good profile (I do fuji FLEX prints off a Lightjet, Chromira or Lambda) and I soft proof in Photoshop I get great results. I do this full time for my post production clients (landscape gallery) and have been able to work out the bugs over the years. So in a word, I do web presentation images separately than print. They are two entirely different beasts!
Discussion
5 replies1. you are only guessing at what "the average person sees" and have no way of knowing what the average monitor brightness setting might be.
2. you could make the problem worse instead of better.
3. you will be mis-representing your images to anyone who has a properly calibrated monitor.
If prints are your preferred output, you should optimize your processing to that end. That's what I do. My web posted images tend to look a bit brighter, a bit warmer and with slightly higher contrast because I process my images for print. I also print with Adobe RGB embedded, while web images are sRGB, so there is still another cause for differences.
Honestly, it would make me crazy trying to make web images look a print, and vice versa, so I don't really worry about it.
--P
ME