Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 12 Jun 2012 (Tuesday) 22:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Images processed on a MAC look washed out on PC

 
pixel_junkie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:02 |  #1

Hi guys, first of all, I have a monster 27" Mac computer. I have a really nice PC at work. When I edit photos on the PC, the images look awesome. When I edit them on my MAC, they look good on it, and then when I move to the PC, I see they are too bright and with not enough contrast. Have any of you had this problem?


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imjason
Goldmember
1,667 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:10 |  #2

different monitor calibration? that is my guess


Canon gear: EOS M, Canonet QL17, SX230HS, S95, SD1200IS
Non-Canon gear: D600, D5000, D70, XG-2, U20
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
20,051 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 5572
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:20 |  #3

Sounds like one of the two systems isn't color managed properly, to me. How do images edited on the PC look when viewed on the Mac?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (R5, RF 800 f/11, Canon 16-35 F/4 MkII, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:27 |  #4

Snydremark wrote in post #14571323 (external link)
Sounds like one of the two systems isn't color managed properly, to me. How do images edited on the PC look when viewed on the Mac?

Richer color, definitely more contrast, the shadows are deeper, can't see as much detail in them, a little darker in the shadows areas but overall balanced and beautiful. MAC on PC look too bright, not enough contrast, not enough color, flat even.


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
20,051 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 5572
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:30 |  #5

Actually sort of sounds like both systems could use calibration. Look into one of the various colorimeters (Eye 1, etc) which ought to work for both systems; I'm sure others with better knowledge can chime in here.

For our edification, can you post one image edited from each system for us to see?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (R5, RF 800 f/11, Canon 16-35 F/4 MkII, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lecherro
Senior Member
809 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Garland, Texas (Outside Dallas)
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:35 |  #6

I would say get rid of the PC and your troubles are over..... Then the un sar castic side of me agrees with the guys above that they both need to be calibrated. I think the best one out there at the moment is the Spyder 3...????? Anyone???


First step........ Take the lens cap off.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:37 |  #7

Snydremark wrote in post #14571366 (external link)
Actually sort of sounds like both systems could use calibration. Look into one of the various colorimeters (Eye 1, etc) which ought to work for both systems; I'm sure others with better knowledge can chime in here.

For our edification, can you post one image edited from each system for us to see?

Good idea... I'll post both in a minute.


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 22:42 as a reply to  @ pixel_junkie's post |  #8

For the guys who are on PC, which one would you say looks better?

http://farm8.staticfli​ckr.com …67558050_64c4f4​13a3_o.jpg (external link)
test (external link) by PIXEL+JUNKIE (external link), on Flickr


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
20,051 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 5572
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jun 12, 2012 23:02 |  #9

The one on the right looks better to me, although maybe a *tad* bright. The color gradients in the sky show up better, the detail in the trees isn't blocked up in shadows and it's, overall, more colorful.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (R5, RF 800 f/11, Canon 16-35 F/4 MkII, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 23:05 |  #10

Snydremark wrote in post #14571496 (external link)
The one on the right looks better to me, although maybe a *tad* bright. The color gradients in the sky show up better, the detail in the trees isn't blocked up in shadows and it's, overall, more colorful.

Are you on PC?


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
20,051 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 5572
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jun 12, 2012 23:08 |  #11

pixel_junkie wrote in post #14571504 (external link)
Are you on PC?

PC; color calibrated, Dell U3011 30" screen


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (R5, RF 800 f/11, Canon 16-35 F/4 MkII, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,013 posts
Likes: 143
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Jun 12, 2012 23:17 as a reply to  @ Snydremark's post |  #12

^ Thanks for your help! Maybe I'll pick upo a monitor calibration tool (let the search begin for the best one now) although thats why I got this mac, I was told that the monitors are pre calibrated, no need. But I'm not happy with the look of my images ...


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jun 13, 2012 00:32 |  #13

Although some calibrators do assist you in adjusting Brightness on your monitor, you really don't need a calibrator for that, and even if you do calibrate, you still want to run the "acid test" of having test prints made with a lab that does not "auto-correct".

For now, one thing you can do is lower the Brightness of your PC monitor to match that of the Mac when viewing the same pic. Then, I'd advise having a few prints made -- if you have a nearby Costco they have a good reputation and good quality for this type of thing. Tell Costco to turn off the auto-correction.

Then, compare the prints in good light to what you see in your monitors. It should be a good "frame of reference".


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 178
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Jun 13, 2012 00:40 |  #14

Quite possible the PC is calibrated to a Gamma of 2.2 while the Mac is at 1.8

That coud explain the different "density" you're seeing.


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jun 13, 2012 00:49 |  #15

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14571763 (external link)
Quite possible the PC is calibrated to a Gamma of 2.2 while the Mac is at 1.8

That coud explain the different "density" you're seeing.

Definitely another thing to check!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

4,280 views & 0 likes for this thread, 12 members have posted to it.
Images processed on a MAC look washed out on PC
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is griggt
651 guests, 124 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.