Are my images really a bit dark and high contrast?

Short version: Look at the pics below. Does the first look very high contrast with no color in the sky and mountain slopes or does the second look like it is lacking in contrast and really quite blue in the sky/mountain slopes? I know it's subjective, but I'm having a 'monitor calibration attack'.

Thanks.

Long version:

I guess so. But I'm in a bit of a quandary. I use a 17" laptop for editing (I know, not the best) with limited color control.

However, I got it matched to my printer, only my images looked way too low-contrast and a little bright when viewed on a variety on non-calibrated (but not way to bright as many people have them) monitors.

So I found that using the 'light' setting on my Pro9500 seemed to get everything to match reasonably well. So I thought, well it's a cheap printer, maybe not quite right. Also I'd get prints out OK when I sent them to a 3rd party though Wolf camera.

So anyway, recently I decided to try AdoramaPix with no color correction (I used their profile). So I did the shot below as a test 11x14 print and what I found it that it printed exactly like my printer does on 'normal' - i.e. the shadows seemed a bit too dark give a very high-contrast look.

Does that really mean all my images are really high contrast? I'm dubious, but if they are, knowing most people do not have calibrated monitors, should I care (I know most will say yes)? I'm inclined to think that the monitor just makes the dark tones appear lighter than in print. So I set 'light' on my printer and hey presto, it looks like my monitor and looks decent on at least most other monitors I've used. Also I did check the actual values of the pixels and the one that looks best on my monitor also gives what to me are more reasonable tonal values.

So in that vein I present two version of the same image. One printed very high contrast with little to no blue in the sky and mountain slopes, the other printed the way I wanted. Some color in the sky and mountain slopes and only really dark in the deepest shadows of the foreground trees/bushes and

On my monitor the second, however, looks a little lacking in contrast with some detail in the snowy peaks lost and a rather too-blue sky and mountain slopes.

Thoughts? Which PP looks 'better' to you - I know it is subjective.

more detail in the top one for sure.

Color calibrate the screen.....same as with a desktop monitor.

I like the first one better, for one the sky in the second one hasn't really been improved much that I can see.

What software are you using? For example, if you have color-channel specific tools for upping, say, the saturation of blue a bit and maybe lowering the luminosity of the blue channel a bit you could bring more "pop" out of the blue patches. And, in the second one, the lack of contrast tends to make the foreground, well, dull compared to the first one.

But, like I implied, the software tools you have can make a difference in "fine tuning" and image.

Also, did you shoot this using Raw or jpeg? I find that shooting such scenes in Raw can make a big difference in how successfully you can "enhance" an image.

As to shadows in your prints coming out darker than what you see on your monitor, well, that's pretty common. You can lighten the shadows in your post-processing assuming you have software that does this effectively without messing up the midtones...

Yes, that's how I see it (Dell U2311H, Firefox C.M. enabled, Spyder4 calibration), the top one is contrastier and more saturated. As for liking, my opinion is divided; I like the foreground in the top one but think the higher contrast has made the grey strip across the top too dark and caused the loss of local contrast and detail in the mountains, which is better in the bottom photo.

I like the bottom image best. Looking at the foreground, the top photo looks like the saturation is pushed up a notch too high. The sky in both seems mostly ok, but the dark band looks a bit too dark in the top photo. I can see a slight difference in the mountains between each photo, but think both look fine, differences are too small to really affect the photo.

Funny you mention using a laptop, I'm also using a laptop and have been wondering if I'm not getting a very good representation of my own junk. That also means I'm viewing your pictures on a laptop, so maybe my comments on them are not quite accurate either.

I vote for bottom. seems more "real"

Interesting, thanks for the feedback, appreciated. Interestingly after looking at the print for a bit I further lightened the dark band across the sky even before reading these comments.

I looked around at some web sites or pros, or people here how have indicated they work on a calibrated system, printed off a couple of images just to see how they would come out. Personally in all case I like the way they look on my monitor, but I would adjust the shadows quite a bit for print. I decided to change the gamma setting on my monitor a bit, but I don’t think I want to it look like the print (even if I can get it all the way there). Looking at values anything less than 35 (out of 255) seems to be essentially black. Even on a dark monitor I can see a lot of detail between 15-35.

I also think I know how to make the print files so they come out the way I like in print. I guess I'm still going to go by the impression that

1. darks on a monitor are always going to show a lot more detail and look brighter than they 'should' or will in print.
2. Every image prints a little ‘differently’ and I’m probably a bit too much of a perfectionist, which is why I bought a printer in the first place and would actually consider spending $2k on a printer for 10 large prints/year.

But bottom line is that I was happy I could easily reproduce AdoramaPix’s print on my printer. So I’m sure I have the profiles and everything set up and hopefully can easily proof what I send them.


This is the image I eventually sent (but converted from their print profile to sRGB).

Hey, it looks good to me, let us know the outcome!

The good news is prints are really pretty cheap, so not too big a deal to redo something. It's framing them that costs money.

I've periodically thought about getting a decent printer, but just can't justify the cost. Would be nice to be able to experiment and get just what you want though....