Camera Labs

I recently switched monitors, this has resulted in my images looking very over-exposed on the new LED.
The following photos are examples of how I saw the same photo at it's optimum settings when viewed on the 2 different monitors.

- The 1st one is on an older CRT Viewsonic.
- The 2nd one is on a new LED Gateway (photo adjusted .58 levels).

Please let me know what needs to be corrected based on the 2nd LED view, and if it's over/under exposed. Also what type of monitor are you seeing it on.
Thanks

On my monitor, I prefer the 1st one. The 2nd one is too dark. Everything disappears into the shadows, and the clouds are over gloomy. I think the dog post in the other thread was on the dark side too, but that was ok and I had assumed you were going for that look.

Is your monitor turned right up in brightness? I did find when I switched to my current monitor the defaults were set way above any other monitor I had.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

That's just it, the LED which I assume views the same as an LCD is really bright, I turned my down to 20, it came at 80.
The Dog photo isn't dark on my screen, I can actually see the sand/shells, red ball in his mouth, and even a small area that I cloned out.

1st one looks just right on my quickly calibrated 27" IPS panel, for what it's worth.

Also, consider the histogram if you're unsure

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Here’s another one. The first one is how I saw it at its optimum setting on the CRT, and the second photo shows haw I had to adjust it to show the same optimum view on the LED (.65 levels)

I'm seeing both the same result on my iPad and my Laptop, the first one is fine but the second appears underexposed enough to lose all the shadow detail in the push chair and everything else in the same range.

I mentioned the histogram in the other post so if the image looks dark and the histogram is swung to the left it is underexposed but if it's nice and balanced and still looks darker than you think it should be it could be that your monitor needs calibrating. Even if it's a new out of the box monitor i'd still make sure it's calibrated properly, have you had a go?

_________________
"I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order" - Eric Morecambe
________________________________________
D7000 and too many lenses.

"Also, consider the histogram if you're unsure"

That's what I'm doing. In order for the photo to look the same on the LED as it did on the CRT, I had to lower the levels by .58 on the 1st one (fair) and .65 on the second photo (bird)

"Even if it's a new out of the box monitor i'd still make sure it's calibrated properly, have you had a go?"

No not yet, but the general consensus seems to be that the LED is under exposing by about .60 on the level scale.

This site will give you a good idea if it needs adjusting and will help if you haven't got a calibration tool in your OS

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

_________________
"I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order" - Eric Morecambe
________________________________________
D7000 and too many lenses.

Thanks, I will do that tonight when there isn't as much light in the room, but I can see already that I'm going to fail the Black level and White saturation test.

My monitor is not calibrated (24" Acer LCD) and I had a look at the calibration link from JK above and it looks extremely close to good. To me the 1st one at the fair is better except the photo looks flat, no saturation. The 1st duck shot is ok for me and the 2nd under exposed.

Your postings have always been good, any chance of putting the old and new monitor side by side and make adjustments on the new one or look at JK's suggestion. It also helps to show the same size image for comparison.

Many have calibrated monitors but how many people have taken an online eye colour test? Heard a comment, Edison approved all music recordings although he was near deaf.


Cheers

_________________
Nikon D7000, D40X, Nikkor 18- 200 VR II, f3.5-5.6, 70-300 AF non VR, Kit Lenses.

On my main monitor the first pictures look better, the second ones under exposed. Not much, just a little bit.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III + Canon EOS 33v
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

The Gateway LED failed the calibration test with a F-

During the black level test I couldn't see box 1 and 2, and 3 just barely.
White saturation test, couldn't see anything at 250 or greater.

* the monitor was properly set up at recommended native settings and resolution set accordingly with the PC.
Unfortunately, the monitor is lacking in manual controls that would fix this "washed out" look, leading to you guys seeing underexposed photos as I try and compensate for the monitor's overexposure flaw.

Anyway I got %$^$&* and traded in the Gateway for a pricier LG Flatron LED.
Just looking over the manual, now I have everything; Gamma adjustments, white balance controls, black level and color temperature, that the last monitor did not.

Looks like I'm all good again, thanks for the input everyone .

You've done the right thing, if it doesn't meet the basic requirements of adjustment like brightness and contrast it's not even fit for my mums Internet browsing.

_________________
"I'm playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order" - Eric Morecambe
________________________________________
D7000 and too many lenses.

well i like the second crane image better, because the eye is not so overexposed (and black head is black)

but i cant tell because i havent seen a crane in real life, maybe it has a dark gray colour.

it seems little underexposed, but it would be ok for me.

_________________
I'm new to DSLR's, so please be patient and take my opinions with reserve. Thank you : ) Yes, i am Canon man.
Google + My picasa photos My 500px album
Canon 60D + 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS, Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS II, Canon 430EXII, polarizing filter 72mm,
Canon AT-1, 50mm FD F1.8
Canon A430,