 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007What does your monitor show you?
I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. Please indicate a whether you can read the text in each of the following: Dark image sample: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original Light image sample: http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original This becomes significant when discussing some aspets of photos that are shared here. Thanks for you input...and...no cheating! :) Mark  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dark image sample: > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original Yes > Light image sample: > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original No > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mark Well, I can read the dark one, but not the bright one. But, looking at them in Photoshop, I see the writing gray level in the dark one is 16/255 (on a background of 0/255). The bright one has a background level of 255/255, but the writing is at about 253/255, too close to see. If I make the writing level 248/255, I can read it. If your monitor shows the bright writing without adjustment, I would imagine your gamma is set wrongly. On the 32-step grayscale chart I use, the first step above black is 8/255, and the last step below white is 247/255, i.e. 8 units in from either end. Both are discernible on my monitor. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Colin D. I didn't create the dark one, rather left it as it was posted by (I think) Scott. Could have gone darker on that one and still see it. Here's a new dark sample, with 8,8,8 and 4,4,4 setting on the text in two different positions. In photoshop I can see both...In Firefox, I can barely see the 8,8,8 text, but not the 4,4,4 SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mark I'm with the other replies. The bright image has not enough difference to read the text - although I can see something is there - at 253/253/253 against a white background. Also, when you do a levels adjustment to "cheat" you can see that the text is degraded badly by jpeg compression (not that I think I'd have been able to read it anyway). (PNG is better for that type of image). I'm using a calibrated CRT with Diamondtron Aperture Grille tube. I use the following image as a quick check of calibration / gamma - and keep it on my website so that when I see how crappy my pictures can look on someone else's LCD I can convince myself that it's their display, not some big mistake I made in editing images on my site. http://i13.tinypic.com/4hvgeux.png >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > some big mistake I made in editing images on my site. > http://i13.tinypic.com/4hvgeux.png I take that back - I can read text on light image and dark image, but have to look very closely to read text on the light image. >>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I take that back - I can read text on light image and dark image, but > have to look very closely to read text on the light image. That's similar to me. The dark text was set to a higher difference, and is easier to see. How about this dark one, set to 8,8,8...and even a 4,4,4 (I can only see the 444 in Photoshop, but see 888 and 253,253,253 in Firefox). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > How about this dark one, set to 8,8,8...and even a 4,4,4 (I can only > see the 444 in Photoshop, but see 888 and 253,253,253 in Firefox). Oops. Here the 888, 444 one: http://upload.pbase.com/image/76631423/original SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>>>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Oops. Here the 888, 444 one: > http://upload.pbase.com/image/76631423/original Right - now this time perhaps I've got it right. No - I can't read the 4,4,4 in Firefox or IE, but I can read the 8,8,8. (jeesh - you made me close the curtains - perhaps at midnight I'd see the 4,4,4) This time I open in PS and allow PS to convert sRGB to aRGB, and I this time can read both. (unlike my mistake in the other thread) BUT if I screen capture the image displayed in PS, the 4,4,4 has become 9,9,9, the 8,8,8 has become 16,16,16! Adobe is tricking us! If I convert the aRGB image displayed back to sRGB and save the image, then the 4,4,4 and 8,8,8 revert to their original rgb values. I can assume from this that the *same* image converted to either sRGB or aRGB will show a slightly different gamma when saved with embedded aRGB profile, and viewed in Adobe applications. Curious. There's the screen capture: http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png > There's the screen capture: > http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png Perhaps a limiting factor applied to screen-capture image data(?). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> There's the screen capture: >> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png > > Perhaps a limiting factor applied to screen-capture image data(?). No - The screen capture is capturing actual displayed pixels, and side by side with the image viewed in PS, the captured image looks identical. : > There's the screen capture: : > http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png : : Perhaps a limiting factor applied to screen-capture image data(?). If you want the absolutely best information about RGB and it's many variations, I suggest you try this: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCheckerRGB.html If you want information about how other people see your images and how to "generalize" them for public viewing, See: http://www.normankoren.com You can also obtain accurate colour and gamma samples. I myself use a set of Macbeth charts especially created for the several RGB profiles I use. My home PC monitor varies a point or two in several colours with Photoshop but Photoshop is not what Internet viewers use to see images. Internet Explorer is reputed NOT to have any colour management. Images you see are true to the sRGB colourspace. Sea Monkey and the other Mozilla derivates show images differently so they must have some form of colour management. Then again, Linux systems using Firefox show differently than windows systems. As long as commercial interests are involved, there will never be a world wide standard for Internet imaging. Some people will always see a picture differently than you. I understand exactly what you are on about Mark but as you'll discover when you're done... You have no better solution than me or anyone else. Colour balance and colour calibration is subjective to a particular system. Move the images to another system and they may or may not look the same. Douglas >>> There's the screen capture: >>> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Douglas On the other hand...most here have been able to see the dark image text... Since you could not (unless you've since adjusted your monitor), that would indicate why some of your observations regarding on-line images were a bit off the mark. How you respond here is key, Doug. You COULD respond objectively. I hope you will. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson : > I understand exactly what you are on about Mark but as you'll : > discover when you're done... You have no better solution than me or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : off the mark. How you respond here is key, Doug. You COULD respond : objectively. I hope you will. OK ...so I totally f.cked up my perfectly calibrated system by introducing a new (Horribly expensive and totally unwanted and unnecessary) monitor to one of my work stations which drove my digital enlarger. So much of a total trash job did I do on the calibration in search of your stupid f.cking images I just had to pay the roving tech $300 to come and put it all back the way he had it in the first place and put up with his bloody condescending remarks about you and your f.cking bullshit. Get the f.ck out of my space Morgan. IF you can't see my images, that's your problem. >>> I understand exactly what you are on about Mark but as you'll >>> discover when you're done... You have no better solution than me or [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > bullshit. Get the f.ck out of my space Morgan. IF you can't see my > images, that's your problem. ???? What on Earth are you talking about? Anyone know what Doug is talking about here? Wow. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> I understand exactly what you are on about Mark but as you'll >>>> discover when you're done... You have no better solution than me or [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Anyone know what Doug is talking about here? > Wow. Wow x 2. Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky > There's the screen capture: > http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png And if you select "discard the embedded profile" (don't colour manage)then it displays "correctly" with original 4,4,4 and 8,8,8 the same as my web browsers. What I don't understand is that if you select to "use the embedded profile" which is sRGB, then PS still displays the 4,4,4 as 9,9,9. >> There's the screen capture: >> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What I don't understand is that if you select to "use the embedded > profile" which is sRGB, then PS still displays the 4,4,4 as 9,9,9. Hmmm... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> There's the screen capture: >>> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hmmm... Yeah - my thoughts exactly. I wonder if there's something wrong with my settings in PS. It does have potential to impact on adjustments for printed images, and in a way that I don't like - compression of shadow detail. Yet I'm extremely happy (perhaps I could be even happier?) with the consistency of shadow detail displayed in soft-proofing and what the printer actually spits out, so unless there's an explanation for why what I've seen above can be, I think I'll avoid tampering for now. >>>> There's the screen capture: >>>> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > there's an explanation for why what I've seen above can be, I think > I'll avoid tampering for now. I doubt one would be able to discern the difference in the print anyway...but at SOME point on the scale, the issue could become a visible factor. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>> There's the screen capture: >>>>> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > anyway...but at SOME point on the scale, the issue could become a visible > factor. This really is quite curious. I took my gradient and saved in sRGB colourspace with no embedded profile. Opening this in PS, and you get the option to "Assign Profile" and then can check "and then convert document to working RGB" which is by default Adobe RGB. No problems with that - and if you don't check the "convert" box, then it's displayed "correctly" - the same as any non colour-aware application. But, if I assign sRGB profile and save the image, then I get when opening the option to convert (to aRGB), leave as sRGB, or not colour manage. The working space is of course aRGB, but I didn't expect to see that an sRGB image displayed "converted" to aRGB would appear differently. One screen capture of one over the other is here: http://i13.tinypic.com/4bomgbc.jpg (the bottom is how it "should" be, the top is how PS displays it) So, I had always thought that embedding an sRGB profile in PS was the "correct" thing to do when saving images for the web. But, if you're using PS to edit them, then that may not be the case unless you open the image with the embedded sRGB in PS and specificy to "not colour manage" - as otherwise PS doesn't look like it will display images the same as most (almost all) web browsers. I don't have a Mac with OSX and safari handy to see how that handles things... >>>>>> There's the screen capture: >>>>>> http://i3.tinypic.com/33wu0bq.png [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > most (almost all) web browsers. I don't have a Mac with OSX and safari > handy to see how that handles things... Concluding, then using aRGB as working space for editing images that will be converted and saved in sRGB for web display isn't the best. Perhaps if saving images for the web is what you use PS for, then simply changing the Color Settings Working Space from (default) aRGB to sRGB is the best way to avoid those (unexpected by me) complications identified above. I can read the text in the dark sample, but not the light. > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mark On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. On my unadjusted MacBook Pro laptop screen I can read both screens, just barely, if I am looking straight at the screen. I can't read it if looking at the screen from any sort of an angle. > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Light image sample: > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original I can easily read the dark on this uncalibrated laptop. If I tip the laptop screen to about 85 degrees rather than straight on 90 degrees I can read the light one. Greg SignatureThe ticketbastard Tax Tracker: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html Dethink to survive - Mclusky > ... > Please indicate a whether you can read the text in each of the following: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original > ... I can easily see the dark one. With the light one firstly it looked as if there's noting there, but after looking really hard for a couple of seconds (no, no cheating of any kind) I was able to make out the "What is" part and gave up. >> ... >> Please indicate a whether you can read the text in each of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seconds (no, no cheating of any kind) I was able to make out the "What > is" part and gave up. That's about right, actually. It should be very hard to see... How about this one: http://upload.pbase.com/image/76631423/original SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Dark: easy White: just barely with PSE Monitor 19" Sony LCD adjusted with Pantone's HUEY > Dark: easy > White: just barely with PSE > Monitor 19" Sony LCD adjusted with Pantone's HUEY The dark one should have been fairly easy. Here's a tougher one to try: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76631423/original There are two lines of text. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> Dark: easy >> White: just barely with PSE [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76631423/original > There are two lines of text. The 8 8 8 OK The other just a hint that something's there. Nice tests! > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. > Please indicate a whether you can read the text in each of the following: > Dark image sample: > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original Clearly. > Light image sample: > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original There is something ... > This becomes significant when discussing some aspets of photos that are > shared here. ... but then my monitor(s) are calibrated. -Wolfgang >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -Wolfgang Your results are what you should see with your calibrated monitor. The dark frame is widely viewable. Here's a tougher one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76631423/original SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This becomes significant when discussing some aspets of photos that are > shared here. Yes and yes. Samsung 191T > Thanks for you input...and...no cheating! :) Well, I could see the dark one but to actually read the text I had to slightly tip the screen. I have learned to do that from time to time when working with Photoshop. > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mark I can read both of them, no problem. The light image shows less contrast and is a bit harder to see. Apple 23" Cinema Display, 1900 x 1200, calibrated with Apple's Display Calibrator Assistant. SignatureOne is always considered mad when one perfects something that others can not grasp. - Ed Wood So Mark, seems you owe us some statistics. >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and is a bit harder to see. Apple 23" Cinema Display, 1900 x 1200, > calibrated with Apple's Display Calibrator Assistant. That is further verification of what I've seen with those darned expensive Apple Cinema displays - they are extremely good. Even the Imac 23 screens seem great - my wife want me to dump my PC, all my cables and bulky CRT and get one as a "decor item", and I'm running out of arguments to resist. > >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cables and bulky CRT and get one as a "decor item", and I'm running out > of arguments to resist. Same as drugs, just say NO! >>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cables and bulky CRT and get one as a "decor item", and I'm running > out of arguments to resist. They are definitely nice looking screens, but they really aren't considered the best in terms of consistency of color/brightness across the screen... The key there, like with ANY screen, is calibration. Calibration won't deal with inconsistency in the corners, etc., but it will make the best of whatever screen you have. Right now I just plunked a relatively cheap (for its size) 24" LCD on my system running at 1920x1200, and after calibration, it shows even more than my little test. Before calibration, it was super bright (factory defaults seem to always try and snag viewers with high brighness and super high contrast), but couldn't see the dark text at all. Even after calibration, it isn't quite as good as my 20" Viewsonic LCD. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > brighness and super high contrast), but couldn't see the dark text at all. > Even after calibration, it isn't quite as good as my 20" Viewsonic LCD. I have this image: http://i13.tinypic.com/4hvgeux.png on my website. For sure it's not as critical as the test images that you posted, but handy for me to access when looking at screens on display at computer stores that were connected to the www. I was pretty impressed with the Imacs - with all other LCDs sold as "bundles" with OEM windows PCs, the shift in gamma with change in horizontal or vertical viewing angle was horrible. The Imacs were very good. (But the basic non "pro" Macbooks were truly terrible) The store didn't have a 23" Cinema display connected, only a 30". It made me think that it would almost be worth redesigning my office to accommodate it. I know that you can get far better displays for PCs than ship with standard - even high-end "bundles", but where I am they're seldom set up on display in a situation where you can check them out properly, and I'm loathe to trust reviews, as the manufacturers seem to change model name designations and possibly their source for the panels for the same model as the wind changes. >>>>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>>>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > manufacturers seem to change model name designations and possibly > their source for the panels for the same model as the wind changes. Depending on how much you want to spend...there are definitely LCDs that will deliver the goods...even if you don't see them in person. If you're willing to spend about $1600, a couple offerings from Lacie and NEC (essentially the same 21" screen) are as good as it gets, shy of spending about $4K or more. You're right about monitors displayed in stores. Half the time, they aren't even being fed video at their native resolution(!!) so they look like utter crap. Even when they are, you have no control over what card, video settings, gamma settings, etc. are being thrown at it. So in that sense, I think you're sometimes actually better off reading reviews--not from PC reviewers, but from GRAPHICS reviewers. -Folks who are as picky as me. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson For your interest, I have a simple program which generates grey-scales for you to make similar tests. http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/software/imaging.html#GreyScale You may need the runtime libraries: http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/software/runtime.html One thing I discovered was that when using PNGs for transfer of images, some viewers honoured the Gamma setting in the image and others didn't, and it made a gross difference to the display, of course. Cheers, David > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. > > Please indicate a whether you can read the text in each of the following: Dark - yes; light - no. Do I win? R. >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do I win? The darker one should have been much easier to see. Here's a tougher dark one: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76631423/original There are two lines of text. Second line is the toughest. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There are two lines of text. > Second line is the toughest. Ditto to Rudy - could just discern there was something there on my Viewsonic LCD. Did not compare it with a CRT. Calibration a bit of a moot point at the moment. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dark image sample: > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/76619046/original Legible > Light image sample: > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original No text legible LCD Gateway/Fajouda processor adjusted for my workflow. My own issues (for scanning film esp) are more with color rendition than with highligh/shaddow issues when going to print. Cheers, Alan >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Ya, right now I have a Fajouda 24" from Gateway hooked up (came with a system at work). It's far more susceptible to angle of view issues, and is frankly too bright for my taste, offering less control over some aspects. I like the rendition of my 20" Viewsonic better, but there's no denying the benefits of the extra 320 pixels on this 1920x1200 display. The extra 320 means all tools are available, yet it still allows for full-height images in Photoshop. I've got it adjusted now so that it's very very close to my trusty Viewsonic... Not sure whether I'll revert back or not. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >>> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > adjusted now so that it's very very close to my trusty Viewsonic... Not > sure whether I'll revert back or not. Make that, "Faroudia..." :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Make that, "Faroudia..." :) I peeled the label off so not sure how to spell it... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Make that, "Faroudia..." :) > > I peeled the label off so not sure how to spell it... > > Cheers, > Alan Ya, this monitor is about a week old, so it still has danged stickers plastered all over it... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson According to Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>: > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Light image sample: > http://upload.pbase.com/markuson/image/76628594/original O.K. I could see neither during the daytime, with light pouring over my shoulder through a large window, and had to go to the GIMP to tell what was there. And no settings of my LCD monitor (which is normally set to allow me to distinguish both ends of a grayscale image) will bring either into view with the light over my shoulder. The monitor is a KDS RAD-19, FWIW. However, now that it is dark outside, I can see the dark one easily, and can just barely tell that something is present in the highlight one. > This becomes significant when discussing some aspets of photos that are > shared here. Agreed. > Thanks for you input...and...no cheating! :) Is waiting for the Sun to go away cheating? :-) I don't have curtains on the windows. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not > registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mark Forget the monitor test; great looking Chocolate point http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/73745851 I really miss mine. SignatureSlack ?Slack wrote: >> I'm curious to discover what people's monitors are registering/not >> registering in terms of shadow details and highlight details. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I really miss mine. The owner of that cat misses him too. :( Richard DeLuca had a TINY (26KB) image of his cat that died...and asked for help, hoping to salvage the image for a decent print. A number of people on the NG sent their version of his image, and that is the one that went to print for Richard. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.