Which to get - NEC PA series monitor or 4K monitor?

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,932
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Try running that program as Administrator, that will probably avoid the problem. You are running a program that is changing things in the operating system. The security system stops that.
The Spectraview program runs on my computer just like my other applications such as Excel, CS6, LR, etc. How do I have it run as Administrator? I have my user account, administrator account, etc.... all set to full security privileges since I am the only one who uses this machine.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,096
Location
New York State
140 cd/m² is probably fine if you are only using the monitor for on-screen viewing and internet work but it is much too bright for print work because your printed results (both inkjet and offset litho) will always come out looking much darker than you expected.

100 cd/m² (or even slightly lower) would be a better setting if you print.

But do understand that the average Web-user will probably be running their monitor at its maximum brightness (160 cd/m² or brighter!) so your posted images will look much too bright and washed-out to those viewers. The ways in which others set their machines; and their choice of web browsers (most of them without any colour management capability!); is beyond our control.

I usually compromise and use 120 cd/m² for day to day work but I create, and save, a Spectrum profile for 100 cd/cd/m² as well so that I can switch to it on the fly as needed.

I always run in Admin mode. There is no reason for the owner of the machine not to run it as an "Admin." on a Mac because you can set the system to require your password before any new software is installed.

I imagine that Windows can also be configured in the same way?

It is only if you have employees (or children!) using your machines that you would need to set up their accounts differently.
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,383
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
I standardise on 120 as well. Good compromise.

Windows and Mac security are not the same. Running a program as Administrator on Windows you right click on it and click on Run as Administrator. On a Mac the equivalent is using the su command. In each case it elevates the privileges for just that process.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
You simply cannot quote cd/m2 figures for someone else to use, it is as silly as stating that a correct exposure in daylight will be 1/125 sec @ f/8!

The correct value will be one that obtains a match for your particular print viewing conditions between monitor and printing media and can be quite different between media types. Also your monitor should be calibrated to match the white point of the paper as well as the brightness under the viewing conditions

The numbers mean nothing it is the visual match that counts

For instance if you are fortunate enough to own a print viewing booth it would not be unreasonable to expect 150 cd/m2 as a match screen to booth.
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,932
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
OK...now you are scaring me! LOL!

I have my NEC monitor set for 100.

Do my images look really washed out?
Example....
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


or this....
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
Hi Karen
Hope it not me that is sending frightening thoughts ;)

Your images look absolutely fine on my iPad and calibrated monitors both standard and wide gamut. No guarantee that both our systems match at least for luminosity but the point is they are perfectly acceptable.

The real point of my remarks aimed firmly at print media and viewing conditions. So if you print the images just shown do they match your monitor (pretty closely) fir density and colour balance- if yes then you are fine. If no then something amiss in the colour management chain

As an aside I rarely see images that are grossly washed out on screen it is usually the reverse, too dark. Possibly traced back to monitors being used straight out of box without calibration applied and running at too high levels for viewing conditions perhaps 250 cd/m2 and above :(:cool:
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,096
Location
New York State
The fact that you rarely see images that are grossly washed out on screen is because VERY few people ever set their monitors to a customisedl cd/m2 level in the first place!

I think it makes all the sense in the world to suggest possible monitor brightness settings for starting points for ones own usage when setting up Spectrum. Spectrum itself provides similar guidance.

When outputting or printing from Photoshop CC 2015.5:
You should be using View Menu/Proof Setup/Proof Colors and choosing the Profile for both your Printer and for your printing paper.

You can choose to simulate both Paper Color and Black Ink while setting-up customised Proofing Profiles and these should be saved for future use when printing on the different Printer/Stock combinations.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,096
Location
New York State
To run as Admin on a Mac, you simply set up your account with Admin privileges.
I need to run as an Admin all the time because I need to make frequent manual changes in the Libraries due to the beta software testing in which I am involved.


The su (SuperUser) level is a level that is far less secure than Admin and you only ever use that for very special situations — and disable it again immediately you have completed that task.

I know absolutely nothing about Windows machines and have very seldom needed to use one for anything!
:)
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,932
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Hi Karen
Hope it not me that is sending frightening thoughts ;)

Your images look absolutely fine on my iPad and calibrated monitors both standard and wide gamut. No guarantee that both our systems match at least for luminosity but the point is they are perfectly acceptable.

The real point of my remarks aimed firmly at print media and viewing conditions. So if you print the images just shown do they match your monitor (pretty closely) fir density and colour balance- if yes then you are fine. If no then something amiss in the colour management chain

As an aside I rarely see images that are grossly washed out on screen it is usually the reverse, too dark. Possibly traced back to monitors being used straight out of box without calibration applied and running at too high levels for viewing conditions perhaps 250 cd/m2 and above :(:cool:
Thanks, Tony. I have my monitor set at 100. A few years ago I was at a friend's house and he pulled up my website. I was aghast. The monitor was so bright that all my images looked totally washed out!!!!! YIKES! So I have this nagging fear that I am processing images on a "dumbed down" monitor and everyone else is seeing these washed out images!!!!!!

I do not print at home. However, I have had several books done using My Publisher and the images have always came out fine. So....I'm hoping all is OK with the brightness setting on my monitor and the resultant images on my website.

Thanks so much for responding.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
The fact that you rarely see images that are grossly washed out on screen is because VERY few people ever set their monitors to a customisedl cd/m2 level in the first place!
Not at all.
The reason is that many monitors are far too bright out of the box and are not always adjusted To acceptable levels of brightness/contrast, consequently when used for photo editing the user compensates by darkening an image based on the screen view as they have no idea what their data really looks like. For photo editing if you do not have access to calibration equipment then it would be beneficial to look at one of the websites that offers screen test displays and instructions what to look for such as Lagom site

I think it makes all the sense in the world to suggest possible monitor brightness settings for starting points for ones own usage when setting up Spectrum. Spectrum itself provides similar guidance.
In isolation to suggest 90, 100, 120, 160 cd/m2 is nonsense! You have missed so many variables that guidance is worthless. For instance:
Do you have a working area where ambient lighting is controllable and constant?
If yes do you edit in low light (cave etc) or prefer daylight?
If daylight what time of day do you most often run printer and expect print matching?
Do you use a print viewing booth?
If no how do you light your print?
For either print lighting above have you produced monitor profiles that accurately portray the White of the various papers you use?
Is your monitor actually capable of showing real data differences in the low density areas of your images? Many cannot and therefore a recommendation of less than 90 cd/m2 may prove disastrous to editing for print
Etc.

When outputting or printing from Photoshop CC 2015.5:
You should be using View Menu/Proof Setup/Proof Colors and choosing the Profile for both your Printer and for your printing paper.
Without correct monitor calibration as outlined above soft proofing will not work as PS uses the monitor profile to convert and interpret the state of your monitor colour palette so it can send correct data regardless. This means if your monitor has a tendency to display blue or yellow even after calibration to a known standard e.g. D65 then PS will correct accordingly.

You can choose to simulate both Paper Color and Black Ink while setting-up customised Proofing Profiles and these should be saved for future use when printing on the different Printer/Stock combinations.
Again this will not work correctly if your monitor not using a correct profile
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,096
Location
New York State
Most of the problems which people have when viewing images on the Internet stem from the way that they have adjusted their monitors (and, unfortunately, an awful lot of people use theirs in exactly the way that they come out of the box from the factory!); and because they are using non-coloou-managed web browsers.

(I believe that only Safari and Firefox (if it has been user-configured) are correctly colour-managed?)

Unfortunately, here is nothing that the creator of the images can do to control how such viewers see the pictures.

If Karen's publishers are delivering the results which she is expecting, then her Monitor and Colour Management settings are absolutely fine and are doing exactly what they should be doing!
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,932
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Most of the problems which people have when viewing images on the Internet stem from the way that they have adjusted their monitors (and, unfortunately, an awful lot of people use theirs in exactly the way that they come out of the box from the factory!); and because they are using non-coloou-managed web browsers.

(I believe that only Safari and Firefox (if it has been user-configured) are correctly colour-managed?)

Unfortunately, here is nothing that the creator of the images can do to control how such viewers see the pictures.

If Karen's publishers are delivering the results which she is expecting, then her Monitor and Colour Management settings are absolutely fine and are doing exactly what they should be doing!
Thanks, Ann! If my images ever look weird....I do hope I won't get a lot of "Nice shot" comments! LOL! Tell it like it is!
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,383
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
(I believe that only Safari and Firefox (if it has been user-configured) are correctly colour-managed?
No, all the current browsers are colour managed by default and have been for some years now. This is on both Windows and Mac. At one time I kept track of these in detail and have the version numbers when they became colour managed.
 
Last edited:

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,383
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
Tony, I edit in a dark environment - not quite a cave but not far off.
I look at prints in bright room light and in indoor bright daylight. Monitors and printer are calibrated.
Naturally I keep an eye on histograms as well when editing, so I have an objective as well as subjective basis for level adjustment.
So when I say 120 is a good number for calibration, that is the number that works well for me. If I worked in brighter ambient light, such as in standard office lighting, a slightly higher number might be better.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
Thanks, Tony. I have my monitor set at 100. A few years ago I was at a friend's house and he pulled up my website. I was aghast. The monitor was so bright that all my images looked totally washed out!!!!! YIKES! So I have this nagging fear that I am processing images on a "dumbed down" monitor and everyone else is seeing these washed out images!!!!!!
Unfortunately your experience at your friends just illustrate a typical scenario where they are probably looking at movies and other content where brightness not an issue (at least to them) and also at photo images. Yours being correctly adjusted on a calibrated monitor to known values showing far lighter than you intended. I would like to bet if you gave your friends a properly adjusted TIFF from one of your raw edits and asked them to make it look good and send you a copy that the copy would be far to dark and dull due to their monitor brightness fooling them into incorrect moves on the image data.

I do not print at home. However, I have had several books done using My Publisher and the images have always came out fine. So....I'm hoping all is OK with the brightness setting on my monitor and the resultant images on my website....
Seems that you have got things to where they should be and your books and images from a third party being fine strongly indicates no problem at your end it is just the general public and there lack of awareness of setting colour or even using the rudimentary management in Windows for instance or the equivalent Apple offering.

Its a crap shoot therefore as to how your images are seen by others that do not employ colour management at the base OS level. I have seen suggestions that you may as well calibrate your screen for web viewing far too bright in the hope that most non savvy users are doing the same.

The best solution I have seen so far is to show a step wedge at the bottom of your image pages with instructions that if the user cannot see gradations below a certain level of the dark tones and separation in the lighter tones their monitor is not set up correctly to view the images as intended and will not accurately represent either on screen view or a fine print. Still, getting some to read this let alone take action may be a struggle
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
Tony, I edit in a dark environment - not quite a cave but not far off.
I look at prints in bright room light and in indoor bright daylight. Monitors and printer are calibrated.
Naturally I keep an eye on histograms as well when editing, so I have an objective as well as subjective basis for level adjustment.
So when I say 120 is a good number for calibration, that is the number that works well for me. If I worked in brighter ambient light, such as in standard office lighting, a slightly higher number might be better.
Richard that is it in a nutshell
The correct value will be one that obtains a match for your particular print viewing conditions between monitor and printing media...
The numbers mean nothing it is the visual match that counts
For anyone interested or needing to comply with such there are recognised standards that many commercial companies need to adhere to such as (from my notes but ISO may have been updated):

Viewing Conditions for Graphic Technology and Photography i.e. ISO 3664 and the second related standard ISO 12646 Graphic Technology Displays for Colour Proofing Characteristics and Viewing Conditions this I believe requires more stringent colour pre-press viewing conditions for monitor calibration and room lighting.

Target for ISO 12646 are defined as follows:

Display Type: LCD
Calibration Method: Hardware calibration (monitor LUT)
Calibration Settings: ISO3664 and ISO 12646
Profile settings: LUT based (accurate)
CIE Daylight standard: D50
Tonal response Curve: L* (recommended)
Specify: White and black luminance
White: 160 cd/m2
Ambient Light Colour temperature: 5000K
Ambient Light Intensity: ¼ the monitor white point
Black: Minimum neutral
Profile type: 16 bit LUT based


I do not follow these standards of course as I currently use D65 and 110 cd/m2 and prints produced and viewed in daylight conditions match close enough screen to print ;):)
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,932
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Richard that is it in a nutshell For anyone interested or needing to comply with such there are recognised standards that many commercial companies need to adhere to such as (from my notes but ISO may have been updated):

Viewing Conditions for Graphic Technology and Photography i.e. ISO 3664 and the second related standard ISO 12646 Graphic Technology Displays for Colour Proofing Characteristics and Viewing Conditions this I believe requires more stringent colour pre-press viewing conditions for monitor calibration and room lighting.

Target for ISO 12646 are defined as follows:

Display Type: LCD
Calibration Method: Hardware calibration (monitor LUT)
Calibration Settings: ISO3664 and ISO 12646
Profile settings: LUT based (accurate)
CIE Daylight standard: D50
Tonal response Curve: L* (recommended)
Specify: White and black luminance
White: 160 cd/m2
Ambient Light Colour temperature: 5000K
Ambient Light Intensity: ¼ the monitor white point
Black: Minimum neutral
Profile type: 16 bit LUT based


I do not follow these standards of course as I currently use D65 and 110 cd/m2 and prints produced and viewed in daylight conditions match close enough screen to print ;):)
Good information Tony. I too use D65 (I think Ann S helped my set up Spectraview when I first got it in 2012! LOL!)
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,889
Location
UK
I was not aware that Apple had recommended D50. I know that in the early days default Mac gamma 1.8 vs the more common gamma of 2.2. I believe the reason historical and was for support of now defunct Apple printing equipment.

As to D50 v D65 it seems to me that most LCD monitors these days have a white point closer to D65 than D50.

For many D50 is going to look too yellow and dingy although within a short period our eyes will adjust and it will not be noticeable.

Strangely enough while we use D65 for monitor white point it is recommended that we evaluate a print to monitor match illuminating the print under a 5000 Kelvin source. This I believe is probably due to the fact that many printing papers have a base closer to blue white than yellow white.

Still I do hear from people that feel D50 gives them the best match - no argument from me, if it ain't broke no need to fix
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom