Best screen resolution for RAW files

[Nikon 2]

Kinda like this thread...

 

[Nikon 2]

Prescription: Read until you understand,
3 times daily.

Leica MD 262 shoots in RAW only.
Leica M262 shoots both JEPG and RAW…

 

[Pieter12]

Well I hope he can answer what the hell screen resolution has to do with the file type.

 

[Nikon 2]

Well I hope he can answer what the hell screen resolution has to do with the file type.

The better the screen resolution enables one to appreciate and enjoy post adjustments made of RAW files better.
How’s that…

 

[Nikon 2]

Let’s put it this way:
Have you ever tried looking at a digital file without a screen? They must be used together and the original question was having the best resolution needed for viewing those RAW files…

 

[Pieter12]

The better the screen resolution enables one to appreciate and enjoy post adjustments made of RAW files better.
How’s that…

Not really.

 

[Nikon 2]

Not really.

Can you explain that…

 

[Pieter12]

Resolution has nothing to do with color accuracy, although more expensive, higher resolution monitors and graphics cards tend to have better color.

 

[Nikon 2]

Resolution has nothing to do with color accuracy, although more expensive, higher resolution monitors and graphics cards tend to have better color.

I’ll accept that…

After the calibration of my Mac desktop, the colors got much better…

 

[wiltw]

I’ll accept that…

After the calibration of my Mac desktop, the colors got much better…

Calibration affects the reproduction of HUES on a monitor, but does not correct inherent BRIGHTNESS. On my monitor, your image originally posted appeared a bit dark...the sky was lower in intensity than I would ordinarily expect. So I screen grabbed the photo, imported it to adjust exposure, and compare the two side by side.

The surrounding area of Lightroom, seen around the two shots, is midtone grey.

You should be able to see the full range of brightness and 26 distinct steps in the below range, when the Brightness and the Contrast of your monitor are properly adjusted (...and then do monitor calibration for Hue reproduction accuracy)

]

[/URL]

 

[koraks]

Calibration affects the reproduction of HUES on a monitor, but does not correct inherent BRIGHTNESS

If we're talking about monitor calibration, then this also involves brightness. However, monitor calibration only affects how images are rendered - not the image data as such. So how come OP posted two different versions of the same image with the only alleged difference bring that one preceded monitor calibration while the other followed it, will likely remain a mystery forever. When I'd do the same, I'd get two identical images. After all, the image doesn't change - only how it's displayed.

 

[wiltw]

If we're talking about monitor calibration, then this also involves brightness. However, monitor calibration only affects how images are rendered - not the image data as such. So how come OP posted two different versions of the same image with the only alleged difference bring that one preceded monitor calibration while the other followed it, will likely remain a mystery forever. When I'd do the same, I'd get two identical images. After all, the image doesn't change - only how it's displayed.

I hear what you are saying. OTOH most calibration products tell you to first adjust Brightness and Contrast, then do calibration process.
And the posted comparison screen grab shows a very noticeable difference in brightness even though the 26-step is clearly discerniable on my monitor, tool

 

[MattKing]

If we're talking about monitor calibration, then this also involves brightness. However, monitor calibration only affects how images are rendered - not the image data as such. So how come OP posted two different versions of the same image with the only alleged difference bring that one preceded monitor calibration while the other followed it, will likely remain a mystery forever. When I'd do the same, I'd get two identical images. After all, the image doesn't change - only how it's displayed.

This is correct - but when one's monitor changes how it renders, most people respond by changing how they handle the resulting file when they go to actually do something with it - e.g. convert to a format accepted for upload here.

 

[koraks]

This is correct - but when one's monitor changes how it renders, most people respond by changing how they handle the resulting file when they go to actually do something with it - e.g. convert to a format accepted for upload here.

Precisely, so I take it that some adjustments have been made to the file that we weren't told about. Either these were made by the human operator, or they were automagically made by the RAW viewer software, which may adjust its on-the-fly conversion to the profile settings of the screen (a.k.a. black-box behavior, a.k.a. 'if you want consistency you know damn well where you can find it and the sun don't shine down there').

OTOH most calibration products tell you to first adjust Brightness and Contrast, then do calibration process.

Yes, you're right; I'm sorry, I should have been specific. But I considered this as part of the calibration process as it's generally the first step.

 

[Nikon 2]

If we're talking about monitor calibration, then this also involves brightness. However, monitor calibration only affects how images are rendered - not the image data as such. So how come OP posted two different versions of the same image with the only alleged difference bring that one preceded monitor calibration while the other followed it, will likely remain a mystery forever. When I'd do the same, I'd get two identical images. After all, the image doesn't change - only how it's displayed.

The way I see it, pun not intended, after calibration the colors became more saturated had more complex shading and vibrancy but didn’t notice any difference in brightness…

 

[koraks]

The way I see it, pun not intended, after calibration the colors became more saturated had more complex shading and vibrancy but didn’t notice any difference in brightness…

The way I see it, monitor calibration doesn't affect the file. Something other than calibrating your monitor happened to the photo. Calibrating your monitor doesn't affect the image file as such. If all you did was calibrate the monitor, the 'before' and 'after' files would look identical when viewed on the same web page. They look differently, so a new conversion was done on the RAW file with different settings. Either by you, or by whatever software you're using to view your raw files.

 

[Nikon 2]

Calibration affects the reproduction of HUES on a monitor, but does not correct inherent BRIGHTNESS. On my monitor, your image originally posted appeared a bit dark...the sky was lower in intensity than I would ordinarily expect. So I screen grabbed the photo, imported it to adjust exposure, and compare the two side by side.

The surrounding area of Lightroom, seen around the two shots, is midtone grey.

You should be able to see the full range of brightness and 26 distinct steps in the below range, when the Brightness and the Contrast of your monitor are properly adjusted (...and then do monitor calibration for Hue reproduction accuracy)

]

[/URL]

As soon as my existing Mac dies I will upgrade so I can download LR and Capture One…

 

[wiltw]

As soon as my existing Mac dies I will upgrade so I can download LR and Capture One…

You should not wait to have your monitor adjustments made correct...do it now. Then do it again when you have a new monitor.

Most monitors and home TVs come from the factory adjusted for the very bright lighting of retail stores...they assume a unit will be pulled out of the box, and turned on for the store display shelf without any adjustments by store staff, so the manufacturers want their display units to look good out-of-the-box in that environment. As a result, the average out-of-box TV or monitor is TOO BRIGHT in the lighting of the typical home.
If a digital file has R-G-B stored values of 50-50-50 (out of 100, for each color) that midtone will appear brighter tone than middle grey on the factory-adjusted screen. So the consumer adjusts brightness pf that area downward during postprocessing, to make it not-so-bright on their monitor, and when they then post that file on the web, the midtone comes out too dark on everyone else's adjusted monitor. And if that same file is sent to a commericial printmaker, the image comes out 'too dark' as well...because your own monitor had boosted levels of brightness causing you do turn things down. If you have a camera which exposed RAW, an underexposed shot (on our monitors) looks just fine on your own monitor...what happened with your posted first image (vs. my adjusted exposure comparison)

That is why you adjust what you have now, not wait and perpetuate a too-bright presentation when you view the image, and are fooled about underexposed-as-shot photos.

 

[Nikon 2]

You should not wait to have your monitor adjustments made correct...do it now. Then do it again when you have a new monitor.

Most monitors and home TVs come from the factory adjusted for the very bright lighting of retail stores...they assume a unit will be pulled out of the box, and turned on for the store display shelf without any adjustments by store staff, so the manufacturers want their display units to look good out-of-the-box in that environment. As a result, the average out-of-box TV or monitor is TOO BRIGHT in the lighting of the typical home.
If a digital file has R-G-B stored values of 50-50-50 (out of 100, for each color) that midtone will appear brighter tone than middle grey on the factory-adjusted screen. So the consumer adjusts brightness pf that area downward during postprocessing, to make it not-so-bright on their monitor, and when they then post that file on the web, the midtone comes out too dark on everyone else's adjusted monitor. And if that same file is sent to a commericial printmaker, the image comes out 'too dark' as well...because your own monitor had boosted levels of brightness causing you do turn things down. If you have a camera which exposed RAW, an underexposed shot (on our monitors) looks just fine on your own monitor...what happened with your posted first image (vs. my adjusted exposure comparison)

That is why you adjust what you have now, not wait and perpetuate a too-bright presentation when you view the image, and are fooled about underexposed-as-shot photos.

Never knew display monitors had set displays for displays in store displays…

 

[Pieter12]

You should not wait to have your monitor adjustments made correct...do it now. Then do it again when you have a new monitor.

Most monitors and home TVs come from the factory adjusted for the very bright lighting of retail stores...they assume a unit will be pulled out of the box, and turned on for the store display shelf without any adjustments by store staff, so the manufacturers want their display units to look good out-of-the-box in that environment. As a result, the average out-of-box TV or monitor is TOO BRIGHT in the lighting of the typical home.
If a digital file has R-G-B stored values of 50-50-50 (out of 100, for each color) that midtone will appear brighter tone than middle grey on the factory-adjusted screen. So the consumer adjusts brightness pf that area downward during postprocessing, to make it not-so-bright on their monitor, and when they then post that file on the web, the midtone comes out too dark on everyone else's adjusted monitor. And if that same file is sent to a commericial printmaker, the image comes out 'too dark' as well...because your own monitor had boosted levels of brightness causing you do turn things down. If you have a camera which exposed RAW, an underexposed shot (on our monitors) looks just fine on your own monitor...what happened with your posted first image (vs. my adjusted exposure comparison)

That is why you adjust what you have now, not wait and perpetuate a too-bright presentation when you view the image, and are fooled about underexposed-as-shot photos.

The nice feature of RAW files is the corrections can easily be changed without introducing new problems, such as being able to recover highlight or shadow detail.

 

[Nikon 2]

The nice feature of RAW files is the corrections can easily be changed without introducing new problems, such as being able to recover highlight or shadow detail.

I have a harder time recovering highlights that were burned than shadows being under exposed …

 

[Chan Tran]

As I stated earlier high resolution isn't as important as color accuracy but a high resolution screen is better as it allows you to see a larger part of your image at pixel level. Right now only 8K class monitor can display a 24MP image from the 262 entirely at pixel resolution.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have a harder time recovering highlights that were burned than shadows being under exposed …

In theory burned highlight can not be recovered at all but most camera raw file you can recover from about 2/3 to 1 1/3 over.

 

[Nikon 2]

As I stated earlier high resolution isn't as important as color accuracy but a high resolution screen is better as it allows you to see a larger part of your image at pixel level. Right now only 8K class monitor can display a 24MP image from the 262 entirely at pixel resolution.

Wow, they’re getting there…

 

[Nikon 2]

In theory burned highlight can not be recovered at all but most camera raw file you can recover from about 2/3 to 1 1/3 over.

I try to shoot a bright scene by locking in the exposure at its brightest then recomposing using a + 1.7 -+2.3 EV compensation…