Yes, I'm sure the monitor, monitor settings, ambient lighting conditions, etc., all affect how an image looks and ultimately how a viewer feels about the image.
This subject is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. If a viewer does not like an image (composition and subject matter aside) then they simply do not like it. It could be I got it wrong, it could be their viewing conditions, be it monitor or print, are wrong, or it could be they simply don't like the image. However, when a viewer tells me how my image *should* look, I ask myself "How can they possibly know?" I was the only one that was there and saw it first hand. The camera did not record the image exactly as I saw it. My rendering of the image is a rendering that represents what I saw to the best of my recollection and ability to post-process. In long exposure images, astrophotos, auroras, and the like, the camera definitely returns us an image that is NOT eaxactly what was seen with the naked eye, and we generally accept those images. This goes back to the old topic of does the photograph represent reality? Is it supposed to represnt reality? Did the photographer intend it to be an accurate representation of reality? Tom C. >From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Flat or punchy >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:31 -0700 > >I have observed over time some preferences among many of the listers >concerning how a photo should 'look' - I'm sure that some of it is in >relation to the monitor that it is being displayed on, but some of it >seems to be a preference. > >Back in the film days, you could look at a slide or print of the same >scene and see a difference in rendering. My experience was the slide >was more punchy, contrasty and had more eye pop. But the print seemed >to have more subtle detail, especially in the dark areas. Now there >is the possibility that it is a optical trick, the contrast making us >look past the subtle detail because of the visual overload, or there >really is more subtle detail to be had. > >I bring this up because in the digital age, some of this same >phenomenon is more controlled by the photographer in post process. I >see many images, including my own, where there is a little lower >contrast, but holding detail and others where the punchy wow factor is >there. > >Seems like a subject worth discussing a bit. I can say, for myself, I >am using a calibrated Fujitsu CrystalView screen on my laptop - it is >considered a very high contrast, high quality screen. It does make my >other screens (two CRT's and 1 laptop) look a bit drab. I'm sure that >the screens we look at affect our feelings about a given image, along >with our own personal feelings concerning contrast and detail. > >Care to comment? > >-- >Best regards, >Bruce > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
