and the site receives a small commission
Why do my photos look too dark on my Mac
- Thread starter merv
- Start date
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
@merv
Is your screen calibrated? That's the most likely cause.
Also... never trust the screen on the camera. It's there merely as a way to view what you shot, not as a means to critically assess that image. The preview is useless really. Learn to read your histograms if you need to assess the image, and not the image itself. I have my screen turned off.. so when I shoot, it shows nothing. It's merely a distraction. If I know I'm shooting in challenging light, I will check it of course, but I'll use the histogram.
Do other people's images appear correct on your Mac? If they do, then you're probably just under-exposing your images.
Is your screen calibrated? That's the most likely cause.
Also... never trust the screen on the camera. It's there merely as a way to view what you shot, not as a means to critically assess that image. The preview is useless really. Learn to read your histograms if you need to assess the image, and not the image itself. I have my screen turned off.. so when I shoot, it shows nothing. It's merely a distraction. If I know I'm shooting in challenging light, I will check it of course, but I'll use the histogram.
Do other people's images appear correct on your Mac? If they do, then you're probably just under-exposing your images.
- Messages
- 1,575
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Merv,
You need to be aware that the monitor screen on the camera will display a small jpeg image in accordance with pre set manufacturers designs. This may be different to the scene in front of you that you want to replicate. The camera screen is also relatively small and of limited pixels so putting the same image on a monitor screen will look different. I would advise shooting RAW and then converting to jpeg once back in front of your computer, to create the image, not only its brightness and contrast but more by tweaking the levels and curves together with sharpening and other outputs to accord with what you saw at the time of capture.
Is your camera colour space set to RGB or sRGB in the menu? If it is set to RGB, then the resultant images produced in sRGB will look wrong as they are not using the full colour gamut. This is particularly relevant when printing.
With respect to David, if the OP does not understand the issue of display, then camera screen 'chimping' for the histogram, is no better than doing so for the image. A snow scene on a sunny day will produce a histogram that looks 'abnormal', even though it is spot on. Similarly with night shots the histogram can show 'anomalies'.
Finally, whilst Macs tend to be better on the calibration front than many other monitors, they can still be out, and require calibrating with something like a Spyder or Colour Munki etc. But don't buy one, unless you have multiple monitors and the output is critical, just borrow one from a local camera club, camera shop or even some web sites do a loan version for a nominal fee. Usually takes around 10/20 minutes to do and will suffice for 6-12 months under normal circumstances.
You need to be aware that the monitor screen on the camera will display a small jpeg image in accordance with pre set manufacturers designs. This may be different to the scene in front of you that you want to replicate. The camera screen is also relatively small and of limited pixels so putting the same image on a monitor screen will look different. I would advise shooting RAW and then converting to jpeg once back in front of your computer, to create the image, not only its brightness and contrast but more by tweaking the levels and curves together with sharpening and other outputs to accord with what you saw at the time of capture.
Is your camera colour space set to RGB or sRGB in the menu? If it is set to RGB, then the resultant images produced in sRGB will look wrong as they are not using the full colour gamut. This is particularly relevant when printing.
With respect to David, if the OP does not understand the issue of display, then camera screen 'chimping' for the histogram, is no better than doing so for the image. A snow scene on a sunny day will produce a histogram that looks 'abnormal', even though it is spot on. Similarly with night shots the histogram can show 'anomalies'.
Finally, whilst Macs tend to be better on the calibration front than many other monitors, they can still be out, and require calibrating with something like a Spyder or Colour Munki etc. But don't buy one, unless you have multiple monitors and the output is critical, just borrow one from a local camera club, camera shop or even some web sites do a loan version for a nominal fee. Usually takes around 10/20 minutes to do and will suffice for 6-12 months under normal circumstances.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry.... but learning how to read a histogram is one of the most useful skills to have. A snow scene correctly exposed will not look abnormal at all if you know what you're looking for. There's no such thing as a normal histogram. You can still check if you have lost your highlight detail on a histogram. While teh histogram may be referring to the JPEG preview rather than the raw, it is a good indication of correct exposure.
LOL. Nonsense. Mac screens are at best average. There's nothing special about them. Go to any digital lab and you'll see NEC Reference or Eizo screens. This is for a good reason.
So you only need to calibrate when using multiple monitors? Seriously.... where you getting this from?
Pointless.... as monitors drift. This is why decent calibration software will remind you to calibrate every few hundred hours. I calibrate every 200 hours use, and there is a measurable difference after this period. After a few months use there will be a visible difference. There's no point in calibrating unless you can keep it calibrated.
- Messages
- 1,575
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
David,
I think you are taking things rather out of context here. Clearly someone asking this question is not going to be a professional/prolific user and as such the response needs to be at a similar level. (Apologies to the OP if you are)
Exactly the point, if the OP doesn't know what to look for then it is no point suggesting that he uses this technique. Longer term a useful skill but learning this is going to take time and is perhaps not the instant answer the OP is looking for?
I know that, you know that, but we are not talking about reference screens here are we?
Good advice, they are not cheap and unless the results are critical and the output prolific then the expense would be better spent merely renting/borrowing one.
The whole point of calibration, but as you state, it depends on the number of hours usage. Not everyone will be using it the same as you.
I think you are taking things rather out of context here. Clearly someone asking this question is not going to be a professional/prolific user and as such the response needs to be at a similar level. (Apologies to the OP if you are)
Exactly the point, if the OP doesn't know what to look for then it is no point suggesting that he uses this technique. Longer term a useful skill but learning this is going to take time and is perhaps not the instant answer the OP is looking for?
I know that, you know that, but we are not talking about reference screens here are we?
Good advice, they are not cheap and unless the results are critical and the output prolific then the expense would be better spent merely renting/borrowing one.
The whole point of calibration, but as you state, it depends on the number of hours usage. Not everyone will be using it the same as you.
Last edited:
YoshiK1
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,535
- Edit My Images
- No
Learning to read a histogram is pretty simple even if it's just to check things quickly. I agree with Pookeyhead that it's better to be able to read these. If the OP doesn't understand the histogram then what they can learn 5 mins on how to read it on a basic understanding can help to improve the photos.
OP if you don't know how to read them then this is helpful to begin: http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-read-and-use-histograms/
Calibrators aren't cheap but if the OP want's to splash out then let them. They do their job and saying that it's only required once for a year or so isn't correct. Also you've put the assumption on it that this person doesn't use their computer that often. I know no-one who has a camera and computer or even just a computer that spends less than 200 hours on it a year.
OP if you don't know how to read them then this is helpful to begin: http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-read-and-use-histograms/
Calibrators aren't cheap but if the OP want's to splash out then let them. They do their job and saying that it's only required once for a year or so isn't correct. Also you've put the assumption on it that this person doesn't use their computer that often. I know no-one who has a camera and computer or even just a computer that spends less than 200 hours on it a year.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Learning to read a histogram is simple. There are tons of tutorials online, and on here. Now he knows it's important, he could just Google it.
No, but you said Apple screens are better calibrated than many other monitors. That's simply not true. Out of all screens available, the best off the shelf calibration is the latest series of dell screens, as they are calibrated at the factory and come with a certification of calibration. No other manufacturer does this, not even NEC or Eizo (that assume they will be calibrated by the user, being professional screens). It's a gimmick however, because screens do not remain calibrated.
Untrue. Calibration does not remain static. Re-calibration is necessary or there's simply no point in bothering in the first place.
200 hours is not excessive, even for amateur use, and that is the recommended period between calibration. However, some amateurs will use their screens more than professionals. Why assume that an amateur shoots less than a professional? It is often not the case.
You are making a great deal of assumptions about the OP. Clearly he is concerned about calibration and accuracy, so why patronise him by saying that there's no need to be critical. Maybe he just wants to be? Maybe he prints a great deal? Who knows why he's interested, but the fact is, he is interested, so the "he doesn't need to know that" attitude is not really helpful. Surely it's better to let him know what all this entails, and he can work out for himself whether it's necessary.[/quote][/QUOTE]
redhed17
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,316
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends what you consider 'not cheap'. The main brands are Datacolor (Spyder), and the X-Rite (ColorMunki). They have various products with different features. Some allow the calibration of Monitors, Projectors, Tablets, TVs and Printers. They are the most expensive products though. Basic monitor calibration can be had from £63 for the Spyder 4 Express and £75 for the ColorMunki Smile Calibrator. And that is just on Amazon, they could be cheaper elsewhere. You should read reviews and ask for user experiences to see which one is best for you.
If you are spending hundreds, potentially thousands on cameras and lenses, and you are not willing to spend a fraction of that to ensure that what you are seeing is accurate on your screen, then you get what you deserve imho.
As far as Histograms are concerned, they are the best way to help you get a 'correct' exposure, because as Pookeyhead as mentioned, the LCD screens on the back of the cameras can not be trusted for exposure or colour. Some LCD screens alter themselves depending on the lighting conditions they are in. When it comes to editing/processing images, Histograms are used in most programs as an aid to see the effect of any changes you make. It is a very good idea to try and learn more about how to use them.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
This is what I never understand: People will happily spend thousands on cameras and lenses that can be questioned as to whether they actually improve the quality of their images over spending perhaps hundreds, yet consider £100 to be too expensive for a piece of equipment that will have a marked effect on the perceived quality of their work. Likewise with monitors. People will consider £300 as the maximum they will spend when they will happily spend £2000 on a camera. Monitors are not an afterthought, or just something to allow you to see your images, they're a vital tool and part of the process.