Profile patch on website?

[keithwms]

Well I have fallen into that bottomless abyss of trying to come up with an effective website. Not good.

One thing I note is that, regardless of what I do, the images look very, very different on different monitors.

"I like that one but can you please print it lighter???"

:rolleyes:

So I am thinking of running a profile patch down the side of the site. Could be a white to black gradient for b&w subpages, and a colour patch and gradient for colour stuff. Or have both on the front page.

Is that too much?

Yes it could be kind of obnoxious, but on the other hand, some work is totally misrepresented online. I mean, I am a shadow detail kind of guy....

Thoughts? Anybody do this? What are people's solutions to the gamma and brightness and ambient light issues?

[Greg Davis]

Ignore them. Use the sRGB profile to get your images as close as you can and don't worry about it. If you put a patch on there I would completely ignore it, because I am not going to recalibrate my monitor to look at your images. And I would think you were some kind of snob. Look at the Edward Weston site or the Ansel Adams site or even Michal Smith site. They all care(d) about their images, but none worry about the digital representation. Granted, two of them are dead, but it doesn't ruin the viewing experience you get from the screen. It will never be close to the real print, so why go through the stress of it?

[jnanian]

maybe you should have a statement that says: this work looks best on a calibrated monitor ...
and then have a link to a place where people can either buy a hockey puck and calibrate their monitor
at home, or a website that will do it for them. apple monitors are crazy bright, and old monitors are dim
and there is a vast sea of "inbetweenies" as ian durry used to say ...
you can't please everyone but at least
you can help them calibrate their monitor

[winger]

For the most part, the only people who will even know what you mean by calibrated monitor are other photographers. The general public has little clue that different monitors will show the photos differently and most will not notice differences between the screen and the print. We're the picky ones.

[markbarendt]

Thoughts? Anybody do this? What are people's solutions to the gamma and brightness and ambient light issues?

Keith,

There is no "fix".

A disclaimer might be good.

The color patch idea is good. Maybe just a white patch with the statement "This is a color correct white patch, if it looks gray, green or has some other color cast your monitor is not rendering true colors."

[Marco B]

Like others have said, trying to accommodate everyone is senseless, besides the general good rule of having all of your images for web in sRGB colorspace. People are to lazy to adjust their monitors brightness and contrast to your swatches...

Worse, the ignorant (most of your viewers, and myself until just a few years ago ) will probably even have their monitors set to extra high brightness levels to accommodate often less than optimal working and viewing conditions in offices or at home... while most modern monitors coming straight from the factory and at default settings, would probably be quite accurate if left alone.

You have to live with it...

[telkwa]

For the most part, the only people who will even know what you mean by calibrated monitor are other photographers. The general public has little clue that different monitors will show the photos differently and most will not notice differences between the screen and the print. We're the picky ones.

I was talking to a guy who runs a printing place, and he said one customer thought that adjusting the monitor brightness affected how the picture would be printed (I know this outside the normal forum guidelines).