Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Poll discussion: White Balance Settings

  1. #1
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not Far Away
    Posts
    103

    Poll discussion: White Balance Settings

    This kinda intrigued me a bit.

    My monitor (a BenQ) has the choice of 'bluish', 'reddish' and 'normal'. The custom settings don't have any of those numbers mentioned in the poll.

    What's the diff, and what do you recommend?


    (please move/merge if a topic exists already)

  2. #2
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Earth (I think)
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by barryvee View Post
    This kinda intrigued me a bit.

    My monitor (a BenQ) has the choice of 'bluish', 'reddish' and 'normal'. The custom settings don't have any of those numbers mentioned in the poll.

    What's the diff, and what do you recommend?


    (please move/merge if a topic exists already)
    I guess they're using the tint color as opposed to temperatures. As you go to higher temperatures, the colors look bluer, as you go to lower temperatures, the color gets redder. The normal temperature that most people use is either 6500 degrees or 5600 degrees. I use 6500 as that seems more natural. I have seen other monitors that used 9500 degrees, and they look nice and bright, but they also look too blue/white. With your monitor, I'd stick to normal.

  3. #3
    AW Customer Support
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Near London UK
    Posts
    869
    This link is quite interesting.



    Macs have a built in calibration tool, System Preferences/Displays.

    L

  4. #4
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    242
    I tried both. 5600K looks much brighter and better on my monitor.

  5. #5
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    103
    My system's hooked up to an HDTV so it doesn't mention these figures

  6. #6
    Still Exploring
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Schwarzeneggerland
    Posts
    55
    I use 6400K. I remember for awhile I had a monitor I'd set to 5500K (daylight), then realized it wasn't doing me any favors.

    Seemed like the reasoning behind high color temps in monitors (like 9300K) was for office environments where you're looking at spreadsheets, etc. But of course now I can't remember where I saw it...

  7. #7
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Earth (I think)
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Bertie View Post
    I tried both. 5600K looks much brighter and better on my monitor.
    I tried 5600K and it looked a little too yellowish/orange on my monitor, so I stick with 6500K. It also depends on the monitor. I use Pantone's Spyder to calibrate my monitors, since my older Monaco's Colorimeter wouldn't calibrate LCD screens. I think Jayo is right, they use 9500K for office work, since it's mostly text and spreadsheets they work with.

  8. #8
    Wields limited power
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Axiom hovering over the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,005
    Mine is on sRGB which prolly looked best when I tested all the modes. I think white looked too blue otherwise.

  9. #9
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    118
    Unfortunately the poll is flawed.

    Like another poster, my LCD only has fixed choices for reddish, plain white and blueish. It also has a manual mode where you can set the RGB colors separately.

    Because the poll vote is not allowed to happen unless you choose one of the two settings, all of us who don't have those two settings, per se, can't participate in the poll. There needs to be an "other" option so that comments can be made and submitted.

  10. #10
    Wields limited power
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Axiom hovering over the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,005
    Quote Originally Posted by MrVideo View Post
    Unfortunately the poll is flawed.
    ..There needs to be an "other" option so that comments can be made and submitted.
    Not nessecarely, you just need to provide more possible answers. Fixed answers are MUCH easier to process and count. I don't know why only two temps are listed when my tft supports at least three (that's excl. sRGB).

    I'm wondering if how someone sees pictures isn't somewhat person specific?

  11. #11
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    468
    I am another whose monitor uses its own classification in place of Colour Temperature. There are three basic settings, each of which can be fined tuned by r-b-g sliders, calibrated in percentages. Standard setting 3 is yellowish, and I guess roughly equivilent to 6500 Kelvin. Standard setting 1 is blue and almost unusable. Standard setting 2 is muddy.

  12. #12
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84
    Most common standard for picture editing is 6500 K / 2.2 Gamma (that's what I use too). But usually factory setting is 9300 K. Of course without calibration it's impossible to achieve exact colors. A good monitor should provide the possibility to set color temperature and gamma.

  13. #13
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Earth (I think)
    Posts
    3,068
    sRGB is the color space that you're using, and isn't related to the temperature of the display. If you were to calibrate your monitor with third party software, you'd use the profile that would be created with that software instead of sRGB. The thing is, if you used the profile that the calibration software creates, it might be outside the sRGB gamut.

    If you were to adjust a picture with the calibrated monitor, then post it on the Net, if someone downloads it and is using sRGB as their color space, the picture won't look the same to them as it did to you. This is a problem for on-line photo developers like Kodak or Shutterfly. It's best to convert the picture back to sRGB before uploading it to one of these developers so that you know what it will look like to them.

    Photoshop has numerous color profiles that you can select when editing pictures. I use Adobe RGB (1998) or sRGB, as they're similar. If I'm planning on printing the picture out on one of my printers, I'll select the calibrated color space, then when I'm ready to make the print, I'll select a custom profile that I've had made for the particular printer that I'm going to use. There are no unhappy surprises when I do it that way.(paper for my dye sub printer is $2 a sheet, so mistakes can add up in cost. The two inkjets are a little cheaper, but still...)

  14. #14
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    At the Pub, with all my friends
    Posts
    442
    Has anyone checked this thread http://forums.abbywinters.com/vbulle...ead.php?t=4667

    We have been down this path before

  15. #15
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    242
    I meant 6500K, not 5600K. Come to think of it, some of the skin tones in AW photos look a little too yellow, especially where a flash has been used. Has this got anything to do with this poll?

  16. #16
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    in one room
    Posts
    4,658
    My computer including monitor is working well right now so I'm not going to chance messing anything up by touching ANYTHING on my monitor, so I won't be participating in this poll, sorry. And I'm not sure what buttons to push anyway to find the setting.

  17. #17
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, 650mi NNW from old FL home...
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by laktor View Post
    My computer including monitor is working well right now so I'm not going to chance messing anything up by touching ANYTHING on my monitor, so I won't be participating in this poll, sorry. And I'm not sure what buttons to push anyway to find the setting.
    ... That could be my post, as well. I tried for 20 minutes to find color settings of this type for my HP laptop. I've seen them on tube-type monitors but there's no trace of a setting I could find here. I do have Photoshop if that would help me, somehow.

  18. #18
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Earth (I think)
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by FloridaRob View Post
    ... That could be my post, as well. I tried for 20 minutes to find color settings of this type for my HP laptop. I've seen them on tube-type monitors but there's no trace of a setting I could find here. I do have Photoshop if that would help me, somehow.
    Right-click on the desktop and click Properties. Go to Settings....then click on Advanced. Look for your graphics card and click on it. Next click on Graphics Properties. This will get you to the adjustment controls.

  19. #19
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Outside of Philly
    Posts
    5,948
    Amazing we're have a discussion about this.
    Dekoda and I can remember back when the pictures were so grainy you could barely tell a nipple from an eyeball, and "color picture" meant various shades of green. And you could barely see it anyway because you forgot to set on your screensaver one night and and that search result screen from two weeks ago got burnt into the monitor.

  20. #20
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, 650mi NNW from old FL home...
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by dekoda View Post
    Right-click on the desktop and click Properties. Go to Settings....then click on Advanced. Look for your graphics card and click on it. Next click on Graphics Properties. This will get you to the adjustment controls.
    ... Thanks, Dekoda. When I do that, I arrive at a box that reads, in the very top level, "Plug and Play Monitor and Intel(R) 82852/82855 GM/..." before space runs out.

    It has two sections, the DPI setting and the Compatibility section. I just see no more than that!

    But that's OK! I'm but one among many thousands. My images are fine. I'm guessing I'm at the fabled 6,500 number.

    Rob

  21. #21
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by fransAW View Post
    Not nessecarely, you just need to provide more possible answers. Fixed answers are MUCH easier to process and count.
    While fixed answers indeed are easier to count, etc., it appears that the various monitor manfacturers are doing it differently, making pigeon-holing the poll selections extremely difficult.

  22. #22
    Enjoys It Here
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    84
    Just curious - what are the results of this poll?

  23. #23
    Abby Winters
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,574
    52% 9300
    48% 6500

  24. #24
    Wields limited power
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Axiom hovering over the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,005
    which is to evenly split to do anything with I guess ?

  25. #25
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, 650mi NNW from old FL home...
    Posts
    4,264
    Wondering if this curiosity pertained to the new lights about which we have read?

    Is it not reasonable to assume that color temp. settings are then, somehow, compensated-for by another level of tint setting so that those using either of these very different temp. settings wind up viewing a very similar image? Hard to imagine that a site featuring SKIN, would have viewers having very different experiences! Is this a dumb question??
    Rob

  26. #26
    Abby Winters
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,574
    unfortunately, not, Rob.

    With half our customers using one white point, and the other half using another, around half our customers are seeing our images looking appalling. Sucks, but there's nothing we can do.

    We're now balancing for 6500k, for what it's worth.

  27. #27
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    At the Pub, with all my friends
    Posts
    442
    Why the swicth from 9300k to 6500k ?

    When most are at 9300k ( 9300k at 52% and 6500k at 48% ) and that is what you were balancing

    http://forums.abbywinters.com/vbulle...ead.php?t=4667

    19th December 2005, 04:11 AM #7
    Abby
    Abby Winters


    Join Date: Oct 2000
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Posts: 4,441 the pics are processed to look best at 9300, FTR.

    a

  28. #28
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, 650mi NNW from old FL home...
    Posts
    4,264
    This really is surprising. There may be lots of flesh here but it's not the only flesh and white on the WWW. I now wonder if those who see "appalling" images only see that problem here and not everywhere else on the web. For me, images here and everywhere else look fine. Something's not adding up!

  29. #29
    Wields limited power
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Axiom hovering over the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Abby View Post
    With half our customers using one white point, and the other half using another, around half our customers are seeing our images looking appalling.
    Isn't that subjective to a degree? Most members enjoy and like the images, and most won't know or realise they are viewing an image with a badly calibrated monitor. When does a picture on a screen look ok, when the person viewing it thinks it's ok or when it's technically ok?

    I just checked the diff between 9300 and 6500 on my monitor, seems 9300 is more blue-ish/subdued? I think my monitor at work is at 6500, though the lighting there is harsher obviously

    Why the switch from 9300 to 6500 anyway? Do you suspect most monitors without color-temp settings to be at 6500?

  30. #30
    Permanent Resident
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Abby View Post
    unfortunately, not, Rob.

    With half our customers using one white point, and the other half using another, around half our customers are seeing our images looking appalling. Sucks, but there's nothing we can do.

    We're now balancing for 6500k, for what it's worth.
    Truly a subjective figure and depends on system. Don't beat yourself up for no reason.

  31. #31
    Permanent Resident
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Going, going ... gone.
    Posts
    1,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Abby View Post
    With half our customers using one white point, and the other half using another, around half our customers are seeing our images looking appalling. Sucks, but there's nothing we can do.
    Have you considered creating a page that assists users in adjusting their monitor settings? I Googled adjust monitor white point and found these pages with test-pattern graphics and advice on how to use them.

    http://home.comcast.net/~morrised2006/tips/monitor.htm
    http://www.scarse.org/adjust/white.html
    http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/

  32. #32
    Plenty To Say
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by Abby View Post
    unfortunately, not, Rob.

    With half our customers using one white point, and the other half using another, around half our customers are seeing our images looking appalling. Sucks, but there's nothing we can do.

    We're now balancing for 6500k, for what it's worth.
    My LCD monitor [Philips] says 9300 for CAD/CAM, 6500 for Image Management

  33. #33
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1
    I agree with NOT switching. Switching guarantees that 100% of users will see either older or recent images at the wrong color balance. By leaving it at 9300K everybody CAN set the proper balance for all images.

  34. #34
    Still Exploring
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    48
    I think 6500 is pretty standard for images. 9300 is way on the blue end of the scale, and it'll make most images (except for ones that have been specifically balanced for that colour temperature) look pretty unpleasant (unless you have a thing for smurfs).

  35. #35
    All Powerful Controller
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Luxembourg, the green heart of Europe
    Posts
    11,147
    I've just checked my CRT pre-press monitor and it's set to 9300.
    I must say it's an adjustment that I like.

    It matches the pictures very well.

    Lxm

  36. #36
    Posting Champion
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, 650mi NNW from old FL home...
    Posts
    4,264
    Somehow, I think we must be missing something here. Apropos this chat, I followed some links offered above and some links from those and, somewhere, read that most monitors are, indeed, at that higher, "bluish" setting. I have to wonder, no more than I know on this subject, whether it is possible to then take the "bluish" monitor and adjust it, still while at that standard temperature setting, to simply offset the tint through other levels of color balancing.

    (Or, vice-versa!)

    Hard to believe that two of us could look, side-by-side at the same images on the same website and be happy to see such different skin-tones!

    I have to say that the "newbies", just above, have a point!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

 
Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.