Back to forums

Monitor calibration in astrophotography — what’s your experience?

Processing Color Calibration Deep Sky
23 replies•750 views
Do you calibrate your monitor for astrophotography?
Single choice poll 89 votes
40% (36 votes)
18% (16 votes)
15% (13 votes)
21% (19 votes)
6% (5 votes)
You must be logged in to vote in this poll.
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Hi everyone,

I’m posting this in the Processing section because I believe monitor calibration directly affects how we stretch, color balance, and finalize our deep sky images. It's part of the workflow — whether we realize it or not.
Until recently, I’ve been processing all my astrophotos on an OLED display, enjoying its deep blacks, high contrast, and vivid colors. However, just a few days ago, I happened to view some of my finished images on a regular laptop and smartphone… and honestly, I was shocked:
  • The images were far too dark — shadows crushed, faint details missing
  • Contrast appeared flat or muddy — nebulosity lost structure
  • Colors looked oversaturated — especially in stars and bright areas

At that time, I hadn’t calibrated my monitor yet. Now, I see how critical it is to calibrate before processing, especially when publishing to web platforms like AstroBin. I'm planning to calibrate the display for several profiles and would like to hear your thoughts and experiences on this matter.

What are your calibration practices?
  • What kind of monitor do you use? (OLED, IPS, laptop?)
  • Do you calibrate? If so, with which device/software?
  • What color space do you process in? (sRGB, AdobeRGB, DCI-P3?)
  • What brightness level do you aim for? (in cd/m²)
  • Do you check your final image on other screens before publishing?


Looking forward to your feedback — I think this is a rarely discussed but crucial aspect of our processing pipeline!

Clear skies!
Oleksiy
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Tony Gondola avatar
Tony Gondola avatar
Displays are going to vary, the best you can hope for is that your images translate acceptably on most displays, probably almost none of which will be calibrated.

I record and produce music where you have the same problem. A track will sound great in the studio and be a barf fest in the car. In fact, I have a set of low quality speakers in the studio just for that reason. If I get a mix to where it sounds good in both the studio monitors and the crappy little speakers I know I have the balance right.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise Engaging
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Tony Gondola:
Displays are going to vary, the best you can hope for is that your images translate acceptably on most displays, probably almost none of which will be calibrated.

I record and produce music where you have the same problem. A track will sound great in the studio and be a barf fest in the car. In fact, I have a set of low quality speakers in the studio just for that reason. If I get a mix to where it sounds good in both the studio monitors and the crappy little speakers I know I have the balance right.

Thanks, Tony — the “crappy speakers” analogy is spot on.
I agree that checking the final result on different screens is a good habit.
But I’m starting to think it also matters what display we use during processing.
If the monitor isn’t accurate, I might make the wrong decisions with stretching or color.
I noticed this when I asked for feedback on an image — people gave completely different opinions, and it turned out we were all seeing different versions of the same file.
So yeah, even the editing stage depends a lot on the screen.

Clear skies!
Oleksiy
Well Written Insightful Respectful Concise
Habib Sekha avatar
Habib Sekha avatar
Oleksiy Govorun:
So yeah, even the editing stage depends a lot on the screen.


But also on the surrounding light-quality and level.

I used an Apple Studio Display, which is properly calibrated out of the box.

However, the screen is glossy and because I suffered from a long lasting eye inflammation I decided to get a matte display. It is the Eizo CG2700X with a built in calibration. I have set it at 120 cd/m2 and use mostly sRGB.
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Habib Sekha:
But also on the surrounding light-quality and level.

I used an Apple Studio Display, which is properly calibrated out of the box.

However, the screen is glossy and because I suffered from a long lasting eye inflammation I decided to get a matte display. It is the Eizo CG2700X with a built in calibration. I have set it at 120 cd/m2 and use mostly sRGB.

Thanks, Habib — very helpful.
You're absolutely right: surrounding light affects perception a lot. I’ve started paying more attention to that too, especially in darker rooms.
The Eizo sounds like a fantastic setup. Built-in calibration and a matte screen seem like a smart combination, especially for long sessions.

Clear skies!
Oleksiy
Well Written Respectful
Riccardo Civati avatar
Riccardo Civati avatar
Hi everyone,

This topic is very important, perhaps the first thing to set up before even taking a photo.

I'll tell you about my experience. I own an Eizo CG2700S monitor. I decided to buy it both because it has a very precise built-in calibrator and because it has a very wide color gamut.
In pixinsight's color management setup, I set the RGB image color space to ProPhoto RGB (downloaded from the ICC profile from the ICM Profile website). I processed the photo with this profile, and I have to say the colors are amazing… but then the problems arise, the serious ones.

Everyone says that to export to the web or for print you need to convert it to sRGB. You do that, and the photo changes completely, the histogram disintegrates, the colors become flat, and the photo has to be redone.

So now I'm wondering: does it make sense to use this profile? Maybe it's better to stick with sRGB.

I'd also like to ask whether to use "relative colorimetric or perceptual."

In the next few days, I'll have an Eizo technician come to my house to explain the settings in detail and how to best use them. So far, I've only found benefits for my eyesight, but not for print or web.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Bruce Donzanti avatar
Bruce Donzanti avatar
Good topic and question. 

I have two side-by-side monitors, one is a new Dell and the other is an old HP.   I tried to use the controls on each monitor to have them match as best I could by simple visual inspection.  When I process an image, I am seeing it on both monitors.  The new Dell presents a much sharper, vivid-looking image vs. the HP, which gives a softer-looking image.  The HP image is not bad, but it is clearly different.  That got me thinking, what is everyone else seeing when I post it on AB and what does it look like if I post it on another site?  I decided it really doesn't matter for me as the types and age of monitors being used, along with the settings to tweak them must be endless.  So, I base my results off of my new Dell monitor since I like the result it gives me.  With all this said, a much bigger factor for me is doing the processing in the dark as mentioned above by Habib.  I learned some time ago that that plays a much more significant role in my processing decisions than the monitor.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Riccardo Civati:
Hi everyone,

This topic is very important, perhaps the first thing to set up before even taking a photo.

I'll tell you about my experience. I own an Eizo CG2700S monitor. I decided to buy it both because it has a very precise built-in calibrator and because it has a very wide color gamut.
In pixinsight's color management setup, I set the RGB image color space to ProPhoto RGB (downloaded from the ICC profile from the ICM Profile website). I processed the photo with this profile, and I have to say the colors are amazing… but then the problems arise, the serious ones.

Everyone says that to export to the web or for print you need to convert it to sRGB. You do that, and the photo changes completely, the histogram disintegrates, the colors become flat, and the photo has to be redone.

So now I'm wondering: does it make sense to use this profile? Maybe it's better to stick with sRGB.

I'd also like to ask whether to use "relative colorimetric or perceptual."

In the next few days, I'll have an Eizo technician come to my house to explain the settings in detail and how to best use them. So far, I've only found benefits for my eyesight, but not for print or web.


Thanks for sharing your experience, Riccardo!
I’ve come to the same conclusion.
Wider color spaces like ProPhoto RGB can look great during editing, but they often don’t hold up when converting to sRGB — especially if tone mapping and color balance were done for that wider range. After conversion, it can feel like you have to redo the image from scratch.
For now, I plan to stick with sRGB from the start — not because it looks better, but because it’s more predictable when sharing or publishing.

As for rendering intent: I’m still learning, but for astro images, Relative Colorimetric seems safer if you want accuracy.
Perceptual might work better if you want to keep a smooth overall look, even if it shifts things a bit.

Clear skies!
Oleksiy
Well Written Respectful Concise
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Bruce Donzanti:
Good topic and question. 

I have two side-by-side monitors, one is a new Dell and the other is an old HP.   I tried to use the controls on each monitor to have them match as best I could by simple visual inspection.  When I process an image, I am seeing it on both monitors.  The new Dell presents a much sharper, vivid-looking image vs. the HP, which gives a softer-looking image.  The HP image is not bad, but it is clearly different.  That got me thinking, what is everyone else seeing when I post it on AB and what does it look like if I post it on another site?  I decided it really doesn't matter for me as the types and age of monitors being used, along with the settings to tweak them must be endless.  So, I base my results off of my new Dell monitor since I like the result it gives me.  With all this said, a much bigger factor for me is doing the processing in the dark as mentioned above by Habib.  I learned some time ago that that plays a much more significant role in my processing decisions than the monitor.

Thanks, Bruce — that’s a familiar situation.
It really shows how much two monitors can differ, even side by side.
I’m actually trying something similar — processing in the evening, but also checking the same image again in the morning light, just to see how much my perception shifts. Sometimes it feels like two different edits. That’s why I started thinking more seriously about having a consistent and neutral base — even just a basic sRGB-calibrated setup — so I’m not chasing shadows (literally) every time the room changes.

Totally agree, ambient light is a big factor.
Well Written Insightful Respectful Engaging
Riccardo Civati avatar
Riccardo Civati avatar
Habib Sekha:
Oleksiy Govorun:
So yeah, even the editing stage depends a lot on the screen.


But also on the surrounding light-quality and level.

I used an Apple Studio Display, which is properly calibrated out of the box.

However, the screen is glossy and because I suffered from a long lasting eye inflammation I decided to get a matte display. It is the Eizo CG2700X with a built in calibration. I have set it at 120 cd/m2 and use mostly sRGB.

io ho settato 100 cd/m2.  che white point hai messo? Nella gestione colori del tuo PC, che profilo colore predefinito è impostato?
Habib Sekha avatar
Habib Sekha avatar
Riccardo Civati:
Habib Sekha:
Oleksiy Govorun:
So yeah, even the editing stage depends a lot on the screen.


But also on the surrounding light-quality and level.

I used an Apple Studio Display, which is properly calibrated out of the box.

However, the screen is glossy and because I suffered from a long lasting eye inflammation I decided to get a matte display. It is the Eizo CG2700X with a built in calibration. I have set it at 120 cd/m2 and use mostly sRGB.

io ho settato 100 cd/m2.  che white point hai messo? Nella gestione colori del tuo PC, che profilo colore predefinito è impostato?

I use a mac studio computer. In the computer's display setting I let the color space to be determined by the monitor. For ambient light I have set in the monitor D65 which matches reasonably well with my ambient light.

EDIT: in PixInsight I have perceptual and sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Riccardo Civati avatar
Riccardo Civati avatar
Hello everyone,

I spoke with the graphics technician for Eizo monitors (the best), and he gave me the information I was missing regarding everything:

- point 1: Kelvin temperature to set: to publish images on the web, you need to set the K to D65, for printing, you need to set the K to D50. (This is because prints tend increasingly toward blue, so using D50 or a value of 5300 as an average helps compensate.)

point 2: the color space in the photo: ProPhoto must be completely removed from the process (it's a color space with nonexistent colors and tends to give incorrect results everywhere).
He recommended I use sRGB for the web, but for printing, he told me to use Adobe RGB.
The differences between the two are in the green hue. The Eizo monitor reproduces 100% of sRGB and 99% of Adobe RGB.
Astrophotography almost never shows green tones (except in planetary nebulae/comets), so if you want, you can safely stick with sRGB.

I could choose to do all my work in AdobeRGB and then save one image in Adobe, while converting another to sRGB for web (this is the most complex but best option).

Point 3: Brightness should be between about 90 and 120; he told me to set it to 110cd/m2.

point 4: Gamma 2.2

point 5: rendering intent of the monitor profile pixinsight: is just about the pixel out of gamut, so with eizo and sRGB it doesn't matter, with the adobe RGB.....i don't know.

@Adam Block , what do you think about the monitor's rendering intent in color management setup?

Give me some feedback!

Riccardo
Helpful
Bill McLaughlin avatar
Bill McLaughlin avatar
Two Comments:

1) OLED monitors typically require a different model and more expensive calibration device than backlit monitors.

2) I have had great luck with the Asus ProArt monitors. They are designed to be well calibrated out of the box so typically require little or no calibration.
Well Written Concise
Tareq Abdulla avatar
Tareq Abdulla avatar
I am thinking about a good affordable monitor as i came from photography since long time ago, i used to use Apple Cinema Display 30" and Eizo CG 22", Eizo was better as quality but very small size and i got used to 30", i stopped photography and depended on different monitors for no processing, then i bought Benq monitor 32", i also bought 4k glossy curved LG monitor but i gave it to my daughter, now i am thinking about either Dell or as Bill mentioned the Asus ProArt, this ProArt reminded me about the motherboard because i built a computer for Pixinsight processing and i am planning to use Asus mobo instead of Gigabyte i am using, so maybe their monitor is also matching for the processing quality.
Phillippe Aichinger avatar
Phillippe Aichinger avatar
Hey Oleksiy Govorun, PSA neighbour here, i work in the film production industry and it somewhat translates directly to this hobby. Monitor calibration in general is of upmost importance not only for color accuracy but a it also has a direct effect on brightness and contrast aswell. OLED monitors have their advantages although Non-oled monitors are starting to catch up with new LED projection techniques. your right in what you say regarding the true blacks and wide color gamut but its incredibly important to calibrate to maximise that, we calibrate monitors so that we give our images the best chance of representing almost correctly at a consumer level, its very rare that an image will accurately represent on a consumer device the same as it does on a correctly calibrated monitor. Its common practice in film to sometimes offset color knowing that it might represent better on a consumer grade display. 
Its also true of setting peak brightness correctly aswell. an OLED with a peak brightness of say 600 knits is not going to represent true blacks the same as a 2000 knit peak brightness.

i would recomend a peak brightness level of over 1000 knits if tour working on things such as IFN where brightness really matters. i always recommend trying to work in the widest color gamut possible as tou will always get a better representation of color if your monitor is accurately calibrared. but correct color management for delivery is essential for returning the image back ot srgb for web delivery and softchecking before export is crucial.

when it comes to environmentals its important to consider your grading environment, so no direct sunlight, no pitch black if you intend to work for extended periods of time. its not good to work in the dark as you will get eye strain. work with a natural back light that is still dim. interesting fact for you. in the Film industry we regularly use two cameras at anyone time we label these A camera and B camera. ususally denoted by color, Red and Blue. we have recently stopped using those colors onscreen because Red and or Blue framelines were influencing the Daily colorists color decision and we often found that the colorist was compensating or reducing the grade in the red and blues because after extended periods of time the colors start to mess with there head. so make sure u dont have influencing light around you when color grading. 

a final note on color calibrating devices. rule of thumb is buy cheap and you will buy again. price verymuch does reflect the accuracy of the color calibration. happy to talk further if needed buddy!
Helpful
Georg N. Nyman avatar
Georg N. Nyman avatar
I am using a calibrated EIZO monitor. ColorSpace Adobe RGB (as good as the monitor allows). Calibrating it very 4 weeks with my X-Rite equipment. Not cheap, but good and reliable.
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar

Phillippe Aichinger · Aug 6, 2025, 04:29 PM

Hey Oleksiy Govorun, PSA neighbour here, i work in the film production industry and it somewhat translates directly to this hobby. Monitor calibration in general is of upmost importance not only for color accuracy but a it also has a direct effect on brightness and contrast aswell. OLED monitors have their advantages although Non-oled monitors are starting to catch up with new LED projection techniques. your right in what you say regarding the true blacks and wide color gamut but its incredibly important to calibrate to maximise that, we calibrate monitors so that we give our images the best chance of representing almost correctly at a consumer level, its very rare that an image will accurately represent on a consumer device the same as it does on a correctly calibrated monitor. Its common practice in film to sometimes offset color knowing that it might represent better on a consumer grade display. 
Its also true of setting peak brightness correctly aswell. an OLED with a peak brightness of say 600 knits is not going to represent true blacks the same as a 2000 knit peak brightness.

i would recomend a peak brightness level of over 1000 knits if tour working on things such as IFN where brightness really matters. i always recommend trying to work in the widest color gamut possible as tou will always get a better representation of color if your monitor is accurately calibrared. but correct color management for delivery is essential for returning the image back ot srgb for web delivery and softchecking before export is crucial.

when it comes to environmentals its important to consider your grading environment, so no direct sunlight, no pitch black if you intend to work for extended periods of time. its not good to work in the dark as you will get eye strain. work with a natural back light that is still dim. interesting fact for you. in the Film industry we regularly use two cameras at anyone time we label these A camera and B camera. ususally denoted by color, Red and Blue. we have recently stopped using those colors onscreen because Red and or Blue framelines were influencing the Daily colorists color decision and we often found that the colorist was compensating or reducing the grade in the red and blues because after extended periods of time the colors start to mess with there head. so make sure u dont have influencing light around you when color grading. 

a final note on color calibrating devices. rule of thumb is buy cheap and you will buy again. price verymuch does reflect the accuracy of the color calibration. happy to talk further if needed buddy!

Hi Philippe, great to see a PSA neighbour here — and thanks so much for sharing your experience!

Coming from the film industry, your perspective really adds depth to this discussion. I truly appreciate all the practical advice — especially the points about ambient lighting, color bias from surrounding elements, and working with wide color gamuts responsibly.

Your note about the influence of red and blue framelines on colorists was fascinating — I would have never thought of that, but it makes total sense. Same goes for choosing the right peak brightness — I’ve already started comparing how faint structures show up under different room lighting conditions, both at night and during the day.

I recently picked up a Calibrite Display Pro HL, so now I’m working on building a more consistent setup.

Thanks again for taking the time to write all this — incredibly helpful stuff!

CS, Oleksiy

Well Written Respectful Supportive
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar

Georg N. Nyman · Aug 6, 2025, 05:27 PM

I am using a calibrated EIZO monitor. ColorSpace Adobe RGB (as good as the monitor allows). Calibrating it very 4 weeks with my X-Rite equipment. Not cheap, but good and reliable.

Thanks, Georg — sounds like a rock-solid setup.

Calibrating every 4 weeks with X-Rite gear is definitely the way to go for consistency. EIZO + AdobeRGB is a powerful combo, especially when color accuracy matters. Not cheap indeed — but as they say, “buy once, cry once.” Reliability really does pay off over time.

CS, Oleksiy

Well Written Respectful
David Néel avatar
David Néel avatar
Got the same problem as you. Processing on 1000 nits monitor. My picture on non hdr monitor got very dark background (almost flat dark) whereas my background at home is nowhere close to that. That's quite annoying. (as far as I can see is regular People make dark around 15-20% and mine is around 10% cause hdr screen)
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar

I finally received my calibrator today — Calibrite Display Pro HL — and wanted to share a quick follow-up.

If the goal is to make the final image appear as close as possible to how it will be seen on the average (uncalibrated) monitor — then calibration is not just helpful, it's essential.

Just the act of calibrating forced me to rethink how I evaluate images. I now tie the judgment of results to the exact lighting conditions I calibrated under — in my case, at night, with weak diffuse artificial backlighting.

I was genuinely surprised by how different my OLED screen looked after applying a calibrated sRGB profile at 110 cd/m². It gave me a very grounded and realistic baseline — and now I better understand how others may perceive my images.

It also made me realize that before calibration, I was unintentionally chasing contrast and brightness that might look good only on my screen — but nowhere else.

Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging
John Hayes avatar
John Hayes avatar
Oleksiy,
You are totally right:  Monitor display quality varies considerably.  I took my first Pixinsight course from Vincent Perez live in a room with maybe 25 other guys–and we all had laptops.  I was shocked to see the wide variation in display quality between the different PCs.  I use a MacBook Pro and I noticed that all of the MacBook Pro displays looked pretty much the same.  The rest were all over the place.  I've recently started using an Apple Studio Display and it has amazing dynamic range, sharpness, and color.  Furthermore it appears to have the same color calibration as my MacBook pro.  It isn't cheap but it has become my new favorite monitor.  Color calibration is a good idea but I'm not going to bother with this monitor.  It does a great job of displaying my images and I don't want to mess with it! 

John
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar

John Hayes · Aug 7, 2025, 05:17 AM

Oleksiy,
You are totally right:  Monitor display quality varies considerably.  I took my first Pixinsight course from Vincent Perez live in a room with maybe 25 other guys–and we all had laptops.  I was shocked to see the wide variation in display quality between the different PCs.  I use a MacBook Pro and I noticed that all of the MacBook Pro displays looked pretty much the same.  The rest were all over the place.  I've recently started using an Apple Studio Display and it has amazing dynamic range, sharpness, and color.  Furthermore it appears to have the same color calibration as my MacBook pro.  It isn't cheap but it has become my new favorite monitor.  Color calibration is a good idea but I'm not going to bother with this monitor.  It does a great job of displaying my images and I don't want to mess with it! 

John

John, thanks so much for sharing your experience.

The consistency Apple achieves with its display profiles is really impressive — I’ve noticed that too, and it really helps reduce the uncertainty when evaluating an image.

I completely understand not wanting to mess with a monitor that already looks so well-calibrated. In my case, I just wanted to be sure, since I’m working with an OLED display that has a pretty wide dynamic range.

Or maybe I’m just not skilled enough yet in processing, and I’m trying to blame the monitor for some of my own mistakes 😅

CS, Oleksiy

Well Written Respectful
John Hayes avatar
John Hayes avatar
Oleksiy Govorun:
John Hayes · Aug 7, 2025, 05:17 AM

Oleksiy,
You are totally right:  Monitor display quality varies considerably.  I took my first Pixinsight course from Vincent Perez live in a room with maybe 25 other guys–and we all had laptops.  I was shocked to see the wide variation in display quality between the different PCs.  I use a MacBook Pro and I noticed that all of the MacBook Pro displays looked pretty much the same.  The rest were all over the place.  I've recently started using an Apple Studio Display and it has amazing dynamic range, sharpness, and color.  Furthermore it appears to have the same color calibration as my MacBook pro.  It isn't cheap but it has become my new favorite monitor.  Color calibration is a good idea but I'm not going to bother with this monitor.  It does a great job of displaying my images and I don't want to mess with it! 

John

John, thanks so much for sharing your experience.

The consistency Apple achieves with its display profiles is really impressive — I’ve noticed that too, and it really helps reduce the uncertainty when evaluating an image.

I completely understand not wanting to mess with a monitor that already looks so well-calibrated. In my case, I just wanted to be sure, since I’m working with an OLED display that has a pretty wide dynamic range.

Or maybe I’m just not skilled enough yet in processing, and I’m trying to blame the monitor for some of my own mistakes 😅

CS, Oleksiy

Oleksiy,
No matter how many images anyone has processed, it is very easy to get fooled by the monitor.   That’s because the human visual system is so adaptable.  I forgot to mention that although I do my processing on a pretty good monitor, I aways cross check the final results on both my iPad and my Galaxy S24 before releasing an image.  Occasionally, I have to go back and tweak things when I find that it doesn’t look good on the other displays.  I also notice that my original images on my local machine always looks just a little better than it does when I upload it to Astrobin.  The colors loose just a little vibrance and they appear slightly less crisp.

John
Well Written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Oleksiy Govorun avatar
Oleksiy Govorun avatar

John Hayes · Aug 7, 2025, 02:12 PM

Oleksiy Govorun:

John Hayes · Aug 7, 2025, 05:17 AM

Oleksiy,
You are totally right:  Monitor display quality varies considerably.  I took my first Pixinsight course from Vincent Perez live in a room with maybe 25 other guys–and we all had laptops.  I was shocked to see the wide variation in display quality between the different PCs.  I use a MacBook Pro and I noticed that all of the MacBook Pro displays looked pretty much the same.  The rest were all over the place.  I've recently started using an Apple Studio Display and it has amazing dynamic range, sharpness, and color.  Furthermore it appears to have the same color calibration as my MacBook pro.  It isn't cheap but it has become my new favorite monitor.  Color calibration is a good idea but I'm not going to bother with this monitor.  It does a great job of displaying my images and I don't want to mess with it! 

John


John, thanks so much for sharing your experience.

The consistency Apple achieves with its display profiles is really impressive — I’ve noticed that too, and it really helps reduce the uncertainty when evaluating an image.

I completely understand not wanting to mess with a monitor that already looks so well-calibrated. In my case, I just wanted to be sure, since I’m working with an OLED display that has a pretty wide dynamic range.

Or maybe I’m just not skilled enough yet in processing, and I’m trying to blame the monitor for some of my own mistakes 😅

CS, Oleksiy


Oleksiy,
No matter how many images anyone has processed, it is very easy to get fooled by the monitor.   That’s because the human visual system is so adaptable.  I forgot to mention that although I do my processing on a pretty good monitor, I aways cross check the final results on both my iPad and my Galaxy S24 before releasing an image.  Occasionally, I have to go back and tweak things when I find that it doesn’t look good on the other displays.  I also notice that my original images on my local machine always looks just a little better than it does when I upload it to Astrobin.  The colors loose just a little vibrance and they appear slightly less crisp.

John

Thanks for that clarification, John. So you do do a comparative analysis on other screens and adjust the image. If a master like you takes that into account, then that's a very strong argument for changing the practice as the final part of processing.

Regarding “It does a great job of displaying my images and I don't want to mess with it!” - I think that having a couple of additional monitor profiles for previewing variations of final edits is not a very big interference in the gadget's operation. Moreover, this is a direct functionality of both displays and the operating system. Switching the created profile is a matter of 5 seconds.

Thanks again for your remark!

CS Oleksiy

Respectful Supportive