Auto-repeat key to change contrast?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Salmon Egg - 08 Feb 2010 07:06 GMT

Very few photos are posted that are truly exposed and processed
correctly. The combination of Control-option-command with a comma or
period [< or >] will respectively decrease or increase contrast by one
step. Unfortunately, this combination will not auto-repeat. Is there a
simple way to have this combination auto-repeat? There are many pictures
for which no amount of contyrast change will be helpful.

Bill

Signature

An old man would be better off never having been born.

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 08 Feb 2010 13:41 GMT

> Very few photos are posted that are truly exposed and processed
> correctly. The combination of Control-option-command with a comma or
> period [< or >] will respectively decrease or increase contrast by one
> step. Unfortunately, this combination will not auto-repeat. Is there a
> simple way to have this combination auto-repeat?

Not that I know of, but is it really so bad holding down
Control-option-command and tapping the < or > repeatedly?

> There are many pictures for which no amount of contyrast change will be
> helpful.

Which makes me wonder what the point is anyway.

But seriously, I have to wonder if your display is correctly calibrated.
If it's not, that could explain why so many pictures you see need
correction.

Signature

My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_9pudbFisE>

Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>

Reply to this Message

Salmon Egg - 08 Feb 2010 21:19 GMT

> Not that I know of, but is it really so bad holding down
> Control-option-command and tapping the < or > repeatedly?

It sure is not the end of the world. In addition tho photographs, I have
some vision problems. I find it useful to switch into inverse video.
some things,such as the separators in the Finder column view format
disappear if the contrast is off. The same is true for the cell borders
in Excel.

While it is not the end of the world, it is annoying to press the key
six times in a row in one direction for one picture and then eight tines
in a row in the other direction for the next picture.

Bill

Signature

An old man would be better off never having been born.

Reply to this Message

TaliesinSoft - 08 Feb 2010 15:04 GMT

If the pictures are repeatedly viewed an option is to open them in
Preview, adjust the contrast, and then save. The contrast adjustment is
one of the several adjustments available in the "Adjust Color..."
option available by selecting "Tools" in the menubar.

Signature

James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

Reply to this Message

isw - 09 Feb 2010 04:36 GMT

Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
of embedded color profiles (assuming the image even has one) by many
browsers?

Isaac

Reply to this Message

Salmon Egg - 09 Feb 2010 07:12 GMT

> Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
> between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
> of embedded color profiles (assuming the image even has one) by many
> browsers?

Maybe I am not getting my point across.

If I were willing to edit the photos, I would fiddle around with gamma,
saturation and all those other things you can do with Photoshop. I am
just looking at a lot of jpg files. I want a simple means of improving
what I am seeing without pulling out all the stops.

Bill

Signature

An old man would be better off never having been born.

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 09 Feb 2010 17:47 GMT

> > Isn't it more likely that the problem is a combination of gamma mismatch
> > between the photo editor's screen and the viewer's, plus poor handling
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> just looking at a lot of jpg files. I want a simple means of improving
> what I am seeing without pulling out all the stops.

I asked you in my post if you'd tried calibrating your monitor. You
responded to something else in my post but not to that question.

HAVE you tried calibrating the monitor? It's entirely possible that
doing that will make more of the photos look right in the first place.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Salmon Egg - 09 Feb 2010 20:06 GMT

> I asked you in my post if you'd tried calibrating your monitor. You
> responded to something else in my post but not to that question.
>
> HAVE you tried calibrating the monitor? It's entirely possible that
> doing that will make more of the photos look right in the first place.

To be specific, the answer is NO. Calibration will not help. For some, I
need mor contrast (gamma). For some less. For some, nothing short of
individual attention will help.

You have not answered my question: How can one get auto repeat on a
Control-Option-Command < (or >) combination?

Bill

Signature

An old man would be better off never having been born.

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 09 Feb 2010 20:18 GMT

> You have not answered my question: How can one get auto repeat on a
> Control-Option-Command < (or >) combination?

No, nor has anyone else.

Signature

Reply to this Message

isw - 10 Feb 2010 05:32 GMT

> > You have not answered my question: How can one get auto repeat on a
> > Control-Option-Command < (or >) combination?
>
> No, nor has anyone else.

How about AppleScript?

Isaac

Reply to this Message

isw - 09 Feb 2010 20:25 GMT

And I guess I didn't get mine across:

Instead of altering the gamma for the images by changing the contrast
(which is probably not very accurate anyhow), you can easily create a
color profile for the monitor with a gamma that matches the one the
images use. Switching between profiles is just a matter of three or four
mouse clicks, and you can keep as many profiles as you like, to choose
between.

I expect it's not that, as you said, "Very few photos are posted that
are truly exposed and processed correctly", but that they *are*
"correct" when viewed on the computer used by the person who posted
them. The difference between the historical Mac gamma of 1.8 and the
usual PC gamma of 2.2 is enough to make an image which looks fine on a
PC appear very "flat" on a Mac. Setting up a color profile with a gamma
of 2.2 may be all it takes to make the images look just fine on your
computer.

If the images had proper color profiles embedded in them (and many do
not), AND if you use a browser or other photo viewer that also honors
embedded profiles (and some do not), then you might not need to do the
gamma alteration by setting up a new color profile.

Isaac

Reply to this Message

Salmon Egg - 09 Feb 2010 23:14 GMT

> I expect it's not that, as you said, "Very few photos are posted that
> are truly exposed and processed correctly", but that they *are*
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> of 2.2 may be all it takes to make the images look just fine on your
> computer.

This is the most useful answer I have received. It is true that most of
the pictures do look flat. If what you say is true, increasing the
gamma might help and reduce the number of keystrokes required to
"improve" the inmages.

Bill

Signature

An old man would be better off never having been born.

Reply to this Message

Mac Forum / General / General / February 2010

Auto-repeat key to change contrast?