DSLRUsers.com

Hi there

It seems as though I am suffering some major colour management issues and I have been recommended to calibrate my screens.

What I see on the screen and what gets printed at the prolab is very different!!

Anyone know where I can hire a Spyder Pro in Sydney?

Thanks
Mike

Hi Mike, and welcome.

Hiring a spyder, to me, seems to be a rather short sighted idea. Calibration is not a once off deal; it's something that should be done on a regular and perhaps frequent basis. Once a month is recommended in many instances, and that, to me, seems to be around about the appropriate sort of timing.

Within that context, you should consider the cost of regularly hiring some calibration hardware, as against the couple of hundred buck that purchase might cost.

Out of curiosity, what sort of bodies and lenses are you using?

And at what cost?

And if you are going to the trouble (and expense) of using a prolab to print your work, why would you NOT be buying this hardware?

gstark wrote:Hiring a spyder, to me, seems to be a rather short sighted idea.

Gary beat me to it. Everything he said is correct.

Mike
The above advice is sound advice, however, if you only print occasionally you can try calibrating your monitor by eye. There are a number of test prints that you can download (including a good one on smugsmug. I believe)..or if you like I can email you one. You open the image and without making any changes make a print. The print should look good without any manipulation! If it does not then your printer or paper profiles or some device other than your monitor is at fault. If the print looks good but the image on your monitor looks different then adjust your monitor to match the print. You won't get an exact match but the colours should be very close. This is a sound method and may be enough to cure your problems. When adjusting your monitors colours enlist the help of all the females in your household. Females generally have more sensitive colour perception.

Matt. K wrote:The above advice is sound advice, however, if you only print occasionally you can try calibrating your monitor by eye

For printing at an external shop, proper calibration is a lot safer.

Foto Riesel on Kent St in the City .I rented one there a few years ago.Great shop and knowledgeable.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

In terms of the camera gear:

- Sony a700
- Sony 50mm F1.4 lens
- Sony 18-250mm Telephoto lens
- Considering purchasing the G Series 70-200mm f/2.8 G Telephoto Lens

I was considering the Spyder but wasnt really sure if I need to do it all the time.

I dont regularly print at the pro lab, I have been doing a few courses and recently found that the printing was so different to whats on my screen so I wanted to do this and see the difference.

I have 2 Dell UltraSharp LCD screens and again not sure if they are the best.

Might go past Foto Risel and rent one, test the different and then go from there.

Thanks again!!

Mike

Ok Mike,

A few more questions for you:

What sort of a printer do you have?

What sort of video card do you have?

When you print to your own printer, do you see a variation between what's on the monitor and what's printed?

Regarding calibration of your monitors, not all calibration tools can address a dual monitor setup.

When you put an image onto your screen, and you drag it from one monitor to the other, do the colours in the image change? And in this context, let's review my third question above, regarding the comparison between viewing the image on monitor A, vs monitor B, vs printing on your printer ... vs printing from your pro lab.

What colour space are you processing your images in? What colour space are you telling your lab to print in?

Aren't you glad you asked what you thought was such a simple question?

And a bit of housekeeping: could you please put a meaningful location into your profile. Please refer to our front page notice to new members, and the FAQ, and also to the welcome PM that you would have received when you joined. Thank you for your cooperation in this.

mic291 wrote:Might go past Foto Risel

That's generally what I do. Go right past them.

They're currently asking about 2100 for a D200. Methinks their pricing is a shade OTT.

Hi there

A bit of a delay responding...been in the US.

I have dual monitors however I only use one for viewing fotos as the other I used when I work, i.e. email etc so calibrating dual monitors is not an issue.

I do see a difference when I view fotos and print, regardless of whether its printing to my home printer or taking it to the local mini lab. Admittedly the issue is mainly the lab auto-correcting....

Yes not an easy question from what I am seeing. I would like to hire a Spyder though to see what, if any difference there is once calibrated.

Mike

Mike - put your city and suburb in your profile and I might be able to help out

Sorry, should be done now.

Have done it twice so not sure why it didnt save.

Apologies...

mic it is still showing up just as Sydney, if there is a problem of it not recording just post your suburb and we will insert it for you

Mike - if you wish to borrow my Spyder to see how it goes just pm me.

Hi, all

I'm not sure if I have the same problem with mic, but I find that color on my screen is quite different with what gets printed.

What's the problem? Chromatic aberration issue?

Thanks,

Abelard

0abelard wrote:What's the problem? Chromatic aberration issue?

No.

I'll bet your system has not been calibrated.

And what's your awareness of the colour space that you're working within?

Finally, please put a meaningful location into your profile; it's a requirement of membership here. Please see the front page and the FAQ for details of exactly what we mean by "meaningful".

gstark wrote:
Calibration is not a once off deal; it's something that should be done on a regular and perhaps frequent basis. Once a month is recommended in many instances, and that, to me, seems to be around about the appropriate sort of timing.

Is this still the case with LED monitors? I thought that they were much more stable.
My CRT refuses to die so I'm still using (and calibrating ) an ancient Gateway screen.

shakey wrote:

gstark wrote:Calibration is not a once off deal; it's something that should be done on a regular and perhaps frequent basis. Once a month is recommended in many instances, and that, to me, seems to be around about the appropriate sort of timing.

Is this still the case with LED monitors? I thought that they were much more stable.
My CRT refuses to die so I'm still using (and calibrating ) an ancient Gateway screen.

Bump that question. My 2408WFP should arrive on Friday.

Ironically I have recently replaced my Gateway CRT with just that same monitor. For the price it's pretty nice, but it definitely needs calibrating before you do any serious processing on it. Here's a little personal experience thing..

http://blowies.blogspot.com/2008/10/del ... ation.html

At this stage I don't know how often it will need recalibrating. Done it once with no differece that I could detect.

shakey wrote:Ironically I have recently replaced my Gateway CRT with just that same monitor.

Heh. With its 8-bit VA panel it seems to be the entry-level photo editting monitor.

For the price it's pretty nice, but it definitely needs calibrating before you do any serious processing on it... At this stage I don't know how often it will need recalibrating. Done it once with no differece that I could detect.

Well, if doing it once made no discernable difference - the 2408WFP is reputed to be very accurate out of the box - I would very much like some serious reasons why it would need to be recalibrated monthly. That just doesn't seem reasonable.

Out of the box it is way too bright and the reds are like neon lights. It needs to be calibrated. Whether it needs recalibatrating monthly after that is a moot point. I could put G Stark in one corner and K Rockwell in the other for a punch out about this...but...

My 2408WFP was NOT accurate out of the box. It required a calibration. The recalibration a month later made no difference to my initial calibaration.

The "out of Box" settings are probably fine if all you want to do is watch cartoons

shakey wrote:I could put G Stark in one corner and K Rockwell in the other for a punch out about this...but...

Ok, first of all, I have no experience (yet) with LED monitors.

So, lets talk about LCDs and CRTs just to give the discussion a firm basis, and then perhaps you can ask the question that you posed ...

Potoroo wrote:Well, if doing it once made no discernable difference - the 2408WFP is reputed to be very accurate out of the box - I would very much like some serious reasons why it would need to be recalibrated monthly. That just doesn't seem reasonable.

Let's look at this: CRTs can noticeably degrade over time. The electron beams get old, and like us, they slow down over time, right? So, they need regular adjustments to endure that they stay within the standards that we need in order to produce consistent results.

And please take note: there are six words in the prior paragraph that are of supreme importance: "in order to produce consistent results". There is no other reason, ever, to calibrate your systems, after all: you want to see prints that look like what you see on the screen.

There's our baseline. LCDs are backlit, and the backlighting can, over time, fail and fade. Or breakdown completely. How good are the standards under which your monitor was made? Over time, does the manufacturer maintain the same supplier for all components? As components move from one manufacturer to another, how does that affect the overall product quality between buyer A who bought something from batch F, as against buyer B who bought something manufactured within batch P?

Again, your goal with monitor calibration is to produce consistent results. This applies over time, too. So that if you pull up an image from three years ago, that you applied your post to with a CRT, but you're now using an LCD, how do you know that what you're seeing today on that LCD can be compared to what you saw three years ago on that CRT, unless both of those devices were calibrated to a common reference point?

Now, let's return to your question for a moment ... there's one phrase that requires attention: "no discernable difference".

Under what conditions? When you - when I, or when anyone else - look at a monitor, the results that we perceive will be affected by the ambient lighting conditions under which we are viewing what is displayed by that monitor. Are we in a bright or a dark room? Is the monitor beside a window with bright sunlight streaming through? Perhaps the room is lit by flouros? Or maybe just plain old garden variety bulbs? QI bulbs perhaps?

Any and all of these will have an impact upon how we perceive what we're seeing on the screen, but none of them would be sort of basis for saying that what we are seeing is "correct". It is only through the use of calibration tools, actually measuring the actual output of the screen, that an accurate and reliable assessment of that output can be made.

That we, as users, might not be able to discern any changes is irrelevant. Our eyes adjust and can compensate for these sorts of things and we will know little of this compensation processes that are being undertaken. Our bodies are very adaptable, and this are totally unreliable when it comes to something like a scientific assessment of the calibration status of any monitor.

Now, what was it that you were saying that was unreasonable?

gstark wrote:Let's look at this: CRTs can noticeably degrade over time. The electron beams get old, and like us, they slow down over time, right?

Speak for yourself, I've been 21 for a long time.

Now, what was it that you were saying that was unreasonable?

Nobody is arguing about the need to calibrate. The bit that made us sit up and shake our heads was the suggestion that monitors degrade sufficiently quickly to warrant monthly recalibration. That may be true for CRTs (as much as I love them), but I would be keen to hear from someone with experience with LCDs.

Potoroo wrote:

Now, what was it that you were saying that was unreasonable?

Nobody is arguing about the need to calibrate. The bit that made us sit up and shake our heads

Us???

No, just you, from what I'm seeing here.

was the suggestion that monitors degrade sufficiently quickly to warrant monthly recalibration. That may be true for CRTs (as much as I love them), but I would be keen to hear from someone with experience with LCDs.

Well, I have only seven LCDs within my immediate field of view. There's another one in my bedroom, and probably another four sitting behind me. I guess that means I have some experience with LCDs.

One of them has a dead backlight. It's unusable. It's a Sony, but the dead backlight is not a Sony issue.

Another two have experienced, and displayed, notable fading over time. When did it start? Who knows? And who cares?

When did I first notice this degradation? Again, I don't know, nor do I care.

What I do know is that by regular maintenance - which basically means calibration - the degradation has never been an issue. That I might not observe the gradual degradation over the shorter term does not mean that it hasn't happened: it has, but it's gradual.

Do I want that gradual degradation to affect my output? Not when it matters.

Does the quality of your output matter to you?

I would respectfully suggest that it's unreasonable for you to expect to see any sort of repeatable, consistent, high quality work exiting your workflow, and especially if you're using external sources for the printing or publishing of your work, unless you have a consistent, standard baseline from which to work.

Besides, what's the big deal with doing calibration? It takes maybe five minutes, and it does it all on its own. You only need to start it, and then wait for it to finish.

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:Nobody is arguing about the need to calibrate. The bit that made us sit up and shake our heads

Us???

No, just you, from what I'm seeing here.

Given I bumped shakey's question ("Is this still the case with LED monitors? I thought that they were much more stable.") that makes two, but let's move on.

but I would be keen to hear from someone with experience with LCDs.

Well, I have only seven LCDs within my immediate field of view. There's another one in my bedroom, and probably another four sitting behind me. I guess that means I have some experience with LCDs.

I misread your statement about having no experience with "LED monitors" as being LCD monitors. LED, LCD, so much grief over a letter!

Besides, what's the big deal with doing calibration? It takes maybe five minutes, and it does it all on its own. You only need to start it, and then wait for it to finish.

That's useful to know. But hey, no stupid questions and all that, eh?

Potoroo wrote:

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:Nobody is arguing about the need to calibrate. The bit that made us sit up and shake our heads

Us???

No, just you, from what I'm seeing here.

Given I bumped shakey's question ("Is this still the case with LED monitors? I thought that they were much more stable.") that makes two, but let's move on.

Well, no, not quite. Simon also went on to say ...

My 2408WFP was NOT accurate out of the box. It required a calibration. The recalibration a month later made no difference to my initial calibaration.

I'm not convinced that the latter part of that statement is entirely true. I'm inclined to read his words as if he was saying that he was unable to discern any difference from his initial calibration, but I would appreciate his confirmation of that. If the calibration results - the data - were identical, then yes, that might be true, but again, that would only be applicable for that period: who is going to predict what will happen at next month's calibration? Or the one after that?

When would you suggest would be the optimum time period for which Simon should schedule his next calibration? And why would you suggest that time period? I think that this is the critical part of this discussion.

And I'm unconvinced that Simon has climbed aboard your boat.

Besides, what's the big deal with doing calibration? It takes maybe five minutes, and it does it all on its own. You only need to start it, and then wait for it to finish.

That's useful to know. But hey, no stupid questions and all that, eh?

The only stupid questions are the ones that you do not ask.

Which leads me to wonder, based upon your responses thus far, what your knowledge of calibration processes might be. For instance, you seem to have been unaware of how easy the task is, based upon this most recent response.

gstark wrote:When would you suggest would be the optimum time period for which Simon should schedule his next calibration? And why would you suggest that time period? I think that this is the critical part of this discussion.

Indeed.

Which leads me to wonder, based upon your responses thus far, what your knowledge of calibration processes might be. For instance, you seem to have been unaware of how easy the task is, based upon this most recent response.

I have never colour calibrated a monitor, despite having worked in IT for too many years, although I have wasted many hours of my life trying to get CRT displays square. For general IT work and gaming it has never been an issue for me, notwithstanding that I am well aware equipment degrades over time.

Part of my reasoning for picking the 2408WFP is its 8-bit panel. Now I have a digital body colour accuracy is a factor in my thinking so I have been reading widely on monitor calibration (amongst other things; I may well revive other older threads ). I have read a vast range of forums, reviews and manufacturers' web sites, but not until now have I seen someone say that it's only a five minute job. In that light your suggestion it should be done monthly becomes much more reasonable - in essence you're saying "hey, for the sake of 5 minutes a month you simply need never worry about colour accuracy."

Perhaps I approached this the wrong way. Part of the way I learn is by wrestling with issues, which can give the impression I'm being argumentative when in my mind I'm simply trying to understand. What I now understand is that calibration is sufficiently quick and easy that you really need to justify not doing it regularly.

Potoroo wrote:I have never calibrated a monitor, despite having worked in IT for too many years.

There is no such relationship. Post processing is not an IT related task; it's a graphical task.

For general IT work and gaming it has never been an issue for me,

That is not an unreasonable position. I have yet to see an IT related task - save developing and/or testing graphical editing software - that would demand monitor calibration.

Now I have a digital body colour accuracy is a factor in my thinking

And having a digital body, again, is not a factor that would, in and of itself demand that you instigate a program of monitor calibration.

The point of calibration is, as I have noted, to provide you a consistent baseline through which your image processing workflow may be controlled.

This is true for those of us with digital bodies, but it extends well beyond that realm, but only where your images are required to be rendered upon hardware that is external to your computer.

If your images are never going to be displayed beyond your monitor, then the point of calibration is moot.

But if you are ever going to print your images, or have them published in a magazine, or you wish to enter them into a contest, or you wish to send them to a printing service to have copies made, then having an underlying baseline standard - one that those using other equipment not under your control may rely upon - is essential. Should you fail to observe this simple premise, then all of your work in post may be worthless, because you might not be seeing a colour cast that calibration might otherwise have highlighted.

And as I noted above, this has nothing at to do with using a digital body. If you are scanning images, be they prints, negs, or trannies, for further reproduction, then working with those images in post demands that your equipment be calibrated to a known standard.

And, apart from the photography aspect, perhaps somebody in an ad agency or art workshop is preparing artwork for publication. Again, calibration to a known standard is essential. The Pantone colour samples of yesterday have been augmented with digital equivalents for this very reason.

I have read a vast range of forums, reviews and manufacturers' web sites,

Please be wary of measurebators. Numbers, such as megapixels, are essentially meaningless. So is much of the discussion upon the relative merit of many techniques.

Work with real world examples, rather than theory ans statistics.

but not until now have I seen someone say that it's only a five minute job. In that light your suggestion it should be done monthly becomes much more reasonable - in essence you're saying "hey, for the sake of 5 minutes a month you simply need never worry about colour accuracy."

I doubt I would ever put it in those sorts of terms.

What I now understand is that calibration is sufficiently quick and easy that you really need to justify not doing it regularly.

That would be a far better way of expressing this.

Another factor is that the title of this thread suggest looking for a Spyder rather than (more generally) a colorimeter. There are various choices for a colorimeter and some can be more accurate than others. The Spyder2 will not work well with wide gamut monitors and Dell makes some relatively cheap ones. So if you have a wide gamut monitor or may get one in the future, then a Spyder 2 may not be a good choice. The Spyder3 may be better but it's considerably more expensive. As far as I can work out, in about the same price range, the Eye-One Display 2 is likely to be more accurate. Image Science in Melbourne probably still have a special on them for $A310.

Regards,
Murray

An update. Just did another calibration on said monitor DELL 2408wfp..Last calibrated Dec 1 2008. On this occasion there was a difference between the two profiles. I'm using Spyder Pro 3 and, when calibration is completed, the software shows a panel of images and lets you switch between the old profile and the new one to directly compare. As previously mentioned there was no discernable difference between my original calibration (sometime in Oct/Nov) and the Dec 1 profile, but another couple of months down the track there is a subtle difference..blacker blacks.

I was being a bit of a sh1tstirrer by mentioning KR, but he recently stated that he calibrates his LCD displays once and has never seen any drift so he doesn't calibrate again. Most people have found that KR needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

I agree with Murray that the Spyder 2 is not the tool if you have a wide gamut monitor. Previous thread about this so I won't recap...and I upgraded to Spyder 3 pro from Spyder 2 because I couldn't calibrate this monitor satisfactorily with Spyder 2.

Calibration took me 18 mins, mainly related to the clunky OSD on the monitor


and just to clear up a couple of points that Gary brought up

What I meant when I said that there was no difference between the first two profiles, was that there was no visual difference in the switched images from the previous profile to the newer one..

Calibration is not quite automatic, at least the way I do it with the Spyder 3. May depend on how tweakable your screen is. I adjust the RGB sliders via the OSD display during calibration (and that is probably the most time consuming part of the process)

Finally I just want to give a plug for this website http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration.htm
which have a couple of test images to test your calibration. On the BlackPoint test my calibrated monitor shows a difference from 0,0,0 to 1,1,1 when viewed at an angle, and from 0,0,0 to 2,2,2 when viewed straight on. The monitor luminance test is also "illuminating". Don't know whether it makes a difference but I'm using Firefox with colour management to run the tests.

Simon,

Thanx for the update.

shakey wrote:As previously mentioned there was no discernable difference between my original calibration (sometime in Oct/Nov) and the Dec 1 profile, but another couple of months down the track there is a subtle difference..blacker blacks.

I think the word "discernable" is important here. There may in fact have been a small difference. Over a slightly extended period, any such difference has now become more obvious, to the point that it is now more obvious.

The actual profiles are, IIRC, stored somewhere on the system, and I think they're named for the date upon which they're created. A quick way to see if there are any differences between the first and the second profiles would be to simply run a MD5 calculation against them: if they're the identical, you will get the same result, and if not, the result will be different.

I was being a bit of a sh1tstirrer by mentioning KR, but he recently stated that he calibrates his LCD displays once and has never seen any drift so he doesn't calibrate again. Most people have found that KR needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

Yep.

Calibration took me 18 mins, mainly related to the clunky OSD on the monitor

Simon, could you please, if you have a moment, elaborate on this?

Normally, I just set everything back to the defaults, throw the spider at the monitor, and run the application. I come back a few minutes later and it's all done.

You're saying that you need to adjust the monitor during the process?

Regardless, the 18 minute investment once a month or thereabouts is hardly a significant problem in terms of the results it permits you to yield over the longer term.

and just to clear up a couple of points that Gary brought up

What I meant when I said that there was no difference between the first two profiles, was that there was no visual difference in the switched images from the previous profile to the newer one..

That's exactly as I thought, and thank you for clarifying that point. It would be interesting to run my MD5 suggestion against each of the profiles, and thus see if there was in fact a difference that was too fine to be able to seen by you.

gstark wrote:Simon, could you please, if you have a moment, elaborate on this?

Normally, I just set everything back to the defaults, throw the spider at the monitor, and run the application. I come back a few minutes later and it's all done.

You're saying that you need to adjust the monitor during the process?

With the Spyder Pro 3 (and the Spyder 2 Pro for that matter) software you can tweak the white point during calibration with the RGB sliders. During calibration that step only comes up if you selected it in the initial set up. It is not regarded as a necessary step, it is an optional step.

Can't do an MD5 on the original calib and the one month profile because I deleted the original but I'm sure that the checksums would be different even though there was no visually perceptible difference

shakey wrote:I was being a bit of a sh1tstirrer by mentioning KR, but he recently stated that he calibrates his LCD displays once and has never seen any drift so he doesn't calibrate again. Most people have found that KR needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt.

Maybe this comment is redundant but the whole point of calibrating with a colorimeter is that you can't tell if you try to do it manually (or if you just look at a monitor) because our eyes are so good at adjusting for different colour temperatures and levels of darkness. That's why Adobe Gamma was always a waste of time.

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:Now I have a digital body colour accuracy is a factor in my thinking

And having a digital body, again, is not a factor that would, in and of itself demand that you instigate a program of monitor calibration. .. But if you are ever going to print your images,

In my head there is a hardwired link between photo and print, the bigger the better, so for me there is a necessary link between getting a digital body and monitor calibration. The monitor is just part of the digital darkroom. I really do get that bit.

That said, I'm slowly finding benefits in digital. Last Christmas I put my partner's most recent o/s pics on the laptop, which was in turn connected to sundry rellies' TVs and slide shows were shown. That was different.

Murray Foote wrote:The Spyder3 may be better but it's considerably more expensive. As far as I can work out, in about the same price range, the Eye-One Display 2 is likely to be more accurate. Image Science in Melbourne probably still have a special on them for $A310.

Heh. Either way, I've completely blown my budget at the moment so in the near future I'll be begging, borrowing or stealing one.

shakey wrote:With the Spyder Pro 3 (and the Spyder 2 Pro for that matter) software you can tweak the white point during calibration with the RGB sliders... It is not regarded as a necessary step, it is an optional step.

Why did you feel you needed to tweak the white point?

Potoroo wrote:In my head there is a hardwired link between photo and print,

Well, let's expand upon that for a moment: a photo may typically be embodied in the form of a print or an image on your PC, either hosted locally, or on the web. But it may also (traditionally) may be rendered in the form of a trannie, a negative, or in print in a magazine or newspaper, and that historical context remains true today, and forward into the foreseeable future.

And if we just go back in time by, say only five years or so, you will observe that most of us did not have a digital body - SLR, at any rate; we were still shooting film on our SLRs. it's cameras like the 300D and D70 that have revolutionised the SLR market, but many still have archives of non-digital images, and many wish to convert those images to digital storage.

As noted above, those images may come from prints, negs and/or trannies, and I know that with several members here, the sizes may range from 35mm up to 8x10. From a digital processing perspective, once they've been scanned, the processing that's required in your digital darkroom is really no different than images made with your DSLR.

That is why I say that the link between a digital body (not just a DSLR, btw) and monitor calibration is more incidental than perhaps at first seems to be the case.

Further, the processing required of digital extends beyond the realm of photography: think in terms of advertising and publishing. Consider perhaps the publication by an art gallery of the catalog they might produce for an upcoming exhibition.

The processing that is demanded within that realm is perhaps more onerous than many photography applications.

The monitor is just part of the digital darkroom. I really do get that bit.

I think that it's quite a bit more than that, but I accept that for many people, and especially within the domain we enjoy within this forum, most members would not normally see beyond that perspective.

That said, I'm slowly finding benefits in digital. Last Christmas I put my partner's most recent o/s pics on the laptop, which was in turn connected to sundry rellies' TVs and slide shows were shown. That was different.

There's lots of benefits, many of which we are only just beginning to explore. Look at the melding of video functionality into the DSLR body"; the prospects for video imaging through a DSLR leave the humble camcorder as soon to be dead device.

We are now seeing mid-range DSLRs with in excess of 20MP. While the megapixel myth still holds true in terms of does it really matter, there will be real benefits that accrue as we see the advent of 40MP and more sensors over the next couple of years. Whereas five or so years ago we laughed at the concept of digital zoom, there actually will be some benefits to us from that concept as sensor densities increase, but with more sensitivity within each photosite.

Potoroo wrote:Why did you feel you needed to tweak the white point?

There is a long answer and a short answer. The short answer is "because I can". The long answer is on here
http://spyder.datacolor.com/downloads/manuals/Spyder3Elite_User_Guide.pdf. In the pdf look at the section "Adjust RGB gain"

Potoroo wrote:Now I have a digital body colour accuracy is a factor in my thinking

For androids, electric blue is usually most suitable.

Potoroo wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:The Spyder3 may be better but it's considerably more expensive. As far as I can work out, in about the same price range, the Eye-One Display 2 is likely to be more accurate. Image Science in Melbourne probably still have a special on them for $A310.

Heh. Either way, I've completely blown my budget at the moment so in the near future I'll be begging, borrowing or stealing one.

Community organisation PhotoAccess hires out Eye One Display 2s in Canberra so there may be an equivalent in Sydney. Still, it doesn't take long before hiring becomes more expensive than buying.

Murray Foote wrote:Community organisation PhotoAccess hires out Eye One Display 2s in Canberra so there may be an equivalent in Sydney. Still, it doesn't take long before hiring becomes more expensive than buying.

I believe my Meaningful Location says I'm in Melbourne but be that as it may. I have no intention of hiring one monthly but I assure you that right now I really don't have $300 to spare, hence my reference to "the near future".

shakey wrote:http://spyder.datacolor.com/downloads/manuals/Spyder3Elite_User_Guide.pdf

102 pages. I'm impressed.

Ok, I think there is something we have all seemed to have missed here.
Having a callibrated monitor is one part of the puzzle solved, but this still wont mean that when you print you will get results that look like what you have on your screen.
The Media you print on and the settings used to print have a profound effect on your prints, weather you have your screen calibrated or not.
To see how the print will turn out, you need to load the appropriat ICC profile for the paper and printer into the software you are useing, and then you can view between soft proof(the way the image would look printed) or the profile the image has been shot in or converted too.
As an example, if you printed on Ilford pearl and epson pearl with the same print settings and profile the prints would look slightly different.
Having a calibrated monitor will provide you with the most accurate soft proof, so that when you print it looks like the soft proof.
If you want your soft proof to look like the original image you would have to make adjustments to the image for print.

Then

You can choose to print using perceptual, saturation,relative colormetric and absalout colormetric,
These settings detemine how much of the colour gamut you are telling your printer to use.(check it out in the photoshop print box, it has a full explanation there)
Most printers cant print the full gamut of colour that your camera takes or you can view on the screen.
I wont go into this too much cuz it hurts my head, but I tend to use absolute colour metric, this works best for me, I have an 8 colour printer, but it will depend on your printer and image and may take some playing to work out.

You will need to waste some paper and ink

My head hurts

Mick

Just for a laugh

I was getting some prints done at teds, and I asked them what profile they were using, and they told me they dont use one.
Thanks teds , if you dont know the profile you cant get a print looking like you were expecting.
The girl behind the counter was kind enough to tell me what printer and paper they were using, this was enough for me to source a profile.

Most pro labs can provide you with the info you need to get the correct profile or like some online pro labs, you can download the profile from their site.

Mick

Mick

No, not missed out on, taken for granted I think.

Really? You use absolute colorithmic? Sure you don't mean relative colorithmic? Usually the choice is between relative colorithmic and perceptual. RC clips out of gamut colours whereas P scales them in. For most images RC is better but P is better where there are highly saturated colours (flowers, live music). You can see this in the soft proof anyway.

With good quality Epson printers (R1800, R1900, R2400, R2880) the standard profiles are very good (a bit less true for the r800, not so good for the R2100). It's always a good idea to occasionally check for new profiles and download them. Epson USA can be good for that. Standard profiles may not be as accurate for HP and Canon but I don't use them myself. Also, with third party papers while you can usually download standard profiles, purchasing or creating a custom profile may be desirable for accuracy.

Still the main variable is calibrating and profiling with a good colorimeter (there can be dogs). If you do that, have a good monitor, use a good quality Epson printer, Epson paper and standard downloaded profiles, you should get pretty accurate colour and tonality from the softproof. You will still need to do a bit of testing for difficult or important prints and especially for monochrome. Other printer/ paper/ profile combinations will no doubt be good too, but not all.

Regards,
Murray

ljxphotography wrote:The girl behind the counter was kind enough to tell me what printer and paper they were using, this was enough for me to source a profile.

That's as long as they were actually using a profile for the printer and not some generic profile....

Really? You use absolute colorithmic? Sure you don't mean relative colorithmic? Usually the choice is between relative colorithmic and perceptual.

Yeah I do but, that is using an epson R2400, epson pearl profile and Ilford pearl paper. I played and played with the print settings and this gives me the best result to my eye. My eyes arn't that good

With photo rag I use relative colormetric and the epson fine art paper profile for best result.

So many variables

Mick

Murray Foote wrote:

ljxphotography wrote:The girl behind the counter was kind enough to tell me what printer and paper they were using, this was enough for me to source a profile.

That's as long as they were actually using a profile for the printer and not some generic profile....

True

Mick

shakey wrote:Out of the box it is way too bright and the reds are like neon lights. It needs to be calibrated.

Well, you got that right. It arrived yesterday (a tick for Dell for the speedy delivery, a kick in the rear for not getting the phone call to make delivery arrangements as advertised). I've turned the brightness down to 25 but the colours can wait until I find myself a calibrator.

shakey wrote:Out of the box it is way too bright and the reds are like neon lights... The "out of Box" settings are probably fine if all you want to do is watch cartoons

I discovered something interesting. My video card is a Radeon 4850. In the Catalyst Control Centre 9.2 under Digital Panel > Avivo Color there is an option to let the monitor set the colour temperature ("Use Extended Display Identification Data (EDID)"). By default this option is unchecked. If you select it guess what - the neon reds dull down to something sensible. The other colours are only marginally affected (the stronger the GB component the less the effect) but the visible difference in the reds is big.

I'm not sure why this would be so since both the 2408WFP and the ATI driver claim to default to D65 and I can't think of an obvious link between colour temperature and reds only. I don't think it's a gamut limitation (like Adobe RGB reds appearing dull in sRGB space) because if you switch from Desktop mode on the panel to sRGB mode the colours dull down yet again. I'm going to try to find out more about this.