opinions from mac users

chrismoore

I've been a die hard mac user for many many years and currently using a MacPro with 2 LED Cinema displays. I have the monitors calibrated with EyeOne and view my images with the specific printer profile prior to printing (I use Bayphoto). I read an article in a photo magazine this month, can't remember which one, but it essentially said that a common problem with mac displays is that prints consistently are too dark. This is because the brightness of the displays is too much, even on the lowest setting, and holds true even when specific printing profiles are applied and calibration performed. On the advice of the article I did a calibration with a trial version of ColorEyes, but found not much of a difference. I do notice that my prints sometimes turn out too dark, even when the histogram, calibration, etc are intact. I was wondering if any other users of the mac cinema display have found this to be true and what you are doing to minimize the effect on prints?
Thanks

arodney

chrismoore wrote:

I read an article in a photo magazine this month, can't remember which one, but it essentially said that a common problem with mac displays is that prints consistently are too dark. This is because the brightness of the displays is too much, even on the lowest setting, and holds true even when specific printing profiles are applied and calibration performed.

Kind of, soft of. Depends on the viewing conditions of the print by the display. You should be able to control it. If you can't lower the luminance of the display (and that should be doable), raise the viewing conditions of the print viewing booth to result in a match.

I do notice that my prints sometimes turn out too dark, even when the histogram, calibration, etc are intact. I was wondering if any other users of the mac cinema display have found this to be true and what you are doing to minimize the effect on prints?

We need to be clear here (as I suspect would this article). Its certainly possible to have prints that are too dark. They'd appear too dark everywhere! A print that is darker than the display isn't necessarily a print that's too dark. There's a mismatch. So are the prints really too dark or just darker than the display? One problem is fixed by proper calibration and altering the RGB values of the document. The other is fixed by proper calibration between the display and print viewing conditions. Can't fix the problem until we know what's the cause.

Also, are you soft proofing to the output device? Did this Bayphoto supply you with a printer profile? That's critical.

chrismoore

arodney wrote:

Kind of, soft of. Depends on the viewing conditions of the print by the display. You should be able to control it. If you can't lower the luminance of the display (and that should be doable), raise the viewing conditions of the print viewing booth to result in a match.



We need to be clear here (as I suspect would this article). Its certainly possible to have prints that are too dark. They'd appear too dark everywhere! A print that is darker than the display isn't necessarily a print that's too dark. There's a mismatch. So are the prints really too dark or just darker than the display? One problem is fixed by proper calibration and altering the RGB values of the document. The other is fixed by proper calibration between the display and print viewing conditions. Can't fix the problem until we know what's the cause.

Also, are you soft proofing to the output device? Did this Bayphoto supply you with a printer profile? That's critical.

Yes, I do have their printer profile and softproofing, my monitor is calibrated and I understand about the difference in lighting bt displays and prints. The Mac cinema display was singled out, and purported to affect prints DESPITE softproofing, calibration, etc. Since I have only used mac monitors, I was wondering if someone with experience using other monitors as well as the mac cinema felt that its alleged overpowering backlight was indeed a problem when using to edit photos.

MarkR

It was probably the "Prints Too Dark?" article by David B. Brooks from the August 2009 issue of Shutterbug. Not sure if the article is online yet.

Specific to the iMac, there was a complaint that some iMacs have a screen brightness that was so high that it would not lower sufficiently.

cmason

Any chance that because you are a die hard mac fan, you have your system set to 1.8 gamma, rather than the recommended 2.2?


http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2026?viewlocale=en_US

Choosing gamma and white point

During the calibration of your display, you will need to choose gamma and white point settings. The correct choice depends on how you are most likely to use your images. The best rule of thumb is this:

Unless you have a color management expert instructing you otherwise, select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point.

Because Windows PCs use 2.2 gamma, images edited in the traditional Mac 1.8 gamma will appear incorrectly to most viewers on the Internet—this of course means that your Mac friends need to switch their displays to 2.2 gamma when perusing your 2.2-savvy work. Mac-using photographer Gary Ballard maintains a handy demonstration of this phenomenon here.

Labs and Internet-based services using the RA-4 wet process, such as in a Fuji Frontier minilab, almost universally expect you to use a 2.2 gamma in the sRGB IEC1966-2.1 color space. That's true for services such as Pictage, Smugmug, and Shutterfly.

Why D65 over D50?

Well, the D50 white point was all the rage among pre-press professionals 10 years ago, and you'd even find talk of D50 in advertising materials. Not so much anymore. D50 comes from a time when the dominant method of photo processing still involved paper, light tables, and viewing lamps. Now the emphasis on digital editing and Internet publishing makes the D65 native white point of modern displays a dominant factor.

The difference between D50 and D65 may still be automatically worked out "under the hood" without your awareness, using a technique known as "chromatic adaptation." That's why D65 is recommended now, unless you are a highly trained expert user.

arodney

MarkR wrote:

It was probably the "Prints Too Dark?" article by David B. Brooks from the August 2009 issue of Shutterbug. Not sure if the article is online yet.

David is confused in terms of the issues expressed in that article. We had some conversations about this but he's convinced its some kind of conspiracy rather than a simple mismatch between print viewing conditions, which are critical, and display calibration aim points which are equally critical. The planet if filled with users on the Mac, even with Cinema displays that get very good print to screen matching. But it takes some work.

The Mac display issues I've seen and heard about are generally from those with iMac's with the glass surface which itself presents issues (gap between glass and display). And out of the box, they are way too bright. But if you lower any display as low as it can go, and adjust the print viewing conditions, you should get a good match. And there's absolutely nothing at all special about Apple displays. They are very nice appearing (sexy) but for the same money, you can get a much better display and for a tad more, a vastly superior display like the NEC SpectraView II line with an instrument.

arodney

cmason wrote:

Any chance that because you are a die hard mac fan, you have your system set to 1.8 gamma, rather than the recommended 2.2?

The TRC gamma of nearly all displays is in the neighborhood of 2.0-2.2 so calibrating to anything other than 2.2 (or Native if the software supports it) only introduces banding. And thankfully, when Snow Leopard ships maybe next month, this 1.8 gamma will go the way of the dodo bird. It will assume a 2.2 gamma display path.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2026?viewlocale=en_US

Choosing gamma and white point

During the calibration of your display, you will need to choose gamma and white point settings. The correct choice depends on how you are most likely to use your images. The best rule of thumb is this:

Unless you have a color management expert instructing you otherwise, select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point.

I'm glad they said rule of thumb but I'd have said "good starting point and then vary". Those that recommend a fixed white balance or luminance really have to stress its a starting point as they will both need to be adjusted based on the viewing conditions. Are you using a Fluorescent box like those made by GTI or Just? Or Solux? What's the intensity of the booth? This will all affect the WB and cd/m2 settings and the correct settings are those that result in a match. Might be D65, D55, D50, you name it.

Labs and Internet-based services using the RA-4 wet process, such as in a Fuji Frontier minilab, almost universally expect you to use a 2.2 gamma in the sRGB IEC1966-2.1 color space. That's true for services such as Pictage, Smugmug, and Shutterfly.

Which for serious users, those who'd calibrate their display, this is a really stupid workflow. There's no such thing as an sRGB printer and in fact, the only actual sRGB device is a CRT circa 1993 with a fixed set of phosphors among other well specified conditions. Sending someone sRGB is a color management stretch. You need a true output profile to soft proof, decide upon the preferred rendering intent and covert to the correct RGB numbers for the device. The 'send us sRGB' workflow is great for grandmothers but not for anyone even remotely professional or those concerned with print to screen matching.

The difference between D50 and D65 may still be automatically worked out "under the hood" without your awareness, using a technique known as "chromatic adaptation." That's why D65 is recommended now, unless you are a highly trained expert user.[/I]

No, not when the WB of the display is fixed for one or the other. The above quote is true for the WP of working spaces! Someone is confused here. IOW, if you calibrate to D65 then D50 for the target calibration of your display, you will most certainly see a difference.

chrismoore

Thanks for all the advice. Its been awhile since I calibrated so I will have to go back and see how the EyeOne sets the gamma, etc. If I recall it was set automatically but I think there is some override, as just a brief look into the calibration menu does try and steer the user towards a 1.8 gamma. It was the article in Shutterbug I was referring to, and there was a follow up to it in Macworld that seemed to say the same thing. Seems easy enough to deal with if the proper principles of calibration are followed, unfortunately the article had more of a "if you use a mac display you're screwed" tone to it. Thanks again.

arodney

EyeOne software should provide a "native Gamma" setting.