Tools for Calibrating Yer Monitor

wxwax

As noted in another thread, my new Lacie 22" monitor is here. And now I want to make sure it's properly calibrated before I set to knocking out works of art.

I realize that many of the necessary tools can cost several hundred dollars. And there's no way it makes sense for me to spend that kind of money. So i'm looking for a more affordable alternative.

I saw this Pantone Spyder for less than $150. I seem to remember someone saying that these arent very good. Can anyone verify? Anyone had a good experience? :ear

Here's a review. I can't tell if the guy's 'sponsored.'

wxwax

A second option is to go with the Spyder's more expensive cousin.


This sucker, the SpyderPro (as in it Pro-duces more dollars for Colorvision) costs a nasty $269.

Dadgummit, is there anything associated with this hobby that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

Deacon

Saving $$$$'s
Sid,

I am using the Monaco system. What you see is what you get. Calibrate the LCD monitor on the laptop, calibrate the printer (need a high quality scanner) and it takes just a few minutes. I have not had to toss 1 photo print due to color shift/imbalance. I figured it takes about 100 shots +/- printed wrong to pay for the calibration tools, so as they say, "you can pay me now or pay me later".

Good investment, I am not familiar with the spyders but have heard positive comments.

Deacon

zero-zero

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=693&postcount=6

wxwax

Thanks guys.

Dadgummit, this will cost me an arm and a leg! FWIW, thanks to your leads, I found this review of four different calibration systems. And no, the guy does not recommend the Colorvision Spyder. I guess you get what you pay for, and you hafta pay a lot. :cry

DoctorIt

I'm thinkin that if you're not doing production/professional work, there's a minimal need to calibrate all the time.

Before I got my Gretag Macbeth EyeOne Display, and only because Patch hooked me up bigtime, I was thinking it'd be nice to have a friend that would just let me borrow theirs, once. I figure drift on my newer monitor is minimal, and I would just need to run it once to get better colors.

The software license on the EyeOne Display is totally open - Can it install it as many times as you like, so I'm not really breaking any rules by offering it up. Waxy, if you wanna "borrow" it, send me a PM.

wxwax

That's an incredibly generous offer. I've been thinking about it all day.

Seamaiden

Must know if similar is available through Unix/Linux!

But, more importantly, how great is the need for calibration (especially for someone as new to all this as myself)? I haven't even got a printer worth a hoot (I was gonna say writing home about, but writing is what I use it for) <shrug>.

Can ya tell? I haven't gotten very far with my research.

wxwax

I'm now of the opinion that monitor calibration is critical, if you want to control the final appearance of your shots. I've had bad monitors at work and at home. Now that I have a decent one, I look at my old shots and I cringe.

It's my impression that the world is mostly populated with poorly calibrated monitors. Therefore the majority of web users will not, in my opinion, ever see your shots as you intended. Sounds like an argument against calibration, doesn't it? I work in a business that uses a lot of graphics. Not one monitor in the entire building is calibrated. When I asked why, one artist said to me: 'Why bother? It's TV. No two TV monitors show the same image."

But my take is different. I figure I should at least try to control what little I can. That, plus personal pride in my stuff, motivates me to want to calibrate my monitor. If only it weren't so expensive! :cry

zero-zero

wxwax wrote:

'Why bother? It's TV. No two TV monitors show the same image."

But my take is different. I figure I should at least try to control what little I can. That, plus personal pride in my stuff, motivates me to want to calibrate my monitor. If only it weren't so expensive! :cry

There's another powerful reason to calibrate: Unlike tv, where the electronic image is the final product, with digital imaging you'll probably be printing stuff, be it on inkjet (snobs say gicleé) or traditional photo paper through Frontier or some such, and you will NEVER get acceptable prints on a regular basis if your screen is not showing you a proper image to do your corrections.

Seamaiden

Well, time to explore a bit better the power (so they say) of that which is The Gimp.

Seamaiden

Ok, I've just used the Gimp monitor calibration tool, using millimeters. It only needed to be bumped down a wee bit, it was set 240.47mm x 187.47mm, and it was actually 237.00 x 184.00mm (horizontal x vertical). I'm assuming that the numbers being shown is what I change, so that's what I did.

A question, though, if I'm not changing much except, say, sharpness, blur, color (or lack thereof), that sort of thing, and my intention is to burn it to disk to have a photo shop make prints for me, is it just as important to have things calibrated perfectly?

DoctorIt

Seamaiden wrote:

Ok, I've just used the Gimp monitor calibration tool, using millimeters. It only needed to be bumped down a wee bit, it was set 240.47mm x 187.47mm, and it was actually 237.00 x 184.00mm (horizontal x vertical). I'm assuming that the numbers being shown is what I change, so that's what I did.

A question, though, if I'm not changing much except, say, sharpness, blur, color (or lack thereof), that sort of thing, and my intention is to burn it to disk to have a photo shop make prints for me, is it just as important to have things calibrated perfectly?

um, yes.

What gimp tool are you talking about? the calibration tools we're talking about here refer to color settings. Colors on your computer are an interpreted thing, so there are tools out there to make sure that your computer/monitor are "interpreting" them correctly.

whats up with the mm? size/resolution is a side issue to calibration.

Seamaiden

Well then, there we go. I just learned something. Here are some screenshots so you can see what I'm looking at. I'm using an LCD TFT monitor, 17".

Seamaiden

So, what you're saying is that, in order to ensure that I'm viewing the piccies in their best "light", I need to calibrate the colors, something as a printer would in a good color separation? Oh my..

Seamaiden

Alright, research is netting some results. I have learned what my screen/color depth is set at, and as a result of "man XF86Config" I've also learned that I can manually set my red-green-blue gamma. Don't think I really want to do that at this point. I should note that I was a paste-up artist for a few years (the end result of going for a major in graphic arts.. bah), and as such did a great deal of color matching (mostly using Pantone and 4 color separation techniques). I think that by using this combination I might be able to get away with decent prints, should I ever decide to make any, of subsequent pics.

wxwax

SM, if you wanna make prints, then the printer and the monitor must 'see' the shot the same. That's what calibration tools do. Otherwise, the shot could look magnificent on yer monitor, and look like poo in print.

cletus

wxwax wrote:

SM, if you wanna make prints, then the printer and the monitor must 'see' the shot the same. That's what calibration tools do. Otherwise, the shot could look magnificent on yer monitor, and look like poo in print.

What if I have a picture of poo and I get it looking just right on my uncalibrated monitor? If the print doesn't match the image on the monitor then the print wouldn't look like poo... or would it

Seamaiden

Brother Cletus, you think like me.

I understand what you're saying, waxer, however, I won't be spending money on a printer for quite some time (probably not til well after the move up to Tahoe). At this point, the best I can do is colormatch by eye (which I'm very good at). I haven't taken any shots I deem "print-worthy" at this point, either. (Plus, there are other things I would much rather spend that there money on.. )

I do wonder, though, if a monitor calibrated using a program that's married to the Winders OS would still translate well enough when in the Linux environs.

Deacon

Seamaiden,
Not to say I think you are missing the point, but you are missing the point. You will never get consistency between monitor and printer let alone ink and papers no matter the printer you use. In fact calibration may save you from an unnecessary purchase of the printer. Every shot you print is a guess from your monitor, you may get "lucky" once in a while, but how many prints does it take you to get what you are seeing on the monitor. If you answer 1, then forget all this stuff about calibration. If not, that is why it is done, to get the consistency, predictability etc.

Deacon

wxwax

true dat, deacon.

And there's another benefit too, although it's one I struggle with a bit.

For everyone to see your shots as you intended, everyone has to have a common reference point for colors, exposures, etc. That's what calibrating does. It's the only way you can ensure that someone in Australia (hi 'mungus ), on a well-calibrated machine, sees exactly the same thing you see. With your sensitive eye, I imagine you might care about fine distinctions in color and brightness, etc.

But there's a catch. I have the sense that the online universe is mostly populated by people with poorly calibrated monitors.

So is it a pointless exercise? Only if you ultimately don't care whether or not others have at least the potential to see your stuff exactly as you see it.

Seamaiden

Deacon wrote:

Seamaiden,
Not to say I think you are missing the point, but you are missing the point. You will never get consistency between monitor and printer let alone ink and papers no matter the printer you use. In fact calibration may save you from an unnecessary purchase of the printer. Every shot you print is a guess from your monitor, you may get "lucky" once in a while, but how many prints does it take you to get what you are seeing on the monitor. If you answer 1, then forget all this stuff about calibration. If not, that is why it is done, to get the consistency, predictability etc.

Deacon

Deacon, it must appear that I'm missing the point, maybe it would help if I better explained myself. When it comes to integrity of monitor and printer, I do understand what everyone is saying, and have come to the conclusion that, for anyone serious about photography in the digital format, a good monitor and having it properly calibrated are indeed necessary.

At this particular time, I cannot justify the purchase of what sounds to be an expensive piece of 'equipment' for printing I don't plan on doing just yet. When I "get there", that may very well be another story. But, between printer and program, we're talking the cost of the camera itself, maybe more. Right now I'm willing to spend a very few dollars having test prints made at my local photo shop or Walmart (I mean, how bad is it if they're costing me between $.25 & $.50 apiece?). I figure if I can take (for instance) the pink camelia that's right outside my window, or the green tablecloth in my linen closet, and match that to what I see on my monitor, it'll have to do for now. If I ever get to the point where I think I'm good enough to make these purchases (because, believe me, the OLD Epson I'm using right now would never do for photo-quality prints) of printer and monitor calibration tools, then I will. I don't know if I'll ever be quite that good, though.
This doesn't mean I'm not serious about getting as good as I can, not at all, it means that this is something I have to put off.

Deacon

Economic Decisions
Seamaiden,

I do truely understand about economics! Since I do print a lot of pics it made sense to invest in calibration tools, plus it did save much frustration. I hope that you do get to a level that you "need" this stuff, your enthusiasm is certainly at that level!

Deacon

Seamaiden

Thank you, Deacon, I'm nothing if not determined. As for talented..?? Well, let's just say that I really wish I had my father's eye (especially for composition).

photobug

Deacon wrote:

I am using the Monaco system. What you see is what you get. Calibrate the LCD monitor on the laptop, calibrate the printer (need a high quality scanner) and it takes just a few minutes. I have not had to toss 1 photo print due to color shift/imbalance.
Good investment, I am not familiar with the spyders but have heard positive comments.

Thanks to this comment -- and a link of reviews that another poster provided (http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc026a.htm) -- I was steered away from the Colorvision Spyder and toward the Monaco system instead. I now have one on order (the $50 rebate on Monaco expires 4/30!).

FYI, Adorama and DTGweb.com had the best pricing that I found on the Monaco, on short notice (be sure to include shipping & sales tax, to compare apples to apples):

http://www.adorama.com/IMOOPTIXXR.html?searchinfo=monaco&item_no=8
http://www.dtgweb.com/store/product.php4?code=30102201

rutt

It is important for you monitor to be set up properly. Mostly this is a matter of setting the gamma and brightness right. It is important for your printer to be set up properly. Mostly this is a matter of setting the driver correctly, getting the right profile for the ink/paper you are using. Beyond that, I think the benefits are less important than you might think. So buying an expensive callibration program and buying into its color management system is probably overkill.

I am very critical of color (as many of you guys kkow.) But it is my opinion that photographs that with correct colors will look good on monitors and printers that are correctly set up and that photographs with flawed colors will sometimes look good on calibrated monitors but not on calibrated printers. The reason is that your eye percieves colors very differently on the monitor than in pigment. I wrote an elaborate post on this topic about a month ago.