ICC Monitor Profile Question

toadlet

OK so I have been having headaches trying to calibrate my monitor.

I have tried making my own profile via Adobe Gamma, but the prints that I get from the lab do not come out like I see on screen. Instead, when I use one of the color profiles that are in the drivers folder in Windows and choose sRGB Colour Space Profile, then I get images that look the same on all programs, as well as in print from a lab.

Now, I have been on another forum and have been getting some good advice, but in one persons view they said that using the profile as I have done above is not a good idea.....but hasn't said why. He said I should create my own. I dont understand why I cannot use a pre-done ICC as I have explained above? Why would they all be in the folder as pre-sets then?

I am doing a disfavour by not setting my own ICC profile to my moniter?

~Jan~

If you are getting prints that are good and match your monitor, why fix what's not broken?

claudermilk

I'm not sure I quite understand what profiles you are using where.

Here's the Smugmug help page. The basic foundation is first get a hardware-based calibrator (Adobe Gamma is ok, but is still a guesstimate by eye--not really accurate); that generates an ICC profile for display on the screen. Then you set your images to the sRGB profile for web display and printing. The monitor profile is only used for telling the OS how to display on the monitor--this should never be applied to the images directly.

HarlanBear

claudermilk wrote:

Here's the Smugmug help page. The basic foundation is first get a hardware-based calibrator (Adobe Gamma is ok, but is still a guesstimate by eye--not really accurate); that generates an ICC profile for display on the screen. Then you set your images to the sRGB profile for web display and printing. The monitor profile is only used for telling the OS how to display on the monitor--this should never be applied to the images directly.

First thing to do is calibrate your monitor using a hardware-based calibration system. I use ColorVision Spyder 2 Express and it works great. Not too expensive and I know I'm starting with the correct colors. You can learn about it here. Then download the ICC profiles for the lab you are using for prints and softproof the images in Photoshop as explained in Chris' link above.

I had the same problems with prints until I started calibrating my monitor and using the right ICC profiles.

toadlet

Here is a visual...
I reckon I have preset ICC files that have come with the monitor when I installed stuff from the CD that came with it. This is what has been confusing me, so I have added a visual example of how I am choosing a prest ICC profile that is in my colour management tab. Do other people have preset ICC profiles like this?

Below is a visual image of exactly what I mean as to when I use a "sRGB colourspace Profile ". Does this make more sense now? See how there are many other ICC profiles that I could choose in the box? Although as you point out that getting a hardware calibrator will get colour spot on, will using a preset ICC as I have done above, and then applying this monitor profile to DPP be adequate enough for now? I mean at least the image looks the same accross all platforms now. But I dont want to be doing anything 'wrong'

I hear you out about getting a hardware calibrator, but in the mean time will what I am doing above suffice?

HarlanBear wrote:

First thing to do is calibrate your monitor using a hardware-based calibration system. I use ColorVision Spyder 2 Express and it works great. Not too expensive and I know I'm starting with the correct colors. You can learn about it here. Then download the ICC profiles for the lab you are using for prints and softproof the images in Photoshop as explained in Chris' link above.

I had the same problems with prints until I started calibrating my monitor and using the right ICC profiles.

claudermilk

Again, I'll quote Adam from Mythbusters: "Now there's your problem." You are using the sRGB profile for your monitor. That's wrong, the sRGB profile is a standardized starting point that is assigned to a file. That pluse the calibration ICC profile ensures that when you are trying to show, say 0,0,255 that the monitor or printer actually outputs 0,0,255. When you run the calibration software--preferably with a hardware-based calibrator--it should be saving an ICC file (something like "Default Monitor"), which is then assigned to the monitor where you have sRGB right now.

Where did that "Calibrated Profile" ICC file come from? I'm betting that's the one you want. All the rest are standard colorspaces & are meant to be used with file ICC assignments.

toadlet

The "calibrated profile" you are talking about was one I made up via Adobe Gamma, but it looked awful and more washed out then when I leave it on sRGB. I then got a grey background up as theme and did it again, and now it looks much better in terms of tones from screen to print. So do I just now select this ICC profile to my moniter? Until I get a hardware based colour tool, will what I've dont be better then what I was doing before?

claudermilk wrote:

Again, I'll quote Adam from Mythbusters: "Now there's your problem." You are using the sRGB profile for your monitor. That's wrong, the sRGB profile is a standardized starting point that is assigned to a file. That pluse the calibration ICC profile ensures that when you are trying to show, say 0,0,255 that the monitor or printer actually outputs 0,0,255. When you run the calibration software--preferably with a hardware-based calibrator--it should be saving an ICC file (something like "Default Monitor"), which is then assigned to the monitor where you have sRGB right now.

Where did that "Calibrated Profile" ICC file come from? I'm betting that's the one you want. All the rest are standard colorspaces & are meant to be used with file ICC assignments.

claudermilk

toadlet wrote:

The "calibrated profile" you are talking about was one I made up via Adobe Gamma, but it looked awful and more washed out then when I leave it on sRGB. I then got a grey background up as theme and did it again, and now it looks much better in terms of tones from screen to print. So do I just now select this ICC profile to my moniter? Until I get a hardware based colour tool, will what I've dont be better then what I was doing before?

Yes, that would be the one that should be used. This shows why a hardware-based calibrator is really a necessity if you are going to be serious about color management. The good news is they are much cheaper than a few years ago--new ones are less expensive than the old one I got used (probably time to update).

Newsy

claudermilk wrote:

Yes, that would be the one that should be used. This shows why a hardware-based calibrator is really a necessity if you are going to be serious about color management. The good news is they are much cheaper than a few years ago--new ones are less expensive than the old one I got used (probably time to update).

I agree.... picked up a Spyder2 PRO yesterday.

Not too significant a difference in overall hues from my very elaborate tune-by-eye but certain things stand out. Better contrast control. The yellows and reds pop and skin tones are more natural.

If you are looking for online tools to help you calibrate in the short term, I posted a collection of web sites that may help.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1004&message=21363588&q=epaperpress&qf=m

In particular there were a couple of pages that helped me nail the gamma and grayscales.

Now I'm tweaking trying to get the monitor calibrated down to 120 cd/m2 white luminence. The Spyder2 PRO seems to be less friendly on setting a luminence point as compared to the Eye One Display 2.

Netgarden

thanks for this post and links. I am about ready to self adjust too. so time consuming it is getting a new screen to pass inspection. I am so picky about color, and finally got tmy albums decent looking, then the whites suck. ...neverending....Glow and I do NOT get along well at all, lol. That link with the gamma tuning is similar to the software with my new LG flat wide screen. Nice screen but OMG alot of work to get it right, not along get it to print right, thats problem #2!!!! [$50 worth of ink and $30 of paper, later...}Off to buy Spyder2.

Newsy wrote:

I agree.... picked up a Spyder2 PRO yesterday.

Not too significant a difference in overall hues from my very elaborate tune-by-eye but certain things stand out. Better contrast control. The yellows and reds pop and skin tones are more natural.

If you are looking for online tools to help you calibrate in the short term, I posted a collection of web sites that may help.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1004&message=21363588&q=epaperpress&qf=m

In particular there were a couple of pages that helped me nail the gamma and grayscales.

Now I'm tweaking trying to get the monitor calibrated down to 120 cd/m2 white luminence. The Spyder2 PRO seems to be less friendly on setting a luminence point as compared to the Eye One Display 2.

Newsy

Newsy wrote:

The Spyder2 PRO seems to be less friendly on setting a luminence point as compared to the Eye One Display 2.

I figured out what I was doing wrong. Spyder has a user group on Yahoo...

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/colorvision_group/?yguid=92518502

After putzing around for a bit, I took the hint from the Spyder screens and the user group and realized I needed to treat my LCD's brightness as a backlight control. Then with the ambient light sensor enabled all the right screens popped up and I was able to calibrate to 120cd/m^2. It was quite simple with the proper screen - it shows a target of 120 and what you measure against it with a button to refresh once you've made a slight tweak. Very quick.

I ended up using the spyder suggested values of 5800K and 125cd/m^2 with gamma at 2.2. My whites look whiter. With 6500K it the whites looked to have a slight blue caste.

Now I need to print something to see how it matches.

.

claudermilk

Glad to hear you're making progress.