How Many People Calibrate their monitor via hardware tool?

toadlet

I was just interested to find out how many people use a hardware calibrator to get the colours on their screens looking correct?

The other thing I find somwhat dubious abouta hardware calibrator is that even if tones are true on your PC, how can they be the same on at a print lab?

colourbox

toadlet wrote:

The other thing I find somwhat dubious abouta hardware calibrator is that even if tones are true on your PC, how can they be the same on at a print lab?

That works when all the pieces are profiled correctly:
If the monitor has been calibrated to a standard and a profile has been made of its current state.
If the lab printer has been calibrated to a standard and a profile has been made of its current state.

If both are true, the prints should be great. If either you or your printer drop the ball, the prints may be off. If you don't calibrate your monitor, you have dropped the ball, no matter how good the rest of the chain is, because no reliable description exists of the objective conditions under which you decided that was the "right" shade of red to adjust to.

When you view the image on your calibrated and profiled monitor, that means you are viewing it using known numbers, such as Brightness 120, Gamma 2.2, White Point 6500K, Color Space of your monitor. When you save your image with a profile, all that info becomes a reference. Your OS says "We know what the monitor's doing, so let's compensate for that when we translate to sRGB" or whatever. It says "Toadlet adjusted the red in this image so that it was Red 255 Green 10 Blue 15, at the brightness, gamma, and white point, and color space noted in this profile." Because R255, G10, B15 will have a different appearance if any of the conditions are changed or guessed.

When the lab gets your print, the color management software compares the profile in the image to the profile of the printer and says "What is the difference between these two profiles?" As soon as it figures that out, it knows how to turn the red you saw into the closest available red that the printer inks can print, which is described by the printer's profile.

Since a hardware calibrator gives you the best possible monitor measurements, it gives you the most detailed way to objectively describe your colors to the devices down the line from you. Any lesser method will reduce your accuracy.

The key again is that all profiles must be in place for this to work: monitor, image, and output. If any is missing, the system isn't complete, and guesswork takes over. Most of us have spent way too much money on everything else in the system to let guesswork enter into it with an uncalibrated monitor.

toadlet

Cool, thanks for your reply, has cleared things. So what hardware device would you reccommend? I was thinking of going with the Spyderexpress.

colourbox wrote:

That works when all the pieces are profiled correctly:
If the monitor has been calibrated to a standard and a profile has been made of its current state.
If the lab printer has been calibrated to a standard and a profile has been made of its current state.

If both are true, the prints should be great. If either you or your printer drop the ball, the prints may be off. If you don't calibrate your monitor, you have dropped the ball, no matter how good the rest of the chain is, because no reliable description exists of the objective conditions under which you decided that was the "right" shade of red to adjust to.

When you view the image on your calibrated and profiled monitor, that means you are viewing it using known numbers, such as Brightness 120, Gamma 2.2, White Point 6500K, Color Space of your monitor. When you save your image with a profile, all that info becomes a reference. Your OS says "We know what the monitor's doing, so let's compensate for that when we translate to sRGB" or whatever. It says "Toadlet adjusted the red in this image so that it was Red 255 Green 10 Blue 15, at the brightness, gamma, and white point, and color space noted in this profile." Because R255, G10, B15 will have a different appearance if any of the conditions are changed or guessed.

When the lab gets your print, the color management software compares the profile in the image to the profile of the printer and says "What is the difference between these two profiles?" As soon as it figures that out, it knows how to turn the red you saw into the closest available red that the printer inks can print, which is described by the printer's profile.

Since a hardware calibrator gives you the best possible monitor measurements, it gives you the most detailed way to objectively describe your colors to the devices down the line from you. Any lesser method will reduce your accuracy.

The key again is that all profiles must be in place for this to work: monitor, image, and output. If any is missing, the system isn't complete, and guesswork takes over. Most of us have spent way too much money on everything else in the system to let guesswork enter into it with an uncalibrated monitor.

wxwax

I use eyeone and like it. I'm one of the ones who had a bad experience with the Huey. My monitor's way overdue for another calibration.

dgrinjackson

toadlet wrote:

Cool, thanks for your reply, has cleared things. So what hardware device would you reccommend? I was thinking of going with the Spyderexpress.

I have the SpyderPro and love it. It made a big difference with my IBM laptop monitor, but made no discernable change to my Sony Vaio laptop monitor. I re-calibrate about every 2-3 weeks...when the Spyder software complains that I'm overdue.

colourbox

toadlet wrote:

Cool, thanks for your reply, has cleared things. So what hardware device would you reccommend? I was thinking of going with the Spyderexpress.

I'm using an Eye One. I had an old Spyder that only handled CRTs, and when I wanted to upgrade to a model that would calibrate LCDs, there was a deal on the Eye One, so I got that. I don't know which of the current models is better, just that both are respected. A current Spyder is probably pretty good.

thebigsky

I calibrate my monitors once a month with an Eye One, works pretty well but the whole area of calibration, colour spaces, profiles etc seems like black magic to me, try as I do to make some sense of it.

Charlie

rdlugosz

I use a Colorvision Spyder & have had good results.

The key to "matching" your image on screen to the print output is Soft Proofing with an accurate profile of your target printer+paper combination.

Having a proper monitor profile is only the first step.

claudermilk

I still use an older Colorvision Spyder. Makes a world of difference. Colurbox pretty much nailed it. You must have your monitor calibrated as a solid foundation for proper color management. That way you know that what you see on the monitor really is the color the file is trying to be.

From my own experience it is absolutely essential, and absolutely makes a difference. With my monitor calibrated, and custom profiles I generated for the paper/ink combinations I use, there is no messing with trying to match color. What I see on the screen is what I'm getting off the printer--or as close as you can reasonably expect from the different output technologies.

HarlanBear

with all the above. Hardware based calibration is the only way to know for sure that you are looking at the right colors. And it is the base for all other color measurements and ICC checks. Just like many things, using the right tool for the job really works.

I use the Spyder 2 Express and love it. I had problems conforming monitor to print before hardware calibraton, and now I don't. That simple.

pathfinder

Spyder 2 Pro - once amonth whether I need to or not:D 24in Apple LCD

Prints on my Epson 4000 match my screen closely.

So do prints from Smugmug, as well.