Options
Monitor Calibration
Just curious how many of you have calibrated your monitor. If you have, what instrument/software did you use and were you happy with the results.
Just got some recent pics back from my usual online printer and felt that my images could have been printed better. I have not had this problem in the past. Just wondering if I'm really sending out images that come close to what I am seeing on my monitor.
mitch
Just got some recent pics back from my usual online printer and felt that my images could have been printed better. I have not had this problem in the past. Just wondering if I'm really sending out images that come close to what I am seeing on my monitor.
mitch
0
Comments
Some things that can help to calibrate the monitor, is adobe gamma, colorvision spyder (or equivalent), even this page can help:
http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I use precal first on the lcd.
Cincinnati Smug Leader
I've bought Spyder Pro and it is very good
Maybe, maybe not. It is possible that your printer service is using a different printer, or different inks, or ... But in any case it is going to be very difficult to diagnose the problem if you can't trust what you see on your monitor in the 1st place
Thierry
I am now beginning to get a basic grasp of color management.
As far as the prints matching, I would say you do need to start with a calibrated monitor. Ask them if they are doing any color corection, and if they can turn it off. If you have processed your image in PS and have the way you want it, you probably don't want them to do any additional color correction. Also see if they can send you an ICC profile so you can soft proof your image.
I have only had a few images printed outside and both times (2 different labs) included instructions to not do any color corection, and they came out very good. On the other hand I gave Costco a try. Cheap, so so quality, and no consistancy from day to day. Needless to say I will not use them or the other high volume dicount places.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Sam
I used the calibration routine provided in the Apple system software for the Cinema display. I also check my blacks and whites by the numbers as rutt describes. This has given me very good correlation with the prints from my Epson 4000 printed via Photoshop or via the profiles in ImagePrint 6, a RIP.
Prints that I have ordered from Smugmug for comparision match my own prints and my monitor very closely. Seems to work for me.
I did use Monaco EZ Color and its EYE on my Win XP box, and prints from it also printed on my Mac system seem dead on as well. SO I seem to be able to use files from the MAC or the WIN box interchangeably. I have had monitors that were definatelty too cool and needed caibration in the past.
You really do need to have some method of validating the monitors accuracy, or you can be wnadering lost in the desert without a compass and no water to drink.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Jim, your irony detector's threshold needs adjustment. Those smilies are making you lazy.
Yes, I also believe in using the Apple calibration program (os x), Adobe Gamma (windows), or "monitor-callibration-tool" (linux). It's good to get the monitor onto the right planet. But there is no substitute for actually getting the color values correct by the numbers. Your eyes will fool you too often, even on a properly calibrated monitor. That's why I think things like Monoco are misguided overkill.
See this old post of mine on the subject:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=7516&postcount=8
Every day lots of images are submitted to dgrin that look right on the monitor to the photographer, but which aren't right and won't print right and no amount of color management would help. For a recent example, look at this:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=9006
Even as advanced a pro as Shay Stephens was fooled by trusting his eyes instead of checking the numbers.
Checking for out of gamut colors can be helpful in printing too:):
John, I try to control my use of smilies, but sometimes I just can't help my self
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sam
Learning professional prepress techniques takes time and dedication. But really, it's worth it. There is no substitute. You can only hope that your abilities in this area improve at the same pace as the rest of you photographic skills.
Playing the devil's advocate, I don't see how your edit in that thread illustrates your point
The pic IMO suffers from the get go from unnatural colors. You've applied an edit that opens up the mid-tones a bit
A zone system can be used for checking white balance (as the color of many objects is known within a certain range) and luminosity (same idea), that is true. Another way is to leave visible part of a Gretag Color Checker (the grey squares suffice) at the edge of a picture. But IMO your advice about monitor calibration is misguided. A reliable calibration tool is very useful, as it links the output of both monitor and printer to a common reference. Maybe Dan Margulis does not need it, but most of us have an easier life in a calibrated world. Sure our eyes can still deceive us. But the precautions are known. And yes, one can always check consistency with known RGB values. One does not prevent the other
Just to offer another point of view
Thierry
You are right. The only point about that post was that Shay looked at it and thought it was fine. I thought so too when I looked at it. But when I got out the color sampler, I found it didn't have a true shadow and that the water detail, something the photographer cared about, occupied a pretty narrow section of the curve. I'm not arguing that my correction was right, only that I didn't actually use my eyes to do it and that the people who were using their eyes (including me) couldn't see anything wrong.
I'm sure a better edit would be possible and I'm sure more skill could be brought to bare than I possess. That isn't the point. The point is that if you just try to use your eyes to decide what looks right on a monitor, you'll be wrong much of the time, no matter how well the mointor is calibrated. Sad but true.
So maybe we don't actually disagree that much. The A+B curve steepening I did to this shot was sort of over the top, but I knew the photographer would like it. She had alrady turned up the saturation all the way in the camera and still thought the colors were washed out. It was the contrast that fooled Shay and Andy who were only using their eyes. Baldy used the histogram and knew what was wrong, but just didn't bother to write a new L curve, something he probably does know how to do.
Would a calibrated monitor have helped in this case? I don't think so. Probably there are cases were it would. I personally find that something like the apple display calibration gets me very close and that the remaining distance is almost impossible to bridge (like the difference between the best stereo and live sound.)