Monitor Calibration

[HulaMike]

Is your monitor calibrated correctly?

It's the heart of everything we do with our S2 images and yet is often ignored or misunderstood. With a properly calibrated monitor and a good ICC/ICM profile for your printer/ink/paper combination you'll be able to view and print exactly what is seen on screen. Adobe gamma is sort of ok to get you in the ballpark but you should be considering a good Spyder and software program to balance your monitor professionally.

There are many to choose from ranging in price from $150 to several thousand. The one I use is very inexpensive and quite good. Colorvision's Spyder with Photocal software. Comes with an attachment for both CRT and LCD monitors. Revised product is now selling for $149 from various online vendors like www.inkjetmall.com .

I would highly recommend that everyone buy and use such a utility at least once a month. Being able to trust what you see onscreen is invaluable for pros and amateurs alike.

[Linda G]

Yes, it's a good product, but remember, it doesn't work on laptop screens. It uses suction cups which could damage them.

I am fortunate that my workplace invested in a Gretag McBeth EyeOne system that just came out with a new little thingy that works on laptops.

http://www.gretagmacbeth.com/Source/Gm.asp?page=ProductsDisplay&part=Products&lang=2&typ=product&title=Products+detail+view&cat=Spectrophotometer&code=b&id=7017

we call it the baby EyeOne.

[HulaMike]

Linda,

The new iteration works fine on LCD screens, no suction cups. I believe that's why Colorvision is running a $149 special, to introduce the new and improved model.

There is now a triangular plastic adapter that slips on and just rests on the LCD screen. There's a funky adjustable length weight tha keeps it in contact.

[rewind69]

Linda,

I'm interested in getting your opinion about your company's Gretag McBeth Eyeone calibration kit. Both the positive and any negatives.

We're interested in getting a calibration system for my department. There are several good calibration systems on the market, but at this point we are just starting to do our homework on which one will meet our needs. Any input will be appreciated.

Also, if anyone else has experience with calibrating their monitors, printers and scanners I'd like your opinions and input as well.

Thanks.
Rewind69

[Linda G]

Rewind,

We have the Eyeone because it's supported by Fuji. We must calibrate 7 monitors and two printers (Fuji Frontier and ZBE Chromira) to match as close as possible.

We can do that with the Eyeone. It took plenty of training but has really made a difference.

We have a spider calibrator, but we don't use it in house.

The negatives on the eyeone are...expense. If you're using it to calibrate monitors, it's fairly easy but it has a complicated side for making profiles and finding profiles. Depending on your needs, it may be way more complicated than you may want.

[rewind69]

Linda,

I work in the Medical Media Department at a VA hospital and we have three monitors, not counting two other monitors used for video production work.

I'm the medical photographer (using PS6 &7) and we have an illustrator (using everything PS7, Adobe Illustrator, Quark etc.) plus our boss does a little bit of everything. I print with a Fuji Pictrographic 3000.......not the greatest, but meets the needs for our work for now. The illustrator uses a large format Epson printer and very large Canon printer for volume color printing....flyers, brochures, posters, other art work. We'd like to calibrate all our monitors and printers and scanners so that photos I send to the illustrator will look almost the same on both monitors. What looks good on my monitor looks bad on the illustrator's monitor.

We want to get everything as coordinated as possible.

Does this make sense?

Rewind69

[Linda G]

Yes, makes sense. We were/are fortunate that we have one 'parent' company working with us on all our calibrated items. You have at least three (Fuji/Adobe/Epson) to work with.

Keep us informed of what your decisions are and why.

[rewind69]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'd also like to know a little more about the color lab you work for, specifically what is the best way you like to receive digital photos from a customer? A) Downloaded from the camera to a CD, not manipulated / interpolated in any way and you folks will do the rest or B) have the photographer work each photo to his liking, but not sizing the image, so various sizes can be printed from that image?

I'm assuming that each color lab has a different way of operating, but as a photographer what is the easiest way lab people would like to make prints from supplied digital images?

I'm also looking around for a good lab to work with for my personal work.

Rewind69

[Linda G]

I'm glad to repeat myself. <g> The last post about this is strung out on Swampy's harddrive somewhere.

I would be glad to tell you what my lab likes (will look up your email and respond) but what we like may not be what other labs like.

We are a pro lab and nothing, unless stated on the envelope very boldly by the customer, goes through untweaked. In that respect, and with our software, we prefer you don't do much to it before using levels/colorbalance, etc. When you do this, you are taking information away from the original image that can't be replaced and if your monitors are not calibrated exactly to our printer, that lost information may have made a big difference. If you are not using a custom white balance (why not?:troutsmac ) and your images are off too far, we will communicate that to you so you can improve your next batch and we will continue to make the bad ones as best as possible.

I know many other labs who use the cd as a roll of negs without even looking at them. That's fine unless color is critical.

Talk to your lab. If you don't have one, talk to labs, send samples and see which you like and find out how they want your files.

:D

[ballroom_boy]

HI there

I have decided to bite the bullet and invest in some color management tools. I have read that Colovision's Spyder is quite good - but it seems to come in two flavours - optical and photocal. What is the difference?

I use an iMac with a 17" LCD screen. It is worth my while to even calibrate it? What I see on screen is very close to what I get on my Canon s9000.

Thanks for your help!

[HulaMike]

Roel,

Optical has a few more advanced features over Photocal. I also think it comes with a site license for multiple monitors. I find that using the basic spyder with Photocal has balanced my monitor nicely. I can now trust what I see for web use and I can print exactly what I see on screen.

A part of my equation also involves Jon Cone's ICC profiles for my printer, paper and ink choice. The combo of proper calibration and ICC printer profiles has eliminated guessing and a giagantic headache for me.

As to your question, "should I even try to calibrate it?", you have to understand that monitors drift over time, CRT's most certainly, not sure about LCD's. That's why the manufacturers of these devices recommed recalibration every two weeks! I find once a month works for me.

[ScruffyBumpkin]

I have two 19 inch Samsungs sitting side by side and don't get evan close to the same colors on both of them. I've tryed the online color calibration and the Adobe Gamma with little results. The one on the right comes pretty close to my laptop monitor that I use for shooting photos and they are the closest to what comes out of my Kodak 8500 printer. Still I waste some paper. When you start looking at the color calibration software and equipment it gets a little scary. How much is necessary to spend? I've seen stuff that costs over ten grand. The colorvision stuff goes from $149 up to $900. Opinions please. No company paying the bill for me.

[-fruity-]

The only difference between Spyder (179,- €) and Spyder pro (279,- €) ist the software PhotoCal?
Can OptiCal produce profiles @7000+k and how accurate are they?

TIA
cheers

[HulaMike]

ScruffyB,

Please reread my posts above. I am a commercial fine art photographer and the advice given is based on tons of trial and error experience. Like you it would seem, I am a champion of getting the job done right and for as few dollars (Euros) as possible. The basic Colorvision product with Photocal, if used correctly, will improve your workflow considerably.

[thanz]

Ballroom Boy,
I have a 17" imac (LCD) and I just got the Pantone/Colorvision package. I print from a 2200 for my customers (mainly portraits) and now wonder how I ever did it without proper monitor calibration. Before, I was very close to getting my prints and monitor to match (so I thought) but now I am dead on! The spider hangs on the top edge of your LCD, very simple, load the software, enter a few parameters and push calibrate, thats it.
I am using Optical, which makes Photocal look really basic, my package came with both and Profiler Plus as well (allows for printer and scanner calibration). The whole package was about 325.00 (U.S.)
I think Photocal would work well on its own if you don't need the extra adjustments, it's pretty basic and you could add optical later if you needed it.
Which ever way you go you'll be amazed at the results, I spend alot less time, paper, and ink on getting my prints to match my monitor, it will pay for it's self.

Good luck,
Todd

[ARTURO]

I test my monitor with This....

[bjnicholls]

And just what do you do with that target? It's interesting, but doesn't have a grey gradient.

Let's get real for a minute. There is no such thing as a perfect monitor representation of a printed output. The objective is to get as close as the display is capable of rendering. LCDs have problems in that regard. To get a high contrast range, they have to be very bright to make up for the anemic blacks they're capable of. When you calibrate for print output, the brightness is reduced down to where LCDs really don't show shadow detail. If you do high end image editing, a CRT is still the best tool for the job (a link and then off the soapbox):

http://www.macworld.com/2001/06/features/color/

http://www.macworld.com/2000/07/features/flatpanelside/

Without special driver support, you can only profile one display at a time in the Windows environment. I suggest profiling your best display to use for image editing. I'm using an LCD next to a 22" CRT. Hands-down, the CRT is the better display for print preview.

[jknights]

I was with a client the other day and he had PhotoCal and Optical with the Spyder.

The software is very easy to use and certainly seems to work on LCD/TFT and CRT monitors.

One thing that is very obvious is that CRTs seem to come up producing a very dark saturated image that seems to be overly saturated.
TFT calibration produces a result that seems to be more like the image would look like on the print.

Is this other peoples experience. ?

[NRA]

Jonathan,

Ime no expert on this. My Photocal Spyder arrived last week and ive done all my monitors, 2 TFT and a CRT.

They were not miles out but for the first time I like what I see. In the past I always knew there was something not quite right but never knew how to make changes.

I am working mainly in B&W and for the first time I am see proper greys, no tints. The screen is very nuetral, so with this confidence I will now move forward towards some duotones.

The set up does require you to set the screen to its defaults. I couldnt find the monitor books, so I just set some mid values at went forward from there or used the auto adjust button. Using the RGB values I adjusted the tollerances to within 0.078. Thats well within the 0.5 that it calls for to start its process.

My CRT, a Samsung 753dfx doesnt have RGB gun adjustment but did manage to get within the 85-95 luminanace and looks great now.

Nigel



:D

[jknights]

Nigel,
Very interesting that you are doing B&W and are happy with the results.

How do you print are you using a inkjet or external digital printing service.
If you are using an inkjet, which one ? and have you got some fancy system e.g. Piezography, installed on your printer.?

[NRA]

All of my photography over the last 15 years has been B&W. I enjoyed learning the techniques of a wet darkroom and if I had the space, the time and the money ( I would use 5x4) I would have one again.

I try therefore to mimick the type of output from a wet darkroom with digital. Ime not at all interested in the gimicky side of digital manipulation. Till recently I worked with a Mamiya 7 and scanned the negs but, found problems in scanning that I wasnt prepared to overcome and researched the DSLRs. All this is very recent.

My printer is a 2100 Epson. I use Archival Matt, Matt black ink of course and the Epson profiles.

When mounted behind glass they come alive. When viewed without they can look a bit disapointing. Although loads better than glossy behind glass that has conflicting reflections.
The matt route removes the metamarism that is obvious when using glossy paper and inks.

It is all low volume output, printed mainly to 8"x8",white overlay mount in a black 1"x1" section 16x16 frame.

We are still trying to source frames at a suitable price.


Nigel
:cheers:

[jknights]

Nigel,

Cheap source of frames is OfficeWorld or Staples.

I found that OfficeWorld do a nice range of either pine or metal frames and they are very reasonable.

Also try here http://www.diyframing.com/

[NRA]

Jonathon,

Thanks for that site.

Framing and presentation is key to the final print looking right in its final hung location.

Its as difficult to sort out and get "right" as the photograph .

Sorry I took so long to reply to this, its a thread where I dont get an email to notify.


Nigel:cheers:

[Melody]

Mike,

Can you clarify something for me regarding colorvision I've gone to their site and it is showing this one and it mentions Photocal

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=101

then I went to compusa (because I always want things NOW and I can go get this one in 20min)

http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=101

and it's spyderpro and shows Optical instead

I can't find the same software on colorvisions site under products or I'm blind this morning one. Which is preferred the photocal or the optical or is compusa selling an old version?

Melody

[HulaMike]

Melody,

I have ColorVison Spyder with Photocal and it works great if you take the time to follow the instructions to the "T". I believe the version with Optical was a more advanced version but it doesn't look like Colorvision is offering that on its site any longer. Probably releasing something new to replace it. If you can get that at a better price that's probably the way to go. I can't remember which features it had over Photocal, printer profiling maybe?

Either would work well for monitor calibration. I can honestly say that I have a wysiwyg view on screen that matches printed output exactly. Of course I also have CS calibrated to use my printer ICC profile(s) [view>proof set up>custom] and so everything works well together.

[Melody]

Thanks Mike,

Yeah I called colorvision this morning they don't offer the spyderpro on their website only to the resellers. Now if I've got it right the optical has where you can have more then 2 settings (various printers etc) as opposed to the photocal. However their pro studio version that has that is about $299 their basic version was $149 and at compusa I got the spyderpro for $159 so for $9 more I got the unlimited and got to have it now.

Now I'm playing with it and I've got to call them for support since I'm trying this on an lcd first actually it really doesn't look too bad if you just keep following the prompts however I'm not done yet I may be back asking even more questions! :lol:

Thanks Again

Melody

[HulaMike]

On my version with Photocal, there were three choices, approaches, available depending on what your monitor allows. My pro CRT allowed me to go thru the frustrating balancing of the RGB electron guns (trial and error getting the vertical bars all within a box with the proper amount of something or other) [see, I'm a techie just like Bryan]. On my monitor I can't adjust the red gun directly, it's adjusted by fine tuning the GB guns. That was the frustrating part at first. I wasn't patient enough, the second time I nailed it. Now its easy. I recalibrate monthly.

Monitor calibration has nothing to do with printing Mel other than giving you an accurtate on screen view to begin with. You should be able to calibrate your monitor ONCE for use with all your printers. Print color is determined by your ICC printer profiles, not your monitor ICC calibration. But the two have to work in unison. That's where setting the custom view in Photoshop comes in. All you do after you calibrate the monitor is to select which printer ICC you'll be using on a specific printer. [view>proof set up>custom] Your on-screen view will then be adjusted to approximate the printed output using that printer ICC profile. You can then toggle (Ctrl+Y) between your aRGB or sRGB on screen look and the approximated printed look. I usually edit in aRGB then toggle to see how it will print. I then adjust for the print as needed.

I use Jon Cone printer ICC's that are specifically designed for a particular printer / ink / paper combo. Change one of those items and the printer ICC profiling falls apart, or in other words you need a different ICC for that particular combo. You have to get very specific with these settings if printed output is your game. Once you do, you'll wonder how you ever tried printing without a calibrated and balanced system.

Cone sells printer profiles for most Epson printers, Epson ink, his ink, Epson papers, other papers; and all various combinations of the above. The 4000 being the exception right now as he only has a quad tone profile for the 4000. $25 gets you one, he also sells them bundled for several hundred bucks. So far I get by purchasing them as I go. They are very accurate and dependable. Many pros construct their own printer profiles but that's beyond my skills and needs right now. My time and the waste associated with trial and error profiling is worth more than 25 bucks.

Whew! That was longer than I expected. I must really like you. ;)

[Melody]

hehe Thanks Mike I like you too!

I didn't have much of an issue with what I saw compared to what I printed although closer is always better, however I got a new scanner and whew is there a difference not doing much scanning before I was flat amazed. Have you seen a great deal of difference in what someone has printed on let's say a "home" printer and those of a for lack of a better term higher end? The hobbie looking stuff is so much different the "printed" stuff is fairly close. I called colorvision and they said they were working on a calibration for a scanner, oh well something else to drive me crazy for awhile!

I forget the guys name over at Tropical he was very helpful in the beginning he went through and got my profiles etc all set up for me :)

Then I've been really happy with the epson profiles and darn I forget Atkinson I believe is his name for the canvas and paper stuff. A never ending process as things change I suppose! :)

This came with both discs the photocal and the optical I tried the optical and am not crazy about it I'm gonna try what you've said with the photocal and see that one on the laptop tonight for kicks! You maybe getting an sos call from the mainland if it frustrates me too much! :lol:

Thank you!

Melody

[mbze430]

I like to give some of my personal comments regarding ICC workflow. I personally have always been frustrated in getting prints close to what I see on the monitor. WYSIWYG is really WYSIHWYWG(What You See Is HOPEFULLY What You Will Get). More times I end up printing several "test" prints to get one final print. Worse off, once you have setup your prints to the area of view, you notice it has shifted colors. Now I live and die by ICC Profiles. Everything within my workflow must be ICC profiled, camera, scanner, monitor, and printer/paper.

Monitor calibration, I truly believe in. Personally I consider this the most important. This is were you process all your images. If you think its right on your monitor, everything down the line should be right too. Only works if everything is ICC Profiled.

Another personal preference. I never use a LCD to process any of my images. However I do use it to preview them so I get a sense of what other might see on their LCD. I find the annoyance of LCD not have the capability to produce "black". Sure it looks black, but in measurement I don't think any LCD can reach a IRE 7.5. The angle of view always gives some portion of the screen a little grey, it just doesn't do it for me.

Which package do I use...I have the GretagMacBeth Eye-One Display. I have only tried the Colorvision SpyderPro. Since both company has the entry level package for $250. Of course if I was selling prints and making this as my profession I would have probably gone with the GretagMacBeth Eye-One Photo. Just can beat having a Spectrometer.

I might want to try the new Eye-One Display 2, now it has another sensor on the puck that take measurement of ambient light. This helps when don't have exact 5500K or 6500K lights. If anyone planning to purchase the Version2, please comment on the product.

[HulaMike]

hehe Thanks Mike I like you too!

I didn't have much of an issue with what I saw compared to what I printed although closer is always better, however I got a new scanner and whew is there a difference not doing much scanning before I was flat amazed. Have you seen a great deal of difference in what someone has printed on let's say a "home" printer and those of a for lack of a better term higher end? The hobbie looking stuff is so much different the "printed" stuff is fairly close. I called colorvision and they said they were working on a calibration for a scanner, oh well something else to drive me crazy for awhile!

I forget the guys name over at Tropical he was very helpful in the beginning he went through and got my profiles etc all set up for me :)

Then I've been really happy with the epson profiles and darn I forget Atkinson I believe is his name for the canvas and paper stuff. A never ending process as things change I suppose! :)

This came with both discs the photocal and the optical I tried the optical and am not crazy about it I'm gonna try what you've said with the photocal and see that one on the laptop tonight for kicks! You maybe getting an sos call from the mainland if it frustrates me too much! :lol:

Thank you!

Melody

Well, its all about printer quality, ink and paper. Of course you'll see a substantial difference in quality between a hobby/office printer and a high end photo printer. A good photo printer used correctly should produce a print that looks as good as a chemical print. But you already knew that. Don't you have an Epson 9600 running Ultrachrome ink?

Sublimation is a completely different animal as your print out won't match on screen color until its pressed onto a substrate. The guys at Tropical are very good and I'm sure whatever they helped you with is working for you.

I've heard some of the newer Epson drivers for their high end inkjets are as good as any, especially for their pigmented Ultrachrome inks. That's probably why Cone hasn't invested the time in formulating a color ICC for the 4000 printer.

MBZE makes a good point about LCD monitors and calibration. You might start by calibrating a CRT to see the difference better.

[Melody]

Yeah Mike I have 2 epson 9600's one with the ultrachrome and the other with the dye sub. These pics I'm scanning are Not mine but those of a customer who wants them on the ceramic tiles.

I don't have any issues with my stuff it's these pics of the customers with a new scanner sorry for the confusion.

Melody

[HulaMike]

oh. You mean they gave you low end inkjets to scan? Good luck!

[Melody]

YES that's it thats what they gave me :rofl: Thanks! I think! Well at least I feel better knowing it's not just Me!

I've spent over an hour trying everything in PS to get them better they are acceptable however sheesh I'm not starting with much. Here I thought something MUST be wrong with my new scanner then I thought well my other stuff is fine so no one has dropped my monitor but boy is this awful looking was my first impression!

Melody

[mbze430]

Here is a suggestion. Again I don't know how your workflow is. I usually do all my photo and negative scan using Vuescan. It is an excellent software strictly for the photographers. Its a stand alone software that by-pass the Windows XP/2000 WIA. I have been able to use this with conjunction with PS to restore some of the worse photo taken.

[Swampy]

Here is a suggestion. Again I don't know how your workflow is. I usually do all my photo and negative scan using Vuescan. It is an excellent software strictly for the photographers. Its a stand alone software that by-pass the Windows XP/2000 WIA. I have been able to use this with conjunction with PS to restore some of the worse photo taken.

Hey - Reminder - don't forget your calibrations stuff on Friday. I put my bracket in the car and I also noticed that it does have a side mount along with the top mount.