Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Monitor Recommendation - Calibration to print accuracy!  (Read 5297 times)
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« on: November 26, 2008, 05:02:01 PM »
ReplyReply

PS:  Posted this in Computer section and probably should have placed it here as I received no responses.
Jack
-------------
I've been reading posts on the topic of "best monitor" for the last couple of hours.

My question:
What monitor will provide the best image that closely matches the print?

Here is the Given of what I currently have to work with:
X-rite Pulse DPT 20 and DPT95 monitor calibrator.
Colorburst RIP and building my own profiles.
Some color work but mostly B&W landscape images.
Currently using two of the Dell 2405FPW monitors - one for image and one for menus - just can't get these to come close to the printed image.
Epson StylusPro 4800 printer using Silver Rag paper.

From reading the posts, looks like Eizo CG241W and the NEC LCD2690WQXi2 or the 3090WQXi are favorites.

But I'm not reading where folks are actually pushing any monitor to give them "Print Accurate" results.

In short, I'm tired of wasting paper and ink trying to get a print that comes close to my image on the screen.

Size of display is not really the issue for me - 24", 26" or 30" is fine. Far more important is matching print.
Suggestions appreciated.

Thanks,
Jack

Logged

rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432



« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2008, 05:11:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

Its unlikely that any print is going to come close to what you see on the monitor for a number of reasons.  You can get about 90% of the way there if you're skilled with softproofing though.
Logged

Regards,
Ron
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 06:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jack,

Ron is right, you get very close with a lot of finetuning, then you have to judge the print under the correct light afterwards.

I use a CG24" and a Spectraview 30", the latter has a huge gammut and is my main monitor, calibrated via Gretag i1pro. Very happy with the choice of screens.

Not sure why your current setup appears to be way of matching your printoutput, I don't know the Dell's, but I can say that your shortlist gives you somewhat best of breed, can't go wrong with that.

One more thing, you say you don't mind 24 or 30 inch, trust me, once you have a 30" installed you do not want to miss it anymore! With Lightroom for example, just fantastic, panels on the Eizo, and the full whack picture on the NEC, really nice!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 06:11:00 PM by laughingbear » Logged
Steve Gordon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 09:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree

The best monitor will be those can be calibrated most accurately. At the moment the Eizo CG series and the NEC's you have mentioned are the main candidates.

As mentioned the prints need to be viewed under controlled lighting conditions to achieve that match.

Also, as posted, a print will never look the same as a LCD screen!


steve
Logged
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2008, 06:40:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Please define how you feel one becomes "skilled with softproofing".


Quote from: rdonson
Jack,

Its unlikely that any print is going to come close to what you see on the monitor for a number of reasons.  You can get about 90% of the way there if you're skilled with softproofing though.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6954


« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2008, 06:55:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
Please define how you feel one becomes "skilled with softproofing".
Jack,
When you softproof your photos you need adjust the softproofed version to get it as close as possible to your original. It takes some practice but with time and patience you'll be able to get very good results. By the way, have you seen the Camera to Print tutorial?
Logged

Francois
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2008, 08:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
PS:  Posted this in Computer section and probably should have placed it here as I received no responses.
Jack
-------------
I've been reading posts on the topic of "best monitor" for the last couple of hours.

My question:
What monitor will provide the best image that closely matches the print?

Here is the Given of what I currently have to work with:
X-rite Pulse DPT 20 and DPT95 monitor calibrator.
Colorburst RIP and building my own profiles.
Some color work but mostly B&W landscape images.
Currently using two of the Dell 2405FPW monitors - one for image and one for menus - just can't get these to come close to the printed image.
Epson StylusPro 4800 printer using Silver Rag paper.

From reading the posts, looks like Eizo CG241W and the NEC LCD2690WQXi2 or the 3090WQXi are favorites.

But I'm not reading where folks are actually pushing any monitor to give them "Print Accurate" results.

In short, I'm tired of wasting paper and ink trying to get a print that comes close to my image on the screen.

Size of display is not really the issue for me - 24", 26" or 30" is fine. Far more important is matching print.
Suggestions appreciated.

Thanks,
Jack

I don't have any experience with the NECs but I've had several other high end graphic monitors in the past and in my experience I like the Eizo CG monitors best. We have several CG241Ws and find them extremely accurate when calibrated. We use the same exact x-rite calibration tools that you have and the accuracy is more than 90%; at this time we really don't have many print rejections due to calibration issues. The exception is xrite's monitor calibration software, not really that great. Eizo's come with their own software but for other monitors I highly recommend ColorEyes, if used properly you'll see a major improvement in your monitor profile.

I'm assuming that you know how to soft proof in PS and print with correct profiles, so I wont go there. The notion that you can push any monitor to give "Print Accurate" results is a false one imo, specially if you're using wider than sRGB gamut profiles like Adobe RGB or Profoto, etc., most monitors simply can't handle these color spaces and many aren't designed for accuracy and photographic work, it definitely is worth investing in a quality monitor. There's another issue with many none Eizo monitors that I've noticed is that they don't remain calibrated for long, many of the so called better ones that we owned, were good for up to a week at the most and then drifted so regular calibration was a necessity, but our Eizos seem to be fine for at least 45 days and often longer.

david
www.pbase.com/ddk
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2008, 09:56:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: francois
Jack,
When you softproof your photos you need adjust the softproofed version to get it as close as possible to your original. It takes some practice but with time and patience you'll be able to get very good results. By the way, have you seen the Camera to Print tutorial?


No I have not - assume you are speaking about the LL downloadable tutorial From Camera to Print?

I have several books on the topic, including George DeWolfe's Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop.

jb
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6954


« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2008, 10:30:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
No I have not - assume you are speaking about the LL downloadable tutorial From Camera to Print?
Correct, Michael & Jeff demonstrate how to softproof and do adjustments. Basically, you use curves, hue & saturations layers in Photoshop.

Quote from: Lust4Life
I have several books on the topic, including George DeWolfe's Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop.

jb
I haven't read that book, so I can't comment.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 10:30:30 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2008, 01:32:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: francois
Correct, Michael & Jeff demonstrate how to softproof and do adjustments. Basically, you use curves, hue & saturations layers in Photoshop.


I haven't read that book, so I can't comment.

I'm quite familiar with CS4 and Lightroom 2.  Also Phocus as my RAW developer - which is not my favorite but restrict to as i shoot an H3DII-39.

My real problem is that the monitors I have, Dell, do not have the dynamic range or ability to darken the image to the extend that is required to reflect what the printer is capable of doing.  I have developed a method of taking a image that looks excellent on the monitor, the apply a series of fixed value brightness and curve settings to it to get a print that is close to what I want.  

Hoping to invest in a monitor that will eliminate those "work arounds".

As I mentioned in the original post, seems to boil down to the Nec or the Eizo.  I had an Eizo CRT years ago and it was excellent, but expensive.  Hoping to hear that Nec has the near equal of an Eizo in ability to calibrate, or that there is a "dark horse" I'm not currently considering that will do the job.

Also wondering if the new LED rather than LCD monitors would provide a better solution.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:22:40 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

BillSmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2008, 10:55:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a Eizo CG 211 which I like a lot.  It has a as-IPS panel (the same as the CG221 flagship $6000 model) which is perfect for  displaying photography.  I looked at the Eizo 241 but was annoyed by the contrast changing with the slightest head movement.  The 211 also has lower contrast than the 241 and seems to display images far more accurately to your prints than the 241.  I also love the ability to use in the portrait orientation.  I use the Display One calibrator with ColorEyes software which I find a little better than the Eizo calibration software.  Coming from a "PressView", and recently a Sony Artisan, and as a photographer I really love this monitor.  The CG 241 is a little cheaper, but  very good and 3 inches larger of course. If your going to use it to play video games and edit video it's might be the better choice, but for photography only the CG211 is perfect. They list for $2850 but can be bought for $2000, including  tax and shipping.  (5 year warranty)  I never have used the NEC's , I've heard their nice for the money, I do know they used a different panel with slightly different technology.  Hope this helps.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9226



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2008, 11:01:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Lust4Life
My real problem is that the monitors I have, Dell, do not have the dynamic range or ability to darken the image to the extend that is required to reflect what the printer is capable of doing.

Sure it does. There isn't a display that can't at least exceed by a huge amount, the dynamic range of a print (you're lucky if that's much more than 300:1).

Its all about proper display calibration to match the viewing conditions and setting up a proper soft proof using the Simulate check boxes for control of the dynamic range.

Of course, a better display with control over native dynamic range, like the NEC SpectraView's with their software help. While I can't nail the dynamic range exactly along with a desired luminance (more important), I can get close.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090


« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2008, 07:24:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
I don't have any experience with the NECs but I've had several other high end graphic monitors in the past and in my experience I like the Eizo CG monitors best. We have several CG241Ws and find them extremely accurate when calibrated. We use the same exact x-rite calibration tools that you have and the accuracy is more than 90%; at this time we really don't have many print rejections due to calibration issues. The exception is xrite's monitor calibration software, not really that great. Eizo's come with their own software but for other monitors I highly recommend ColorEyes, if used properly you'll see a major improvement in your monitor profile.

I'm assuming that you know how to soft proof in PS and print with correct profiles, so I wont go there. The notion that you can push any monitor to give "Print Accurate" results is a false one imo, specially if you're using wider than sRGB gamut profiles like Adobe RGB or Profoto, etc., most monitors simply can't handle these color spaces and many aren't designed for accuracy and photographic work, it definitely is worth investing in a quality monitor. There's another issue with many none Eizo monitors that I've noticed is that they don't remain calibrated for long, many of the so called better ones that we owned, were good for up to a week at the most and then drifted so regular calibration was a necessity, but our Eizos seem to be fine for at least 45 days and often longer.

david
www.pbase.com/ddk

How much difference is there between the ColorEyes and the Xrite calibration software? I have an Eizo CG211 and both calibration  packages. I've been using the Eizo software because I thought it would be optimized for the CG211's LUT.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2008, 07:25:33 PM by BobDavid » Logged
BillSmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2008, 10:14:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobDavid
How much difference is there between the ColorEyes and the Xrite calibration software? I have an Eizo CG211 and both calibration  packages. I've been using the Eizo software because I thought it would be optimized for the CG211's LUT.

I also have  both packages too but I feel ColorEyes adjust the  211 better in the shadow areas.  (Use the built in Eizo profile)  There is a free 10 day demo, try it as see for yourself.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 10:17:32 AM by BillSmith » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad