Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch  (Read 43005 times)
Kristian Kruse
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« on: January 02, 2009, 10:08:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

I have checked the forum and found several useful threads to help me, but I'll still start this one as I need a idiot proof explanation. So please be kind to me ;-)
I just purchased a HP LP2475w and now I want it calibrated. I borrowed a i1Display2 from work. Actually the all the Phohoshop experts at work (only working with retouch etc.) never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC. I'll try that later, but for now I'll like to have help with the device.

My questions are, what EXACTLY should my settings be before I start the calibration? Are there anything to be aware of during and after? As mentioned, I really need a idiot proof guide, because I'm a bit confused.
Furthermore, should I change my color preference in Photoshop afterwards? Currently set to AdobeRGB1998.

I really hope you have the time and patience to help me!

Thanks, Kristian.

PS. Do anyone have this attached to a MAC? I cannot get the USB hub to work - just me or?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 10:08:32 AM by Kristian Kruse » Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2009, 10:01:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Kristian,

I haven't seen your monitor, although I've heard terrific things about it, and I'd say you've made a good purchase.

This site is a fantastic guide to using your calibrator.  I'd start there.  Your calibration targets should be 6500K white temp, 2.2 gamma, and 90-120cd/m2 luminance.  (The luminance setting depends on your requirements, and the lighting in your workspace.  I use 100, and it's great in my office.  My advice is to err on the low side, even though it will seem oddly dim to begin with.)

Yes, I've used mine on a Mac many times, it'll be fine.  However, it often doesn't work when plugged in to the keyboard USB port, or similar.  It needs plenty of power, so plug it directly into a port on your computer.

No, you don't need to change your colour settings in any way.  The monitor profile just does its work in the background, so to speak.  You can continue to use Adobe RGB or whatever.

Now, settings.  The EyeOne software only gives you a tiny bit of advice about your settings - namely, to set your Contrast to 100%.  The rest is left to your trial-and-error.  From my experience with many different monitors, I would suggest setting your Brightness, as well as the Red, Green and Blue settings, all to around 50%.  Then run the calibration, and see what you end up with.

Basically, I'd try to keep all those settings in a "safe zone" between 30 and 70%.  If you run the calibration, and end up with the Brightness too low eg 20%, then reset your Brightness, R, G and B settings all to 40% and run the cal again.  Conversely, if you end up with a very high Brightness setting eg 90%, reset the Brightness, R, G and B settings all to 60% and calibrate again.

I know this all sounds a bit tedious, but you'll only need to go to this much trouble once.  Subsequent calibrations will be much easier.

I hope this helps.  Write back if you need more advice.  All the best.

(Oh, there's a wide-ranging discussion about your monitor going on here.)



By the way, this:
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC.
makes me seriously doubt this:
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
Photoshop experts
If they truly were experts, they would be following correct colour-management procedure, and would use the excellent equipment available to them.
Logged

Damien
Gupfold
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2009, 11:57:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had a HP LP2475w for about a month now. I use a Spyderpro3 to Calibrate. I have fiddled alot with calibration and seem to get the same good results except for banding when looking at a gradient like the one in lagom site, I am not sure if this is correct or not.

The two lots of settings I have have tried both give me the same results, white balance matches my prints well black and white detail is good but there is slight gradient banding:

6500K : 2.2 with Luminance 100
R 242
G 209
B 206
Brightness 8
Contrast 80

6500K : 2.2 with Luminance 100
R 154
G 132
B 130
Brightness 41
Contrast 100

I am not sure if these settings will help you Kristian as I dont know if the banding is normal. Its the first LCD I have had like this so have nothing to compare it to. If I use the monitors 6500K option and use the profilers 6500:Native option the banding is slightly worse.
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 655


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2009, 02:50:47 AM »
ReplyReply

You might want to ask David Tobie or David Miller on the Colorvision Yahoo group to help. They are very responsive and helpful. Also see if ColorEyes Display can help get better results.

Cheers,
Kumar
Logged

Gupfold
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2009, 06:37:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Kumar, I have registered and posted a similar question there, perhaps its the software or Spyder.

Maybe someone else has had similar experience with other software and puk with the same monitor.

Guy
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9098



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2009, 03:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kristian Kruse
Actually the all the Phohoshop experts at work (only working with retouch etc.) never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC.

First off, that's super frightening to hear. These guys need to "get a clue". Sorry.

OK, based on the puck and your display, you only need to deal with Native Gamma and White Point in the software for those two calibration targets. Unless you have a high bit, high end LCD with supporting software, there's nothing to adjust on that unit other then the intensity of the Fluorescent light. That's luminance. There is absolutely NO correct setting other than the one that produces a visual match to the print you're properly viewing (viewing booth), next to the display.

That said, LCD's out of the box are very bright (probably at least 200+ cd/m2). I'd start out at 140-150cd/m2 adjusting it upward (or if possible, the viewing illuminant down) to result in a match between calibrated/profiled display with proper soft proofing setup in Photoshop and the print within the proper lighting.

As to your question about working space's and specifically Adobe RGB (1998), that's a total workflow question based on document source and final output. As a start, you probably need to understand what a working space is and how to select one:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
Logged

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

Posts: 52


« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2009, 10:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry to Hijack your post Kristian

Quote from: digitaldog
you only need to deal with Native Gamma and White Point in the software for those two calibration targets. Unless you have a high bit, high end LCD with supporting software, there's nothing to adjust on that unit other then the intensity of the Fluorescent light. That's luminance. There is absolutely NO correct setting other than the one that produces a visual match to the print you're properly viewing (viewing booth), next to the display.

I have tried using the native gamma and found that the results I got had a little more banding and too bright or rather brighter than my prints. I find that if I get the luminance down to 100 by lowering the RGB sliders it matches my print well, but I still still have gradient banding. More so with the Native gamma than if I use the RGB Controls. My thinking was that one should try and adjust the hardware ie monitor as much as possible to get as close to the target as possible and that the software would be doing less and would just give the final tweak? By not adjusting the RGB sliders and leaving the gamma as native, isnt that letting the software do all the work?

What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.
Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2009, 11:45:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gupfold
What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.
I'd like to know about this too.
Logged

Damien
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2009, 01:56:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gupfold
I have tried using the native gamma and found that the results I got had a little more banding and too bright or rather brighter than my prints. I find that if I get the luminance down to 100 by lowering the RGB sliders it matches my print well, but I still still have gradient banding. More so with the Native gamma than if I use the RGB Controls. My thinking was that one should try and adjust the hardware ie monitor as much as possible to get as close to the target as possible and that the software would be doing less and would just give the final tweak? By not adjusting the RGB sliders and leaving the gamma as native, isnt that letting the software do all the work?
I think you're confusing native gamma with native white point.
Logged

Damien
Gupfold
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2009, 08:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I beg your pardon, Yes Native White point not Native gamma is what I tried, however Digitaldog says to use Native Gamma and Native White point?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 08:33:19 AM by Gupfold » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9098



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2009, 08:45:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gupfold
I beg your pardon, Yes Native White point not Native gamma is what I tried, however Digitaldog says to use Native Gamma and Native White point?

Yes. Both result in LESS banding, not more.
Logged

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

Posts: 9098



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2009, 08:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gupfold
What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.

Because most LCD's can't hit low luminance levels without adjustment to the LUT (which we want to avoid) AND most good print viewing conditions for workstations can easily hit much higher values. I've got no issues with 150cd/m2 (about the real minimum I can hit on my NEC) and my GTI box is still dialed down in intensity to provide a match.
Logged

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

Posts: 1328


« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2009, 09:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Because most LCD's can't hit low luminance levels without adjustment to the LUT (which we want to avoid) AND most good print viewing conditions for workstations can easily hit much higher values. I've got no issues with 150cd/m2 (about the real minimum I can hit on my NEC) and my GTI box is still dialed down in intensity to provide a match.

Andrew:  Right now my NEC 3090 is calibrated and profiled at 135cd/m2 with the iOne 2 and SpectraViewII. I am awaiting delivery on a GTI PDV-3e/D print viewer, after which I will try the higher values on the 3090.  I have two questions, though:

1) As it is now, my reds on the monitor seem to be way too bright and saturated, to the point where they even hurt my eyes.  The room lighting is lower than the monitor brightness, but not cave-like.  Is this just my perception after using a CRT for 10 years, and will it be even more pronounced at 150 cd/m2?

2)  Is the useful life of the  flourescent tubes shortened at higher brightness levels, and if so, to what degree?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 09:12:46 AM by walter.sk » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9098



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2009, 09:17:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: walter.sk
1) As it is now, my reds on the monitor seem to be way too bright and saturated, to the point where they even hurt my eyes.  The room lighting is lower than the monitor brightness, but not cave-like.  Is this just my perception after using a CRT for 10 years, and will it be even more pronounced at 150 cd/m2?

2)  Is the useful life of the  flourescent tubes shortened at higher brightness levels, and if so, to what degree?

1. The room lighting cannot be too low! It can be too hight. I'd try 140/150 (you can build multiple presets with the SpectraView software and toggle between them).
2. Yes, drive the display higher, Fluorescent tubes last less. The usable time the bulbs will last vary. The "typical" lifespan is about 25000 hours. By the time they die, you'll be using a newer display technology.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 09:18:44 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Kristian Kruse
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2009, 01:04:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

After countless of calibrations I ended up with the settings:
White Point = 6500K
Gamma = 2.2
Lumi... = 120
Brightness = 52
Contrast = 100
R = 153
G = 142
B = 152

I think the colors are pretty good, but I find it a bit dark and I don't feel like turning up the brightness even more, otherwise it would start irritate my eyes!
I tried with Native White Point, but felt that the colors were off! A lot! However, the 6500K does causes some banding!

« Last Edit: January 06, 2009, 01:05:32 PM by Kristian Kruse » Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2009, 02:31:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kristian Kruse
I think the colors are pretty good, but I find it a bit dark
Don't worry about that - after a couple of days you'll be totally used to it.

Where is the banding apparent?
Logged

Damien
Gupfold
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2009, 12:03:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I have re calibrated AGAIN and got much better results. It is a little bright but still matches my prints nicely and banding is minimal, if you really look closely you can see very slight banding middle to dark tones.

White Point = 6500K
Gamma = 2.2
Lumi... = 120
Brightness = 42
Contrast = 100
R = 176
G = 149
B = 145
Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2009, 02:32:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Those are good looking numbers, mate.  But I still think 120 luminance is too high - 100 is better IMO.
Logged

Damien
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9098



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2009, 02:43:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Damo77
Those are good looking numbers, mate.  But I still think 120 luminance is too high - 100 is better IMO.

Too high why?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2009, 03:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

From my own experience, and the evidence of thousands of forum posts.  Not a day goes by without somebody saying "Help! My prints are too dark!", and the source of the problem being traced to a too-bright monitor.

Look, I know you're the expert (and how!) but I think you're losing the common touch.  This talk of "140-150 and go up from there", while it may be scientifically correct, is impractical and is likely to cause humble photographers a great deal of grief and wasted prints.
Logged

Damien
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad