Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LaCie 319  (Read 4217 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« on: January 14, 2009, 04:40:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I have recently bought this monitor after spending some happy(ish) years with a NEC Diamondtron (a CRT device) which I communicated with relatively well.

Noted in some other posts in this section is the concept of tweaking the monitor to match the best printer results, in effect, a working backwards approach. I used this way with the NEC and was able to match my HP B9180 B/W prints very closely indeed. These are on Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Bright White. Colours, other than red, also worked well, but I gather that the poor reds (terracottaish) are a product of pigments and not electronics.

I appreciate that the whole concept of monitor calibration is to reach a common language for all monitors in order that viewer A in Australia sees exactly the same image on his monitor that viewer Z in Zambia does. For images outwith your own workspace, this make obvious sense.

The crititical thing is this: with the CRT monitor I did not use a calibration tool other than PS´s Adobe Gamma; the Contrast was set to 100% and for the Hahnemuehle paper, the best setting for Brightness was 42.1%. Trust me, this gave excellent matches between printer and screen. As I do not have a website, I saw little reason to consider how my work might appear on other screens.

Now, with the new monitor, comes a LaCie Blue Eye Pro V4 CRT/LCD calibration device consisting of a CD, a puck and some vague instructions that don´t go any way deeply enough into the calibration options.

Needless to say, the first problem I detect (if it IS a problem and not simply a change from the CRT system of viewing) is that everything looks far too bright after calibrating. Using the results from the calibration, which is largely a matter of clicking ´Next´ as instructed, I would never have accepted the files that I already have for my images. So, in effect, I have lost my WYSIWYG advantage by dint of nothing more than changing the monitor.

In other words, if this new, calibrated standard for the new monitor is indeed correct, then my printer, given new files created to match the new monitor screen, would find itself unable to produce the same good results that I was previously able to get: it can only print what goes in, and if what goes in is created to different standards, then there is no hope of achieving the same results as on the original file created based on what looked good on the original screen. This is obvious, but how do I get around the problem? Do I revert to tweaking the new monitor to match the printer, as I did originally and thus defeating the point of the calibration puck, or is there some better way, based on the standardised calibration device, that will somehow make screen match printer?

Why doesn´t a CRTmonitor last as well as my TV set? As in my case both use Sony screens, it seems odd.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 04:42:12 AM by Rob C » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 08:56:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob,

First let's deal with setting the display to match what comes out of your printer. As you infer, this is not good colour management. You are creating a closed loop system that may work for you and that one printer, but your files cannot be correctly reproduced in any systematic way on any other output device or paper, because you've broken a systematic reference to a common arbitor of L*a*b values for the image. So I suggest forgetting that process and concentrating on how to make correct procedures work correctly - I perceive the intention why you wrote your post - but just to hammer it home to the possibly many others also using closed-loop approaches.

Your problem is most likely an easy one - your display is too bright. This is very common for LCDs out-of-the-box. I don't use the calibration/profiling package you are using (I use ColorEyes Display), but no matter, they all have certain features in common, one of which is the ability - and absolute requirement - to properly set three parameters before profiling: white point, luminance and gamma. For white point and gamma the most common settings are D65 and 2.2 respectively. There's debate about this like there is about everything else, but just try it, view the prints under Solux illumination, compare with the SOFTPROOF on the display and see whether it works for you. Then there is Luminance, and here is where I think your problem is: reduce the Luminance setting to something in the range of 100-110 cd/m2. This feels dim and at first you will think your display is dead, but try it, and again compare the print to the SOFTPROOF in the display. You'll likely find it OK - this helps compensate for the inherent difference in perceptual brightness between light that is transmitted directly from source and light that is reflected off a piece of paper. I assume you know about softproofing and the importance of making all your comparisons with softproof properly set and active.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2009, 11:45:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark

Just to thank you very much indeed!

I now have the new monitor calibrated with the supplied tool, and with the crucial change being in the Luminance, as you suggested I try. From the original 120 cdM I did a series of tests using 105, 100 and finally 95 cdM.

With this last setting, both my b/white and colour prints match the monitor versions as closely as one could wish! Magical.

Much appreciated.

Rob C
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2009, 11:48:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Very good. Glad it worked out for you.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
peterpix
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2009, 11:55:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Mark

Just to thank you very much indeed!

I now have the new monitor calibrated with the supplied tool, and with the crucial change being in the Luminance, as you suggested I try. From the original 120 cdM I did a series of tests using 105, 100 and finally 95 cdM.

With this last setting, both my b/white and colour prints match the monitor versions as closely as one could wish! Magical.

Much appreciated.

Rob C

Mark,  good tips to Rob, I have attempted to follow them (see my questions  else where) but having trouble setting luminance. According  to the statement /chart of results after calibration from Eye One 2, my luminance is 343! I set a target of  100.   I am consistently getting way dark color prints from my NEC 26. Also calibration is  producing too much red. Why is this so difficult!

Peter
Logged

Peter Randall
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2009, 12:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Something is way wrong here. No surprise that if you are adjusting your images at a display setting of 343, you will be darkening them a lot relative to what they should be, and your prints clearly show that. I have no idea why your display calibration settings are not respecting your input parameter of 100 cd/m2, as I don't use that colorimeter or software. Best to check the manual and your operation of the software once again to be dead-certain you are doing it all exactly right. One slight mis-step can mess everything up.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2009, 02:05:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark

A worrying thought: why is the Luminance able to be user selected? Does that fact not render the thing a bit daft, because I think I have actually ended up doing exactly what I did before: matching the screen to the prints!

I thought that the puck device would have controlled the whole show making user input impossible, removing the personal touch and keeping everything to a pre-defined standard value.

Basically, I have set the Gamma to 2.2, set White Point to 6500K, both recommended settings; then, in comes the personal bit which is the Luminance setting which, in  my case, matches the prints at 95cd/m2. Why is there no standard setting, or puck controlled one, for this factor which, being within personal control, makes the entire system suspect and no longer absolute?

I think this is what the post nearby fom haefnerphoto.com is saying too: he expected a mechanical/electronic absolute for all the screen settings that removes the human input. I think that´s what he meant; it´s what I mean.

Confused again.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 02:06:27 PM by Rob C » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2009, 02:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

A modicum of manual intervention is normal and necessary. There is only so much that can be automated. These three settings need to be user-controlled because of diferences in viewing environments and peoples' taste. In the case of Luminance, much depends on the amount of ambient light in your viewing environment. You would use different Luminance on the display to compensate for different strength of ambient illumination, as the latter affects your perception of the former. Where the systematic stuff kicks in is that once you have calibrated your system to produce reliable prints at D65, gamma 2.2 and the illumination value corresponding with your print viewing conditions, you should be able to reproduce the same file and get the same results on any other similarly calibrated system viewing the prints in similar lighting conditions. For example, I participated in a test of the Canon IPF5000 printer way back when it first came out. The person I was working with agreed to use one of my files printed on an Epson 4000 or 4800 (forget which). Because the two of us were using the same paper,had our displays calibrated with the same three parameters, and both printers were properly profiled for the paper at hand, the file looked the same on his display as it did on mine, and you could hardly see a difference between the Canon and the Epson prints in terms of colour balance or luminosity. That is what colour management is intended to achieve - consistent performance accross output devices, but certain things need to be standardized manually beforehand to make it work as designed.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2009, 04:14:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Mark, I hadn´t thought about it in quite that way because I imagined that there could/would be a rigid standard for ALL settings, removing personal input,  the weak link in all of this.

I can see that one´s ambient light will have an effect on both screen and prints and I take your example of the printer tests you shared with a fellow printer some time ago; I suppose that the same conditions being met in both locations solved that situation but then we are left with the thought that unless all other monitors are as carefully set up by people with similar expertise (and interest) we will never really attain a world-wide viewing standard for websites and so forth. It would be nice if monitors came with built-in self-tuning electronics that controlled them from the box, taking care of ambient lighting for a start! Perhaps something like as colour temperature magic eye sort of fitment...

Simplistic thinking makes the world go round.

Thanks again for you time -

Rob C
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2009, 06:21:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Rob,

Yup - all that would be nice - maybe one of these days - meanwhile, the web viewing problem is somewhat solved by preparing web images in the sRGB colour space with Black Point Compensation selected. This goes quite a way to deal with the inevitable fact that most peoples' display simply aren't coordinated to a common standard. Not perfect, but seems to work surprisingly well - especially as general purpose web viewing seldom needs to be colour-critical.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2009, 01:38:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Why doesn´t a CRTmonitor last as well as my TV set? As in my case both use Sony screens, it seems odd.

Rob C
[/quote]



Well, well, well!

As object lesson: never, ever, tempt Fate:

Not twenty minutes ago my venerable (and faultless) Sony Trinitron decided to sleep the big sleep.

Not a lot to add, really.

On the not too certain premise that I might replace it, does anyone have any advice as to which brand of TV set is perhaps the best to buy as replacement? I would have automatically chosen Sony again, but as CRT isn´t the same as today´s thin things, it all seems up for grabs.

Whilst in various TV dealers´ shops looking for other things, I have noticed that there are very few of these sets that match each other´displays. To my surprise, Sony´s has not always seemed the nicest image; I did once notice that Philips had good colour but it isn´t a brand that comes instantly to my mind regarding TV sets. Also, I have been told in one such dealership that Plasma is on the way out and that LCD rules the game. I hadn´t even been aware there were differences - as I was not in the buying game I imagined they were all the same technology. A flat TV is a flat TV; seems not!

Rob C
Logged

neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2009, 04:20:53 PM »
ReplyReply

What is good to know is the Sony HD LCDs are easily profiled for viewing MAc and PC while shooting. I imply used an i1 Display 2 and Match . without the profile the Plug N Play profile was impossible. Now I have a PC, set top box, TV, DVD, Xbox all plugged in and a Mac. When I shoot beauty I shoot tethered into Lightroom displaying on the Sony . Not as good as a monitor but it helps that everyone can see and select on the big screen while I shoot, and the calibration is close enough for decision making on the fly.
Logged
kcmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2009, 07:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I'm hoping somebody can help me here.

First off, I feel really stupid even asking this, but I don't even know where to start with calibrating my monitor and creating a true managed color workspace.

I run stock photo websites of cities across the country and I don’t even know how to calibrate my monitor.  I have tried but have never really figured it out.  I bought a spyder2express a few years ago, which was very cheap compared to most calibration devices.  I guess you get what you pay for, because I don’t think it does anything but create a file according to what your monitor is set to.  It doesn’t actually change the monitor settings.  I can’t even figure out how to change the settings mentioned on this thread like Luminance, gamma etc.

I feel like I know photography, but I have just never understood how to color manage everything.

Check out my websites at www.urban-photos.com or www.kcphotos.com and you can see that it’s pretty amazing that I have such extensive photos and I don’t color manage well.

I have a Lacie 319 monitor, have had it for three years and run all versions of photoshop.  I print at home, as well as at local and online shops.

I consider myself a semi-pro photographer, but in the case of color management, I am about as ignorant as you can get.

If somebody could help me out, I would truly appreciate it.  If somebody wants to take the time to help me via PM or something, I would gladly send you a free print.

Thanks.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2009, 07:36:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kcmo
Hello,

I'm hoping somebody can help me here.

First off, I feel really stupid even asking this, but I don't even know where to start with calibrating my monitor and creating a true managed color workspace.

I run stock photo websites of cities across the country and I don’t even know how to calibrate my monitor.  I have tried but have never really figured it out.  I bought a spyder2express a few years ago, which was very cheap compared to most calibration devices.  I guess you get what you pay for, because I don’t think it does anything but create a file according to what your monitor is set to.  It doesn’t actually change the monitor settings.  I can’t even figure out how to change the settings mentioned on this thread like Luminance, gamma etc.

I feel like I know photography, but I have just never understood how to color manage everything.

Check out my websites at www.urban-photos.com or www.kcphotos.com and you can see that it’s pretty amazing that I have such extensive photos and I don’t color manage well.

I have a Lacie 319 monitor, have had it for three years and run all versions of photoshop.  I print at home, as well as at local and online shops.

I consider myself a semi-pro photographer, but in the case of color management, I am about as ignorant as you can get.

If somebody could help me out, I would truly appreciate it.  If somebody wants to take the time to help me via PM or something, I would gladly send you a free print.

Thanks.

I'm not sure whether this post is meant to be a lark, a troll, or a serious question   , but if you really need help with colour management go to the Luminous-Landscape Store and buy a download of Michael and Jeff's "From Camera to Print" tutorial. Everything you need to know about it is there.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
kcmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2009, 08:56:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
I'm not sure whether this post is meant to be a lark, a troll, or a serious question   , but if you really need help with colour management go to the Luminous-Landscape Store and buy a download of Michael and Jeff's "From Camera to Print" tutorial. Everything you need to know about it is there.

I figured this is the reply I would get and not be taken seriously.  When I switched from film to digital, I never took the time to learn color management.  I guess there is no easy fix, I will just have to spend some time learning it.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7029


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2009, 09:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kcmo
I figured this is the reply I would get and not be taken seriously.  When I switched from film to digital, I never took the time to learn color management.  I guess there is no easy fix, I will just have to spend some time learning it.

OK, now that you have confirmed the question is real, I'll take it seriously and the advice I gave you is doubly re-emphasized. No, you're right, there is no "easy fix" - you do need to progress down the learning curve, it takes time/effort, and costs a bit of money, but the rewards are well worth it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad