Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: iMac calibration/profiling  (Read 15334 times)
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2009, 06:28:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Huh ... what booth?

Isn't the point of this thread that John can't bring his friend's screen's luminance down low enough to stop it burning his eyes out of his skull?
Logged

Damien
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2009, 06:48:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Damo77
Huh ... what booth?

Whatever conditions next to the display he's viewing the prints.
Logged

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

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2009, 07:07:37 PM »
ReplyReply

In the absence of a viewing booth, he's viewing the prints in his room lighting - hence my original (albeit tongue-in-cheek) statement.
Logged

Damien
jackbingham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2009, 05:41:31 AM »
ReplyReply

It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about a viewing booth or a west facing window that looks out on San Francisco Bay. We are talking about the same thing, which is how @#$%^&*()_ bright the imac is and what you can do to fix it. The point was you can do it but there are compromises to be made.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2009, 07:56:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about a viewing booth or a west facing window that looks out on San Francisco Bay.

No it matter. One is totally controllable and allows a user to at least start considering what luminance to match, the other is totally non controllable and not appropriate for print viewing along a display.

You can't start to decide on a target for luminance until you KNOW how you'll view the prints by that display and how you'll control both.

Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?

Logged

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

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2009, 11:20:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
No it matter. One is totally controllable and allows a user to at least start considering what luminance to match, the other is totally non controllable and not appropriate for print viewing along a display.

You can't start to decide on a target for luminance until you KNOW how you'll view the prints by that display and how you'll control both.

Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?
Nice job of completely misinterpreting what was intended here. The point was it does not matter what the source is, you need to deal with it. Perhaps you might have noticed the tongue in cheek intent had you spent a few more seconds rereading rather than hitting the attack button so quickly.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2009, 11:30:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
Perhaps you might have noticed the tongue in cheek intent had you spent a few more seconds rereading rather than hitting the attack button so quickly.

The only "attack" was based on the fact you are a principle of a company that sells a product which is totally non transparent to the readers here. It would be prudent to at least put a signature on your posts or in your user info letting people know this.

Logged

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

Posts: 206


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2009, 10:15:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
The only "attack" was based on the fact you are a principle of a company that sells a product which is totally non transparent to the readers here. It would be prudent to at least put a signature on your posts or in your user info letting people know this.
Oh stop it. Now we're going in a completely other direction aren't we. First it was misinterpreting the intent of my post completely and now we're back to the old saw about being a sales guy for some product. Every time you get pinned in a corner you pull that one out. Lets cut the bull ok. For once just admit you misread it.  

If people don't know by now that I represent Coloreyes they are sleeping. Because it has been clear and transparent for a very long time, nor do I deny, obfuscate or disguise it in any way, and you make it a point, to make it a justification for dismissing any point I choose to make. Particularly if it allows you, in your own mind, to avoid facing a mistake you might have made.
Perhaps it's time you disclosed who pays you. There is no indication whether your sudden endorsement of "smart monitors" is because NEC pays you or you just get a warm glow from being a buddy of one of the monitor geniuses on the planet. Eizo had been making "smart monitors" for a very long time before NEC. But we suffered through years of 8 bits in 8 bits out until NEC. Suddenly high bit internal monitor luts work! They are not doing anything unique here so clearly you have a bias for some reason. Please disclose that here.


"Or does the software you come here to hock have a brain probe that reads the users mind about the luminance of both areas and can control the lighting of the viewing conditions on its own? Or you just want to go along with the rest of the lame color management vendors who suggest some arbitrary cd/m2 value they pull out of their butts, with no regard to viewing of the nearby print, causing so many to wonder WHY the print and display don't match?"

Why do you bother to make this stuff up. We have vehemently and repeatedly stated that we don't believe in a luminance target standard or a color temp standard. This mindset is rampant here and I consistently disagree. Check the record. And while your at it before you call us a "lame color management company" you should perhaps recall that we work with one of the world's monitor geniuses too and have a product that has shown consistent growth and gets it's share of rave reviews from not just the public but many consultants and large commercial printers who have committed to the product. You have not used it, you have not read the documentation that comes in the product, therefore you don't have a freakin clue what we recommend.

All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior. I don't know about all of you but I appreciate a manufacture's perspective frequently and have found consultants to be just as mistaken as the rest of the world regardless of the product we are talking about. Using the fact that I represent a product as a means to discredit a post is a cheap shot and too often employed by Andrew. Now if he could show you examples of where I might have misled you just for the purpose of selling you something, that would be a different. But he can't.
Now if you don't care about manufacturers participating in forums like these let the Andrews of the world continue to take cheap shots.
Logged

Jack Bingham
Integrated Color Corp Makers of Coloreyes Display
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2009, 11:13:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
Oh stop it. Now we're going in a completely other direction aren't we. First it was misinterpreting the intent of my post completely and now we're back to the old saw about being a sales guy for some product. Every time you get pinned in a corner you pull that one out. Lets cut the bull ok. For once just admit you misread it.  

If people don't know by now that I represent Coloreyes they are sleeping.

That's  a ridiculous assumption.

There are people who come here posting questions who have never posted before and they are supposed to be sleeping because the name Jack Bingham isn't instantly associated with ColorEyes?

Your SIG doesn't work on this forum? Or a link to your site? That's your idea of transparent?

I'm not saying you don't have good advise and useful things to say. But when you make posts that simply say "Try ColorEyes demo*" without having some way in which to find out where the recommendation is coming from isn't transparent.

I have many differing business offerings, speaking engagements and products all of which are easily accessible on my web site, link in each post. I don't assume anyone knows who I am in any forum. I don't consider them sleeping unless convinced otherwise.

Quote
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior.

Well here's an example of a manufacturer I and others welcome and has an idea about transparency:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showuser=39344



*Nov 30 2006, 03:36 PM, Jan 8 2007, 07:31 AM, Feb 21 2009, 02:09 PM this post
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 11:14:08 AM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 2811



WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2009, 12:59:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jackbingham
All of you reading this post should take note that very few manufacturers choose to participate in this forum and many others exactly because of this kind of behavior. I don't know about all of you but I appreciate a manufacture's perspective frequently and have found consultants to be just as mistaken as the rest of the world regardless of the product we are talking about.

So I'm guessing you changed your sig?  I had no clue you were affiliated with ColorEyes, so either I never noticed the sig, or it's new.

Many manufacturers  prohibit their reps from participating in online forums because of the fear they will make statements that can be misinterpreted.  Even getting straight answers to questions outside of the norm is difficult via email.

I welcome manufacturers and their opinions, but it seems appropriate to remind people of their bias, because they are indeed biased towards their own product.  Can't blame them for that, but full disclaimer is appropriate.  Unfortunately that bias leads to less objectivity, again normal and to be expected, can't fault them for that.  Readers just need to know the bias is there.   And I'm not saying this makes them wrong ...

As far as the concept by Andrew, his point is well taken.  It is pretty useless to pursue a good monitor to print match without a consistent viewing condition (be it booth, room light, lamp)  for the print.  Even if it is nothing more than what Mike Johnston recommends in this article.  

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...iewing-sta.html

And it is possible to increase brightness on the print to compensate for a high luminance value of the display.

As far as the OP's problem, I'm a little surprised.  I have a 24" glass screen iMac which calibrates just fine, about 40% of total brightness gets my luminance to about 110.  I think mine was the most recent iteration (until today anyway), but maybe they made some change in manufacturing.  My new Apple 24" LED display for my MacBook Pro also has no problem achieving a luminance of 110.

Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2009, 01:11:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
So I'm guessing you changed your sig?  I had no clue you were affiliated with ColorEyes, so either I never noticed the sig, or it's new.

He just changed it today! So we're making some progress in the world of transparency.

Quote
As far as the OP's problem, I'm a little surprised.  I have a 24" glass screen iMac which calibrates just fine, about 40% of total brightness gets my luminance to about 110.  I think mine was the most recent iteration (until today anyway), but maybe they made some change in manufacturing.  My new Apple 24" LED display for my MacBook Pro also has no problem achieving a luminance of 110.

I've got an older iMac (20"), like you no problems. Its for casual work (its in the kitchen for recipe surfing), but I still calibrate it and like you, I've had no issues dialing it down.
Logged

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

Posts: 467


« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2009, 01:15:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Man, this post got way out of hand. It's too bad my buddy couldn't pop for a MacPro and a decent monitor, but unfortunately he is not in a position to do so. I jokingly told him that he could do his outdoor location shots with no tenting or screening needed to view his shots now!  

He's pretty good at reading the numbers, and not solely relying on the display, so I'm sure things will be good enough for him for now.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Ben08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2009, 08:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi, just wanted to add two more cents to the pot. I am using a 24" iMac like the OP's friend and no, I can't get the display below 200 using the computer's dimming controls.  Eye One Match 3 (latest) does nothing to dim the display further. Will probably need to buy Color Eyes.  Never had any problem dimming my previous 20 inch iMac (2005 vintage). --Ben
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2009, 08:51:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ben08
Hi, just wanted to add two more cents to the pot. I am using a 24" iMac like the OP's friend and no, I can't get the display below 200 using the computer's dimming controls.  Eye One Match 3 (latest) does nothing to dim the display further. Will probably need to buy Color Eyes.  Never had any problem dimming my previous 20 inch iMac (2005 vintage). --Ben


Did you try this:
Quote
Q: I try to calibrate the Luminance for an iMac display by using the Brightness slider in the MacOS X system preferences panel 'Displays', but it seems that the Eye-One Match does not recognize my changes. The Luminance value reported by Eye-One Match is not turning down, even if the Brightness has now been set to '0'. What am I doing wrong?

A: The Eye-One Match software cannot measure the changed Brightness / Luminance, as long as the window of the control panel 'Displays' is still open. So please adjust the Brightness slider as desired, close the 'Displays' control panel, then wait a second until the eye-One match software has actualized the measurement values. if needed, open the 'Displays' control panel again, adjust Brightness again, close control panel and wait for actualized measurement values. Please repeat this procedure until you have reached the desired Luminance.

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ben08
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2009, 09:13:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, if by closing the System Preferences  Displays window you mean clicking back onto Eye One Match, then yes that's what I do and Match sees the dimming changes I have made. The luminance just won't go below about 200. If you mean am I closing completely out of System Preferences, then no I'm not. If that's what I need to do I'll give it a try. By the way, when I dim the display down I have to leave it one notch up from all the way down or it goes back to full brightness every time I reboot. Thanks  for the reply  .... and hey, I was a student in a Santa Fe Workshops class of yours a while back. Hope you've enjoyed the "Wide Gamut" box of crayons (the BIG box) we gave you at the end of the week! --Ben
Logged
Sigi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2009, 04:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjlphoto
A friend of mine just bought a brand new Apple iMac. I've the GMB i1Pro device, so I offered to do a cal/profile on his display. (According to the GMB license, I can legally install the i1 Match3 software on another person's machine.)

In the i1 Match 3 v3.6.2 wizard, I set the desired target values to 120 cd/m2, 6500K, and 2.2. I slid the brightness slider in the iMacs Display Prefs to minimum, but the lowest the iMac will go is 230 cd/m2. Is he simply stuck with a machine that is not designed to be properly cal/profiled?

Hi,

I also have an Imac and an i1 tool. I was not able to bring my luminance down with the software from x-rite. I have tried basiccolor - details see here:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-7891-8210

see here for a review: http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/b...lor_display_4x/

Basiccolor works for me. My luminance on an imac 24'' is now at 114.

Sigi
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2009, 07:58:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ben08
Andrew, if by closing the System Preferences  Displays window you mean clicking back onto Eye One Match, then yes that's what I do and Match sees the dimming changes I have made. The luminance just won't go below about 200. If you mean am I closing completely out of System Preferences, then no I'm not. If that's what I need to do I'll give it a try. By the way, when I dim the display down I have to leave it one notch up from all the way down or it goes back to full brightness every time I reboot. T


Yes, they appear want you to quit the system preferences. Worth a try.

That a reboot changes this behavior indicates there might be other issues here too. That should not be happening!
Logged

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

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2009, 08:28:42 AM »
ReplyReply

One OT question, you guys know if the new MacBook Pros have the same issues?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811



WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2009, 11:56:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JessicaLuchesi
One OT question, you guys know if the new MacBook Pros have the same issues?

i have the 15" MacBook pro released a few months ago, no problem with dimming the display.  The new 24" LED display also can easily achieve luminance in the 110 range.

Logged

chris moody
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2009, 06:06:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I raised this issue on this forum a while back. Both Andrew, Jack and others kindly responded with advice. Unfortunately the advice just didn't work for me.
Here is how I got around problem.

I used the Eye One display and target illumination for 120. More often than not I will get nowhere near this even with the brightness slider at 0. I let the Eye One do it's thing and save the profile. In my experience at this stage the screen is still way too bright.

I then switch on Shades (the eye one will not work properly with it turned on). Using a test print with a good tonal range (Norman Koren has some good ones on his website) and a quality viewing light source (I use the a Solux 4700K cliplight, but daylight will do) compare the brightness of screen and print.

I use shades to bring down the screen brightness (its a bit like a neutral density filter)  to a level where it more or less matches the brightness of the test print. You can also adjust the colour    of the filter.

This is NOT the ideal way of dealing with this issue, I accept that. Yes, the monitor profile no longer accurately describes the monitor behaviour (but is not totally voided either!). The GURUS will complain bitterly and some may suggest burning me at the stake.

But those of you who are reading this with bloodshot eyes, cursing your new machine and bashing your Eye One Display off the desk in frustration.....

Just try it  
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad