Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ScreenCalibration  (Read 5995 times)
Homer Shannon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: November 12, 2005, 07:32:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I've recently upgraded by digital camera and I'm getting more serious about all the other components and techniques required to get really great digital photographs.

I read the article on calibrating your screen. I have a good 16" LCD display. I don't have any calibration equipment or software yet, but I did take a number of my older printed photos and compare them to my screen. What I found was that I did need to make quite a few adjustments to get the screen to appear as the prints appear. I'm doing some test prints now on shots calibrated this way to see if the technique works. But this is not my question.

My question is this. When I adjust photographs with the recalibrated screen they do not look perfect on the screen when the screen is allowed to self-adjust for normal computer viewing. Therefore, each photograph will need to images; one adjusted for on-screen viewing and one adjusted for printing. This is not a huge deal, but is this the way people are handling high-quality photogaphs that will be presented in both mediums? Byhaving two differently edited images?

Homer Shannon
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2005, 12:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

To really do it right, you need to calibrate your monitor using a hardware calibrator.  Then, if you're using decent printer profiles, everything should adequately match without arbitrary tweaks and without multiple versions.  As others on LL forum will probably tell you, anyone who's at all serious about getting good-quality output *needs* a hardware calibrator.  The way you're currently trying to do it is messy, jury-rigged and prone to problems.  If your current printer profile isn't the greatest, and you're adjusting your monitor to match the prints, then you may find down the road that none of the images you're working on now will look halfway-decent on whatever hardware you're using in the future.  A relatively inexpensive calibrator (ColorVision or Eye-One) will greatly improve your situation.

Lisa
Logged

jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2005, 02:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
is this the way people are handling high-quality photogaphs that will be presented in both mediums? Byhaving two differently edited images?

An image that is intended to be displayed on the web certainly needs to edited differently in some respects than one that is intended for a high quality print.  Web photos should be in the sRGB color space, whereas you may be using Adobe RGB or some other colorspace for your prints.  Also, web photos need to be resized and then sharpened differently than those intended for inkjet prints (take a look at Photokit Sharpener).  Whether you would also change the color balance and contrast for a web photo is more problematic.  Obviously, you know that the vast majority of monitors that will be used to view web graphics will not be color calibrated.  Since they are not calibrated, it is a bit of a crap shoot to try to anticipate how they would display your photo.  More importantly, even if you could anticipate what most of those monitors will look like, do you want to post a photo that will not look correct when it is viewed on a properly calibrated monitor?  In other words, who is your target audience?  I have seen a number of galleries posted by fine art photographers that begin with a warning that the photos are best viewed on a properly calibrated monitor.  

The question also depends on what changes you would ordinarily make to the file for printing.  For example, a printer like the Epson 2000 printing on watercolor paper has a fairly restricted dynamic range, so a photo might require a good deal of adjustment to look decent when printed that way, but those adjustments might not be optimal for display on a monitor.
Logged

John DeMott
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2005, 05:40:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question is this. When I adjust photographs with the recalibrated screen they do not look perfect on the screen when the screen is allowed to self-adjust for normal computer viewing. Therefore, each photograph will need to images; one adjusted for on-screen viewing and one adjusted for printing. This is not a huge deal, but is this the way people are handling high-quality photogaphs that will be presented in both mediums? Byhaving two differently edited images?

Homer Shannon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This mindset is totally incorrect. Get a hardware calibrator, calibrate your monitor, and then you'll have a meaningful correlation between the RGB color numbers in your image files and what you see on-screen. At that point, all you need to do is edit the image until it looks the way you want it, and if you print to a properly-profiled printer, you'll get what you saw on-screen in print without multiple tweaked versions of an image.

You're trying to build a house on a foundation of warm Jell-O when you edit images with an uncalibrated monitor.
Logged

mdbassman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2005, 09:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This mindset is totally incorrect. Get a hardware calibrator, calibrate your monitor, and then you'll have a meaningful correlation between the RGB color numbers in your image files and what you see on-screen. At that point, all you need to do is edit the image until it looks the way you want it, and if you print to a properly-profiled printer, you'll get what you saw on-screen in print without multiple tweaked versions of an image.

You're trying to build a house on a foundation of warm Jell-O when you edit images with an uncalibrated monitor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Welcome to the "clear as mud" world of color calibration and management! It is not easy..for me anyway...and takes some research and time. To many variables. But when it all comes together your prints should be top shelf!
Dan
« Last Edit: November 16, 2005, 09:22:50 AM by mdbassman » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2005, 09:27:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Welcome to the "clear as mud" world of color calibration and management! It is not easy..for me anyway...and takes some research and time. To many variables. But when it all comes together your prints should be top shelf!
Dan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, Jonathan summed it up beautifully, and it really isn't that much more difficult than what he suggested. It does take some time, background reading and careful adherence to instructions for the two basic profiling operations (monitor and printer), but it is time and effort WELL WORTH the investment. Colour management is not perfect - the odd image will just not behave in a WYSIWYG manner, but a properly calibrated workflow is at least 90% reliable. You will save an incredible amount of time, money and frustration by properly profiling these two devices.
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
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2005, 01:17:41 PM »
ReplyReply

If spending $1300 or so for an Eye-One spectrophotometer bundle capable of profiling monitor and printer is too much, at least consider a colorimeter to calibrate your monitor and have a custom printer profile made. Color management can be a PITA to set up and configure, but once you have all the ducks in a row, it will greatly simplify and de-stress your life as a photographer.
Logged

Steven M Anthony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2005, 09:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'm not a pro and can't justify $1,300 on calibration.  What I have done, which works fine for me, is to do a "reverse process" of sorts.  I had to do this recently with my new laptop.

First, I adjust an image in PS to make it look good on the screen.  Then I print it.  In my case, it printed about 2 stops too dark.

So I adjusted my monitor (using adobe gamma and the brightness adjustment on the computer) so the screen looked like the print.  This probably takes longer to do than when you use calibration equipment, but within a few prints I got the prints and screen to match up.

I'm sure this method does not hold up to pro standards, but if you are printing on the cheap, it's an option for you.
Logged

Steve

http://www.smaphoto.com/

Canon 10D
Tamron 28mm - 300mm
Epson R2400
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2005, 10:06:23 AM »
ReplyReply

You aren't even close to a correct calibration unless you get a hardware calibrator and let it work.  Adjusting gamma is a very small part of calibration and profiling - you can't begin to set the correct RGB values by eye.

I recommend a Eye-one Display2, it's less than $220.
Logged

photopat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2005, 10:23:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I'm not a pro and can't justify $1,300 on calibration.  What I have done, which works fine for me, is to do a "reverse process" of sorts.  I had to do this recently with my new laptop.

First, I adjust an image in PS to make it look good on the screen.  Then I print it.  In my case, it printed about 2 stops too dark.

So I adjusted my monitor (using adobe gamma and the brightness adjustment on the computer) so the screen looked like the print.  This probably takes longer to do than when you use calibration equipment, but within a few prints I got the prints and screen to match up.

I'm sure this method does not hold up to pro standards, but if you are printing on the cheap, it's an option for you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You dont need to spend that amount of money to calibrate your display.
The cheapest one from from colorvision starts at $89  spend another $100 and you'll move upp a notch.[a href=\"http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_search.jsp?op=search&department_id=401]http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_s...partment_id=401[/url]
There is no way you'll ever be able to finetune  the colors on your display manually .
You might think you got it with one image (as you mentioned in your post)but my guess is that you'll be way of with the next..

The money spent on calibrating your display will be saved quite quick on less money spended on wasted paper(images printed wrong)
Not to mention what you'll get when letting some one else  print(professional printing place) when you deliver your "home made calibrated" files.

As mentioned in this threas.
The first step to a perfect result is a calibrated display
Logged
Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2005, 10:57:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So I adjusted my monitor ... so the screen looked like the print.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not rich and quite understand your reasons for going with this approach; if you're happy that's fine. But if anyone else is tempted to go this route, there are (at least?) two reasons it is not recommended:

1) It leaves you with in solitary confinement. If you want to e-mail or post images on-line you know have no idea what anyone else will see. If you want to send images to a 3rd party for printing, as PhotoPat mentions, you have no idea what you will get back.

2) You may find that some images still don't print as they show on-screen, so you tweak some more, then you find that a few images that used to print properly no longer do, etc.
Logged
Steven M Anthony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2005, 12:15:03 PM »
ReplyReply

My concern with the "spider-like" systems is that I have a laptop, and I've heard they don't work so well in laptops.

If anyone has experience with a ~$200 system on a laptop, let me know!
Logged

Steve

http://www.smaphoto.com/

Canon 10D
Tamron 28mm - 300mm
Epson R2400
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2005, 12:21:21 PM »
ReplyReply

You heard wrong, or simply read a very old article.  What I suggested applies perfectly.
Logged

Steven M Anthony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2005, 02:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You heard wrong, or simply read a very old article.  What I suggested applies perfectly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cool!  I'll check it out.  Thanks!
Logged

Steve

http://www.smaphoto.com/

Canon 10D
Tamron 28mm - 300mm
Epson R2400
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2005, 02:31:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Steven,

The best value I know of in monitor profiling and calibration these days is the system from Integrated Color Corporation - called Color Eyes Display. You get the colorimeter (a Monaco Optix XR by another name, which is a technically superb instrument) and the ColorEyes software, which was favorably reviewed on this website. This package is in the 300 dollar range and well worth it. Also important, ICC is very responsive on technical support.
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
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2005, 03:08:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My concern with the "spider-like" systems is that I have a laptop, and I've heard they don't work so well in laptops.

If anyone has experience with a ~$200 system on a laptop, let me know!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well laptop displays are far from ideal. Frankly, unless you’re willing to spend $6000, I’d say that’s true but lesser so for all CCFL LCDs. But that’s a different discussion.

I’m actually quite pleased with the LCD after calibration on my Powerbook using both an Eye-One Display or X-Rite OPTIX. I still cringe at the thought of doing any critical Photoshop work but the improvement is both noticeable and useful.
Logged

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

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2005, 10:02:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still cringe at the thought of doing any critical Photoshop work (on an LCD) but the improvement is both noticeable and useful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fortunately, as a rank amateur, I don't do any critical PS work!

Thanks to everyone for the advice.
Logged

Steve

http://www.smaphoto.com/

Canon 10D
Tamron 28mm - 300mm
Epson R2400
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad