Re: Monitor calibration and print viewing
Re: Monitor calibration and print viewing
- Subject: Re: Monitor calibration and print viewing
- From: tflash <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 02:06:31 -0500
Hi Dave I really appreciate your help!
I was kidding about the Adobe Gamma thing - in fact I was amazed at how much
better my monitor looks after calibration. However that being said, if I do
a calibration of D50 and one at D65 and switch back and forth between the
two I consider it a major color shift. If each monitor state were a chrome
sitting on a light box I'd say I'd have to add about 7.5cc yellow to the D65
state to bring it in line with the D50. As a photographer I consider that
significant. Then if I throw gamma into the equation it really gets
different. Id say the shift between gamma 1.8 to 2.2 is about 1/3 to 1/2
stop in the midtones (on my calibrations). I find that a significant amount
too. But maybe you're right about my calibrations not being right. I'm using
Colorvision Photocal, and they have you visually estimate your black point.
That could allow for my settings to vary more than someone else's.
As I write this I realize it's a lot like when my client has a very
different light box than mine. It happens a lot out there and it's accepted.
In fact to simplify the trouble I was having in that regard with my biggest
client I went out and bought the same light box they have. I guess it's the
same here in that if you know you will be doing a lot of work with one
client or vendor you can find out how they are set up, and match their
settings.
Still seems theirs a lot of fudging going on here that could be eliminated
with some standardization. But then sometimes you standardize on an inferior
methodology and.....
Thanks again for your help Dave!
Todd
>
From: "Dave King" <email@hidden>
>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:29:53 -0500
>
To: "tflash" <email@hidden>
>
Subject: Re: Monitor calibration and print viewing
>
>
>>> I have a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of calibrating a
>
monitor.
>
>>> I was under the impression it was so that we all standardized on
>
something,
>
>>> so that if files got passed along we could be certain they would
>
look the
>
>>> same (within the limits of differing hardware etc.) at all
>
locations. But
>
>>> if
>
>>> we are able to choose different white points and gamma doesn't
>
that just
>
>>> throw the whole notion of standardization out the window? As a
>
photographer
>
>>> who intends most of his work to end up printed I reckon I should
>
calibrate
>
>>> to 5000k, gamma 1.8, and work in a color space of Colormatch RGB
>
or Adobe
>
>>> RGB 1998. I understand that I can tag my files with the
>
colorspace, but
>
>>> that
>
>>> still does not assure me that someone working on this image
>
downstream
>
>>> will
>
>>> see it as I do if they have calibrated their monitors differently
>
than
>
>>> I
>
>>> have. So what am I missing?
>
>>
>
>> I have a matching pair of monitors on my machine, and if I
>
calibrate one to
>
>> 5000k, 1.8 and the other to 6500k, 2.2 (OS9 and PhotoShop 6
>
required to
>
>> manage multiple profiles simultaneously) then the same image on
>
both looks
>
>> very much alike. The difference is rather subtle, and not a
>
crisis-level
>
>> mismatch. The eye adapts pretty well for different white points,
>
within
>
>> reason; and different monitor gammas are compensated for in the
>
workingspace
>
>> to monitorspace conversion. The biggest problem is that by running
>
them side
>
>> by side, the brighter monitor interferes with seeing white on the
>
other as
>
>> truely white. Without the brighter monitor adjacent to it, the eye
>
will
>
>> compensate and make do with the lower light level. After all
>
>
>
> Hmm. Couldn't the same could be said for un-calibrated monitors
>
too? I
>
> thought the point of calibration was to stop relying on, or should I
>
say
>
> allowing, our eyes to attempt to compensate for, or conjecture
>
differences
>
> in color and brightness. I thought the point was clinical accuracy,
>
> repeatability, and standardization.
>
>
It seems as if you're missing David's point that *side-by-side*
>
calibrated D50 and D65 monitors are very similar in appearance. Side
>
by side is the most rigorous test possible. So your original
>
assumption about calibration is the correct one! And yes, when you
>
are working on a correctly calibrated monitor and sending tagged files
>
out to color managed workflows, other operators *will* see what you
>
saw. I've seen this myself hanging over shoulders at my service
>
bureau.
>
>
One would think that D50 is the answer for work headed for print, but
>
there are several leading color management gurus who now recommend
>
D65. I used D50 myself for my first year of color management, and
>
recently switched to D65. I find I prefer it for a few good reasons,
>
the most important being that the monitor is closer to a "native"
>
state, and seems to visually match 5000K sources better (your color
>
meter measurement may have snagged the reason for this), and it also
>
seems to match output better.
>
>
> I'm going back to Adobe gamma....
>
>
The fact that you could say that indicates you have yet to correctly
>
calibrate your monitor. Keep trying!
>
>
Dave King
>
General Commercial Photography
>
New York City