Re: Monitor profiling gone bad
Re: Monitor profiling gone bad
- Subject: Re: Monitor profiling gone bad
- From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:13:01 -0400
More info on the "Monitor profiling gone bad" thread:
First off, I'm not attacking either ColorVision or their Monitor Spyder
(please re-read my original post). Naturally, I understand I can't compare a
$$$ Spectrolino to a $ Spyder. Currently I'm getting EQUALLY BAD but
DIFFERENT results using a Spectrolino/ProfileMaker combo. I was simply using
the Spectrolino as an "impartial" reference by which to compare my three
Spyders.
Over the weekend I had a chance to profile 3 different Macs running two
different OS's (8.6 and 9.1, I verified they had the correct version of
Colorsync) and saw EXACTLY the same characteristics that I've seen on my
customer's Mac in question. I think this pretty much rules out something
unique to my client's workstation. To summarize the differences:
ProfileMaker 3.1.4/Spectrolino:
Produces very nice white point/gray balance (I'm using a "Lab 47" desktop
background) but the resulting profile when viewed in Photoshop has
extremelely dense blacks/plugged shadow detail and is way oversaturated
although the color "balance" sees to be basically correct.
One interesting sidenote is that at one point I went back to ProfileMaker
3.1.3 and re-calibrated/profiled and got a better profile compared to
version 3.1.4. Interesting.
PhotoCal 2.1.1/Optical 3.1/Spyder:
Can't get a decent whitepoint/neutral using several Spyders I have on hand
BUT I get overall a very nice profile (nice open shadow detail and
saturation that matches our reference proof) but the profile will have a
very obvious color bias, typically too yellow.
Just for kicks, I used the 'Lino with Optical and got probably my best
results yet but still not as good as I've seen in the weeks prior to this
problem. One comment on the 'Lino/Opti combo is an apparent bug in the
software. They call for the use of the UV filter on the 'Lino but when you
use it, you get a totally unusable calibration and profile (screams of
magenta). The only workaround I could find was to white balance with the UV
filter in place and then immediately replace with the "Un-filter" for the
calibration and profiling. This so far has given me the best results.
ProfileMaker interestingly enough calls for the REMOVAL of the UV filter
prior to calibration/profiling. I'm sure it's just a bug in the Opti package
but it's annoying.
To ColorVision's credit, they are replacing all three of the
Spyders I have on hand (visited them at there station in the Adobe booth at
the Seybbold show and they agreed to replace them with no questions asked).
I should know more tomorrow after I receive the new Spyders. I'll keep
everyone posted.
Terry