Re: calibrating monitors to what?
Re: calibrating monitors to what?
- Subject: Re: calibrating monitors to what?
- From: neil snape <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:22:05 +0200
on 26/10/2001 20:24, R. Lutz at email@hidden wrote:
>
A.) Is it better to do this or to use the Colorvision spyder and
>
software (or any other product) to calibrate my monitor?
>
B.) If the latter (spyder and software), how does the monitor calibrate
>
to the color lab printer so your prints from the lab match what you see
>
on your monitor?
Yes use a device to make repeatable calibration and profiling possible.
Their calibration is for them to maintain. You cannot control it. If they
have done their set up correctly it will be close to a normalised workflow
exportable and exploitable if you like.
>
Reply and Question 2: (from a professional lab) In reading through these
>
posts, everyone says they want a calibrated monitor. My question back to
>
them is what is the monitor calibrated to? Is the monitor calibrated to
>
look good in your viewing environment? Is it calibrated to look good to
>
what specific output device? Is it calibrated to an industry standard
>
that has yet to be embraced by everyone?
That's just because the notion of calibration and characterisation are so
often not clearly put in front of you.
Calibration is bringing the conditions of a device to a known , stable
state. Characterisation (profiling, fingerprint, description) is building a
description of the device's output including media, hardware, software.
ICC savvy apps like Photoshop then can correctly display to and from these
devices especially your monitor. Monitor cal/profiling is much easier than
getting your photo labs to calibrate and distribute reasonable profiles for
third party use for inside their workflow!
Neil Snape email@hidden
http://mapage.noos.fr/nsnape