Re: LCD displays and Mac Profile Issue
Re: LCD displays and Mac Profile Issue
- Subject: Re: LCD displays and Mac Profile Issue
- From: "Millers' Photography L.L.C." <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:31:57 -0700
Those latest screen shots are from a different computer, the G4 533
dual (audio) and two different cheapo LCDs.
All the previous screen shots were of one cheapo LCD, on the G5 dual
2.3. The second monitor on this G5 is my "gold standard" Mitzi
2060u. I did not send any screen shots of it.
I began using 5000K, again, years back from going to seminars. So,
I have stuck with 5000K. I did abandon gamma 1.8 and went to gamma
2.2 about a year ago, and have stayed with it.
I would say your comment about someone told me 5000K was right, is
right. Got this from various classes and seminars. And reading books.
I am more than willing to change. Right now, when I profile a
clients' monitor, (and sometimes as well as their printer) usually
what they see on their monitor is what I see on my monitors (except
LCDs, if not looking straight on) and what come out of my Pro 9600
with matte black ink. My clients have the appropriate custom .icc
profiles of my printer/ink/substrate, to use in view -> proof setup.
email@hidden
On May 1, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
On 5/1/08 4:58 PM, "Millers' Photography L.L.C." wrote:
Please comment on these screen shots.
Well you have a straight curve, which indicates that there are no
adjustments happening in the 8-bit LUTs of the graphic card, which
correlates to less banding on screen. But that doesn’t mean
anything else such as, how is the screen to print matching? Is the
luminance (that low 70cd/m2) providing a soft proof that well
matches whatever you view your prints under, or if the white point
provides a good match. You’ve asked for CCT 5000K but is that
working in terms of print to screen matching or you’ve asked for
this white point because someone told you it was “right” (like the
luminance)? All you’ve done is remove what was a pretty nasty
looking curve which can’t hurt, but that doesn’t mean the target
calibration aim points you’re asking for are sound and reasonable.
Using the figures you now have a contrast ratio of roughly 266:1.
Is that ideal for matching the contrast ratio of the print? I don’t
know. And as Danny commented, with today’s display systems, we
don’t have a lot of control here although you could raise your
luminance to affect this, more importantly to get a better (?)
match to what viewing conditions are used to view the prints.
We might be making some baby step progress here, I don’t know. Yes,
the awfully strange set of curves are gone. That can’t be a bad
thing considering what you originally provided.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden