Re: my 27" Chiaroscuro
Re: my 27" Chiaroscuro
- Subject: Re: my 27" Chiaroscuro
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:33:37 -0500
On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:23 AM, John R wrote:
> Since you seem to not know what I am talking about, just ignore the conversation please.
>
> John R
Sorry for coming off as a bit of a smart-ass John but I think you need to understand that this list is mostly populated by either professional or advanced amateur color management enthusiasts. I'm sure the majority of those on this list perform monitor calibration and profiling via software and *instrumentation* dedicated to the task. It's probably fair to say that an inquiry about monitor calibration via Apple's visual calibration utility won't be taken all that seriously....and an obscure reference, to me at least, of a Renaissance drawing/painting style probably doesn't help matters (had to look it up!). Most of us rely on unambiguous and precise terminology when describing and solving a problem and not on Italian art descriptions.
Having said all that, I'll give it a shot and try to help you....
First off, if by using the term "Chiaroscuro" you basically saying you've got too much contrast, I'll assume this is *grossly* too much contrast and point you to the Systems Preferences/Universal Access preference pane. Check to make sure that the "Enhance Contrast" slider is all the way to the left on "Normal".....this setting has "burned" more than one person, including yours truly, and it's just obscure enough that it's an easy one to miss...so check that first before doing anything else.
The rest of my comments are in-line below......
> Hi, normally I use the default ColorSync profile "iMac". To test if what I was viewing was acceptable or not I decided to make a new profile in the Expert Mode ColorSync Window. I found the expert mode calibration window under System Preference/Displays/Color.
First question, what is your criteria for what is "acceptable" and how are you making that judgement? Are you making that determination in an UN-color managed environment or in something like Photoshop that handles color management correctly (for the moment I'll assume that you have Photoshop's color management policies set up correctly and are NOT using your monitor profile as the default RGB working space)?
> I proceeded to adjust the sliders in various luminance steps, then selected 1.8 target gamma as best choice, then D65, named, and saved the profile. Remember that my choices are based upon me viewing the calibrators' slider results and the gamma choices in real time, on screen.
You didn't say what version of the Mac OS you're running but if it's OS 10.6 "Snow Leopard" then no matter what the sliders are telling you, your target gamma should be 2.2 since that's the new "native" gamma in OS 10.6.x. Even prior to OS 10.6 where the native gamma of UI elements was 1.8, the "de facto" gamma standard almost universally recommended has been 2.2. While it's true that in a color-managed application it doesn't matter all that much what native gamma is used...as long as the profile was created using that gamma...it's still a good idea to stick to the more universal recommendation of gamma 2.2 (you'll find in monitor calibration/profiling software that the default recommendation is generally L* "gamma" which is even slightly darker than 2.2).
>
> To test between the new profile and the default "iMac" profile, I toggle back and forth in the profile list window.
>
> There is a Chiaroscuro effect using the new profile, compared to the default "iMac" profile.
> Colors are more saturated. Shadows are deeper. Subtle colors are more saturated.
The obvious question here is....what exactly are looking at (and in what application) when making that determination?.....and how do you know that one or the other appearance is "wrong"? If you're simply looking at UI elements in the Finder, who cares what they look like, really? Assuming you're interesting in digital imaging, I would be more concerned how things appear in my digital imaging applications, assuming they're color-managed and set up correctly.
Another comment would be.....wouldn't you expect your brand new 27" iMac display to be more saturated than what you're used to from a CRT display?
>
> My question is: if I am calibrating the same way I calibrated CRT monitors in the past, why is there such a dramatic difference between a calibrated profile and a default profile on my Intel 27" iMac. Is the ColorSync Color Calibration unreliable for Intel iMac use? I am adjusting the luminance sliders the same way as before, matching the apples to the gray backgrounds in the calibration windows. I am not choosing dramatic differences, I am choosing to match apples and their backgrounds.
Well, I wouldn't say that the ColorSync Color Calibration Utility is unreliable for an iMac display in particular, I'd just say it's unreliable period. :-)
All I can say is that if you're as serious about digital imaging as most of the folks on this list are, then I would strongly recommend you invest in a decent monitor calibration/profiling software and hardware package and forget about trying to "calibrate" your display visually. You might get lucky and get a decent profile but you're never going to be as consistent as a good instrument and software. Of all the things to put your money into, a good monitor software/hardware package is going to give you the most bang-for-the-buck by far in my opinion...what you see on your display is simply the foundation of everything else you do in the digital imaging world.
I hope this helps and, again, my apologies if I offended you earlier.
Regards,
Terry Wyse
______________________________________
Terence Wyse, WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist
_______________________________________________
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