There is no place for individual taste in screen appearance.
There's only my machine here. So if I understand correctly, on my iMac, I am to calibrate by "looking" at a color proof and using calibration gizmo to match on a screen, but I am not to "look" at a proof and match to my personal "taste"? Sounds like I have to judge by individual taste either way. Sounds like in a company environment all the calibration gizmo does is match one personal taste to all machines. JohnR Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:29 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if I understand correctly, on my iMac, I am to calibrate by "looking" at a color proof and using calibration gizmo to match on a screen, but I am not to "look" at a proof and match to my personal "taste"?
The idea is to calibrate (alter the characteristics) of the display to produce an idealized behavior. That is usually a behavior whereby one see's a visual match to the print. IOW, WYSIWYG. Could be a proof, another print, another similar display, etc. The better systems allow multiple calibration targets for differing output. They switch on the fly to these calibration targets and load the associated ICC profile. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well. I buy ebooks, mobi, online news, online catalogues at Amazon and Walmart. And realize that most customers of these view on unmatched color iPads, Kindles, PCs, and Macs. So if on my screen it looks good enough with detail in shadows and whites aren't blown out, then I have no control on how anyone views what I provide. Or maybe I'm wrong. JohnR Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:29 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if I understand correctly, on my iMac, I am to calibrate by "looking" at a color proof and using calibration gizmo to match on a screen, but I am not to "look" at a proof and match to my personal "taste"?
The idea is to calibrate (alter the characteristics) of the display to produce an idealized behavior. That is usually a behavior whereby one see's a visual match to the print. IOW, WYSIWYG. Could be a proof, another print, another similar display, etc. The better systems allow multiple calibration targets for differing output. They switch on the fly to these calibration targets and load the associated ICC profile.
See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:50 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well. I buy ebooks, mobi, online news, online catalogues at Amazon and Walmart.
And realize that most customers of these view on unmatched color iPads, Kindles, PCs, and Macs.
So if on my screen it looks good enough with detail in shadows and whites aren't blown out, then I have no control on how anyone views what I provide. Or maybe I'm wrong.
What do you base the edits you make to images on the display towards? How do you know they are 'correct'? IF the only output device you use is a single display, AND it looks good, you're all set. As long as the device doesn't alter it's behavior over time (and displays can and will depending on the technology), you're also fine. But most people want to edit numbers and send those numbers to an output device. They want the output to match what they saw on the display, hence the need for color management and in that context, display calibration. True, you have no control over what other's see. But if what you initially see from RGB or CMYK numbers is a big fat lie, what they see of those numbers is equally a lie and looks wrong. If you want other's to see what you see, they too need to implement color management. Color management is really number management considering what computers understand and handle. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
I measure color in Photoshop if I want to know what is happening in shadows and whites. JohnR Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:50 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well. I buy ebooks, mobi, online news, online catalogues at Amazon and Walmart.
And realize that most customers of these view on unmatched color iPads, Kindles, PCs, and Macs.
So if on my screen it looks good enough with detail in shadows and whites aren't blown out, then I have no control on how anyone views what I provide. Or maybe I'm wrong.
What do you base the edits you make to images on the display towards? How do you know they are 'correct'? IF the only output device you use is a single display, AND it looks good, you're all set. As long as the device doesn't alter it's behavior over time (and displays can and will depending on the technology), you're also fine. But most people want to edit numbers and send those numbers to an output device. They want the output to match what they saw on the display, hence the need for color management and in that context, display calibration.
True, you have no control over what other's see. But if what you initially see from RGB or CMYK numbers is a big fat lie, what they see of those numbers is equally a lie and looks wrong. If you want other's to see what you see, they too need to implement color management. Color management is really number management considering what computers understand and handle.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:02 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
I measure color in Photoshop if I want to know what is happening in shadows and whites.
Sorry, the numbers don't tell you what the color will look like unless you're working in Lab (and even then....). Numbers are a partial ingredient for specifying color appearance, the scale of the numbers, it's color space is necessary and for that we use ICC profiles (including one of your display)! Shadow values are different for differing color spaces, sometimes neutral, sometimes not. R2/G6/B4 is a different color in sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, Epson Luster RGB, you get the idea. So I don't know what you're specifically measuring or for what, but unless it's your display and no other output devices, you don't have to even deal with the numbers, just move the controls until it looks 'good'. If you expect anyone to see the edits outside your display, you need to output the numbers and they will vary depending on the output device. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
So if I measure white and it reads slight blue and red in the white my screen is lying? Sent from JRs iPad Air
On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:12 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:02 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
I measure color in Photoshop if I want to know what is happening in shadows and whites.
Sorry, the numbers don't tell you what the color will look like unless you're working in Lab (and even then....). Numbers are a partial ingredient for specifying color appearance, the scale of the numbers, it's color space is necessary and for that we use ICC profiles (including one of your display)!
Shadow values are different for differing color spaces, sometimes neutral, sometimes not.
R2/G6/B4 is a different color in sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, Epson Luster RGB, you get the idea. So I don't know what you're specifically measuring or for what, but unless it's your display and no other output devices, you don't have to even deal with the numbers, just move the controls until it looks 'good'. If you expect anyone to see the edits outside your display, you need to output the numbers and they will vary depending on the output device.
Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:19 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if I measure white and it reads slight blue and red in the white my screen is lying?
Measure what white, where and how? If by measure, you mean the RGB values of the data, If it looks white on your uncalibrated display, yes it is lying. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:19 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if I measure white and it reads slight blue and red in the white my screen is lying?
Yes, actually. Not every display's red lights are the same color; indeed, there's lots of variation amongst them. And not every display's red lights are the same brightness at maximum relative to maximum blue brightness. And, to make matters even worse, a white object in direct sunlight will look much yellower than that same object in open shade. Now take that object indoors under an incandescent lamp and it'll look reddish. The point of color management is to both define a standard set of criteria by which to judge all of those variables and to provide consistent ways of transitioning between the two. At its heart are "device-independent" color spaces. Rather than identify colors by percentages of red, green, and blue, they use some sort of absolute measurement derived from both physics and careful studies of human physiology. Lab is perhaps the best known example, but XYZ is perhaps more important. The job of a color profile is to match up absolute device-independent colors with RGB values. In the case of a display profile, software displays various RGB combinations and reads the absolute color values measured by a colorimeter (a device you place against the screen). The software then is able to build a map between the two; that map is the ICC color profile. ICC-aware software (such as Photoshop) can then use the profile to know that, if it wants to display such-and-such an absolute color, it needs to tell the display to use these-and-that RGB values (which might only vaguely resemble the RGB values you read with the eyedropper). What I just wrote is, of course, a most superficial introduction to the topic. What you should take away from it is that you're complaining about color consistency, and there is a very successful industry standard method for solving that problem, and we're trying to help get you up to speed with that solution. Is the solution perfect? Ha! Far from it. Spend any time here and you'll find plenty of perfectly valid bitching about it at every level. Despite its imperfection, does it really work, and damned well? Yes, especially if you know what you're doing and understand the limitations of the tools available. Is it worth the hassle? Only you can decide. Cheers, b&
Are you are saying that if I measure RGB values in PS of achromatic patches of a ColorChecker, the numbers are lying because I haven't profiled my MacBook Air display?. Or that I can't define a white value on a scene with different light sources?. A large part of color management is measure by numbers, with human intervention or in machine language. As have been said in this thread, the quality of recent displays, the presence of Colorsync and "generic" display profiles are good enough to work out of the box with confidence. Jose Bueno 2014-06-06 21:47 GMT+01:00 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:19 PM, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com> wrote:
So if I measure white and it reads slight blue and red in the white my screen is lying?
Yes, actually.
Not every display's red lights are the same color; indeed, there's lots of variation amongst them. And not every display's red lights are the same brightness at maximum relative to maximum blue brightness. And, to make matters even worse, a white object in direct sunlight will look much yellower than that same object in open shade. Now take that object indoors under an incandescent lamp and it'll look reddish.
The point of color management is to both define a standard set of criteria by which to judge all of those variables and to provide consistent ways of transitioning between the two.
At its heart are "device-independent" color spaces. Rather than identify colors by percentages of red, green, and blue, they use some sort of absolute measurement derived from both physics and careful studies of human physiology. Lab is perhaps the best known example, but XYZ is perhaps more important.
The job of a color profile is to match up absolute device-independent colors with RGB values. In the case of a display profile, software displays various RGB combinations and reads the absolute color values measured by a colorimeter (a device you place against the screen). The software then is able to build a map between the two; that map is the ICC color profile. ICC-aware software (such as Photoshop) can then use the profile to know that, if it wants to display such-and-such an absolute color, it needs to tell the display to use these-and-that RGB values (which might only vaguely resemble the RGB values you read with the eyedropper).
What I just wrote is, of course, a most superficial introduction to the topic. What you should take away from it is that you're complaining about color consistency, and there is a very successful industry standard method for solving that problem, and we're trying to help get you up to speed with that solution.
Is the solution perfect? Ha! Far from it. Spend any time here and you'll find plenty of perfectly valid bitching about it at every level. Despite its imperfection, does it really work, and damned well? Yes, especially if you know what you're doing and understand the limitations of the tools available. Is it worth the hassle? Only you can decide.
Cheers,
b&
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/jbueno61%40gmail.com
This email sent to jbueno61@gmail.com
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:26 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you are saying that if I measure RGB values in PS of achromatic patches of a ColorChecker, the numbers are lying because I haven't profiled my MacBook Air display?. Or that I can't define a white value on a scene with different light sources?.
Both, actually. The ColorChecker Passport is a superlative target for field use...but even its neutral patches aren't perfectly spectrally flat. Hell, even Spectralon isn't perfectly spectrally flat. That means that a properly white balanced image of a ColorChecker won't have patches with perfectly equal RGB values (even if there are circumstances where rounding reduces them to the same values). (Incidentally, that's also why using an eyedropper to set white balance is always an approximation...though you _can_ build a profile from an image of a ColorChecker and then query the profile to determine exact color balance.) And then, after questions of the (lack of) neutrality in the neutral patches, you get into a really deep quagmire of questions over color balance and adaptation and illuminants and the like once you consider actual photographs of actual ColorCheckers (original or Passport or otherwise) in actual lighting when viewed on actual displays in actual environments with their actual ambient lighting. What's the purpose you're trying to achieve? To exactly reproduce the light reflected off the original ColorChecker? Can't do that, not with an RGB display. To exactly create light that creates an equivalent tristimulus response? Within gamut and brightness limits, that may be possible, but, unless ambient light conditions (including monitor brightness and white point) exactly match the original, it's going to look weird. To make the onscreen photograph and the ColorChecker look the same when you hold the ColorChecker up to the screen? That's the main goal of color management, and it's possible to do that quite well. To do the same, but capture the "mood" of the original lighting (such as a landscape at sunset)? That's also possible, and is what most photographers strive for. But a big part of the problem in this discussion, I think, is a misunderstanding that there's an actual color we can call "white" -- or, indeed, any actual color at all. Instead, what we have are light sources with their spectral power distributions; reflective surfaces that reflect different wavelengths in different proportions; and tristimulus values that are very much dependent on ambient observing conditions. Fortunately, in practice, most of all that chaos resolves itself and things "just work," at least if you have a decent color-managed workflow. But you can very quickly drive yourself crazy chasing after ever better "matches" between things that, even in principle, can never be the same. My general advice: profile everything to standards, and deviate from that only if you have good and specific reason to do so. If it's "close enough," leave it at that. If not, first question again if it's "close enough" -- and do so by reminding yourself of the environment in which the images will be viewed. _National Geographic,_ for example, has exemplary color...but their images look like dark mud in the typical living room in the evening when lit with an incandescent bulb, and they look equally bad in a doctor's office lit with cheap fluorescent bulbs. Their industry-best standards are wasted on the overwhelming majority of their readers. Unless your own audience is more critical than that of _National Geographic,_ obsessing over minor variations that you have to seek out is serious overkill. If the print looks "just fine" in the light through a window, you're already at the point of diminishing returns. There's one notable exception, and that's when you know _exactly_ what the viewing environment is going to be, and you can measure the light with a spectrophotometer and build your print profile using that measurement. In other words, when making prints specifically for an exhibition in a particular gallery. In that case, you really can dial in things as much as your heart might desire and reasonably expect to see all that extra work come to fruition. But if it's your generic magazine or Web site or even art fair print...if your workflow is color managed and it looks "good enough," it _is_ good enough. Cheers, b&
Good. The workflow at the institution is absolutely standard. Most of the users of the photography facilities have never seen a print (from an twelve inks inkjet printer) match a display, and I do that with low effort but with the necessary tools. Yes, I know the tools and the glossary. My only question/proposal is why the first answer to the question wasn't "you must buy a colorimeter if you want to know what you are seeing". And yes, I take spectral measurements of the light sources involved in the reproduction of art to build profiles. And many more. Salud 2014-06-06 23:47 GMT+01:00 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:26 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you are saying that if I measure RGB values in PS of achromatic patches of a ColorChecker, the numbers are lying because I haven't profiled my MacBook Air display?. Or that I can't define a white value on a scene with different light sources?.
Both, actually.
The ColorChecker Passport is a superlative target for field use...but even its neutral patches aren't perfectly spectrally flat. Hell, even Spectralon isn't perfectly spectrally flat. That means that a properly white balanced image of a ColorChecker won't have patches with perfectly equal RGB values (even if there are circumstances where rounding reduces them to the same values). (Incidentally, that's also why using an eyedropper to set white balance is always an approximation...though you _can_ build a profile from an image of a ColorChecker and then query the profile to determine exact color balance.)
And then, after questions of the (lack of) neutrality in the neutral patches, you get into a really deep quagmire of questions over color balance and adaptation and illuminants and the like once you consider actual photographs of actual ColorCheckers (original or Passport or otherwise) in actual lighting when viewed on actual displays in actual environments with their actual ambient lighting.
What's the purpose you're trying to achieve? To exactly reproduce the light reflected off the original ColorChecker? Can't do that, not with an RGB display. To exactly create light that creates an equivalent tristimulus response? Within gamut and brightness limits, that may be possible, but, unless ambient light conditions (including monitor brightness and white point) exactly match the original, it's going to look weird. To make the onscreen photograph and the ColorChecker look the same when you hold the ColorChecker up to the screen? That's the main goal of color management, and it's possible to do that quite well. To do the same, but capture the "mood" of the original lighting (such as a landscape at sunset)? That's also possible, and is what most photographers strive for.
But a big part of the problem in this discussion, I think, is a misunderstanding that there's an actual color we can call "white" -- or, indeed, any actual color at all. Instead, what we have are light sources with their spectral power distributions; reflective surfaces that reflect different wavelengths in different proportions; and tristimulus values that are very much dependent on ambient observing conditions.
Fortunately, in practice, most of all that chaos resolves itself and things "just work," at least if you have a decent color-managed workflow. But you can very quickly drive yourself crazy chasing after ever better "matches" between things that, even in principle, can never be the same.
My general advice: profile everything to standards, and deviate from that only if you have good and specific reason to do so. If it's "close enough," leave it at that. If not, first question again if it's "close enough" -- and do so by reminding yourself of the environment in which the images will be viewed. _National Geographic,_ for example, has exemplary color...but their images look like dark mud in the typical living room in the evening when lit with an incandescent bulb, and they look equally bad in a doctor's office lit with cheap fluorescent bulbs. Their industry-best standards are wasted on the overwhelming majority of their readers. Unless your own audience is more critical than that of _National Geographic,_ obsessing over minor variations that you have to seek out is serious overkill. If the print looks "just fine" in the light through a window, you're already at the point of diminishing returns.
There's one notable exception, and that's when you know _exactly_ what the viewing environment is going to be, and you can measure the light with a spectrophotometer and build your print profile using that measurement. In other words, when making prints specifically for an exhibition in a particular gallery. In that case, you really can dial in things as much as your heart might desire and reasonably expect to see all that extra work come to fruition. But if it's your generic magazine or Web site or even art fair print...if your workflow is color managed and it looks "good enough," it _is_ good enough.
Cheers,
b&
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:17 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
Most of the users of the photography facilities have never seen a print (from an twelve inks inkjet printer) match a display, and I do that with low effort but with the necessary tools.
Because of the radically different primaries, matching print and display is almost never going to happen...and, indeed, considering the significant non-overlapping gamuts in either direction, often not something to be desired. On the other hand, in art reproduction, matching original to copy is almost always achievable (within gamut and texture and gloss and resolution limitations, of course)...if you know what you're doing.... Cheers, b&
"Because of the radically different primaries, matching print and display is almost never going to happen...and, indeed, considering the significant non-overlapping gamuts in either direction, often not something to be desired. On the other hand, in art reproduction, matching original to copy is almost always achievable (within gamut and texture and gloss and resolution limitations, of course)...if you know what you're doing...." Isn't it a contradiction?. Please explain to me what's the difference. What about designers working with Illustrator?. Don't they match what they see and the printed image?. I have been working for years with artist making reproduction of art with confidence. The artist give approval at the local or remotely because I keep the systems under control, again, with the due tools. Sorry if you can't see your copies match originals working in your display. I quit from this debate, Salud 2014-06-07 1:29 GMT+01:00 Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
On Jun 6, 2014, at 4:17 PM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
Most of the users of the photography facilities have never seen a print (from an twelve inks inkjet printer) match a display, and I do that with low effort but with the necessary tools.
Because of the radically different primaries, matching print and display is almost never going to happen...and, indeed, considering the significant non-overlapping gamuts in either direction, often not something to be desired.
On the other hand, in art reproduction, matching original to copy is almost always achievable (within gamut and texture and gloss and resolution limitations, of course)...if you know what you're doing....
Cheers,
b&
On Jun 7, 2014, at 7:49 AM, José Ángel Bueno García <jbueno61@gmail.com> wrote:
Please explain to me what's the difference. What about designers working with Illustrator?
Sorry -- I should have been more explicit. By, "art reproduction," I mean using a camera and printer like a photocopier to create reproductions of original paintings created with traditional paints on paper or canvas. The pigments used in oil or watercolor or acrylic paints are chemically and spectrographically similar to the ones used in inkjet printers. (Note: _similar_ -- there're no exact matches and some exceptions, but almost everything rhymes.) Also, in side-by-side comparisons, you are, by definition, using the exact same illuminant. As such, a nearly-indistinguishable match is relatively straightforward. In contrast, a computer display is radically different at every step of the way. Right up front, it's using three additive RGB primaries rather than four (or several) subtractive CMYK primaries. The resulting spectra are completely different, meaning you're now relying on observer-dependent metamerism functions to create the perceptual match. Worse, the gamuts only partially overlap; each will have significant swaths of color the other simply can't reproduce. And then, to top it all off, the printed copy is being viewed with its own illuminant, an illuminant that can't even in theory be shared by the onscreen copy. You have divergence, significant divergence, at every step of the process. The wonder is that it works at all; that it actually works very well (if you're careful enough) is almost beyond comprehension. If you do everything exactly right and you've got quality equipment and fulfill all the other caveats, yes, it is (generally) possible to make print and screen (practically) exact perceptual matches...but the print will only match in the viewing booth. Take that print home and look at it under a dim incandescent bulb in your living room in the evening, and it'll look radically different. Take it to the doctor's office the next day and it'll again look radically different in the cheap fluorescent lighting. However, if the print is a copy of an original watercolor (etc.) painting, if you view the original and the copy under all those different illuminants, they'll still be very good matches for each other. That is, the original is going to look bad under the bad lighting in (almost) exactly the same way the copy is going to look bad. And that's why I don't recommend that people obsess over side-by-side print-and-display viewing comparisons (unless you have some specific and expensive reason to do so). Profile all your devices. Judge output independently. Does it look good on screen? If so, make a print. Does the print look good in daylight? If so, you're done. If you're copying a painting, don't worry if the version onscreen matches the original; only worry if the print matches the original -- and, with quality profiles, no human intervention should be necessary in that particular case. Cheers, b&
So if I measure white and it reads slight blue and red in the white my screen is lying?
Displays are notorious liars. The numbers shown by the eyedropper in Photoshop are just numbers, not photons. That's the key. There's a whole lot of stuff between those numbers and the photons emitted by the display, or the photons reflected off a printed photograph. I used to have a CRT that would occasionally lose the entire green channel until I gave it a good thwack on the side. But what if instead it had gradually diminished the output of the green channel, just a little, getting worse over the course of a year. If that were my only display, I probably wouldn't notice it. If I had created a logo for Sam's Salmon Sanctuary, and in Photoshop made it look medium red (i.e., salmon), the eyedropper would show 255 190 128. Looks like salmon to me. Looks like peach to Sam.
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well.
That's a very odd and misguided expectation... many millions of books, magazines and newspapers are sold and read every year. If you’re not preparing files for print that’s one thing, but to say that no one else buys or reads them is just silly. Brian
YIKES I read them all the time, constantly! Could continue without the education. David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826 On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Pylant, Brian <BrianP@discmakers.com> wrote:
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well.
That's a very odd and misguided expectation... many millions of books, magazines and newspapers are sold and read every year. If you’re not preparing files for print that’s one thing, but to say that no one else buys or reads them is just silly.
Brian _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
On Jun 8, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Millers' Photography L.L.C. <digitalimaging@dnmillerphoto.com> wrote:
YIKES
I read them all the time, constantly!
Could NOT continue without the education.
David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Pylant, Brian <BrianP@discmakers.com> wrote:
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well.
That's a very odd and misguided expectation... many millions of books, magazines and newspapers are sold and read every year. If you’re not preparing files for print that’s one thing, but to say that no one else buys or reads them is just silly.
Brian _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Millers' Photography L.L.C." <digitalimaging@dnmillerphoto.com> Subject: Re: There is no place for individual taste in screen appearance. Date: June 8, 2014 at 3:40:05 PM PDT To: "Millers' Photography L.L.C." <digitalimaging@dnmillerphoto.com> Cc: "Pylant, Brian" <BrianP@discmakers.com>, "colorsync-users@lists.apple.com" <colorsync-users@lists.apple.com>, John Robinson <jrswebhome@yahoo.com>
On Jun 8, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Millers' Photography L.L.C. <digitalimaging@dnmillerphoto.com> wrote:
YIKES
I read them all the time, constantly!
Could NOT continue without the education.
David B Miller, Pharm. D. member Millers' Photography L.L.C. dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center Bellingham, WA www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com 360 739 2826
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Pylant, Brian <BrianP@discmakers.com> wrote:
Maybe calibration isn't as important as it used to be. I don't buy printed books any longer, nor read printed magazines, or newspapers, so I don't expect anyone else to as well.
That's a very odd and misguided expectation... many millions of books, magazines and newspapers are sold and read every year. If you’re not preparing files for print that’s one thing, but to say that no one else buys or reads them is just silly.
Brian _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/spinnakerphotoimagin...
This email sent to spinnakerphotoimagingcenter@dnmillerphoto.com
There's only my machine here.
So if I understand correctly, on my iMac, I am
to calibrate by "looking" at a color proof and using calibration gizmo to match on a screen, but I am not to "look" at a proof and match to my personal "taste"?
Sounds like I have to judge by individual taste either way. Sounds
like in a company environment all the calibration gizmo does is match one personal taste to all machines.
Personal taste doesn't factor into this at all; the hardware (and its associated software) will calibrate your monitor and build a profile based on its own measurements. Your involvement will simply be to set the brightness, contrast and RGB settings as the software instructs you to (not to your preference, or to your visual comparison to a proof) and that's only if it cannot do that automatically by itself. This is the only way to properly calibrate a monitor; if you attempt to do it by eye you are simply allowing the flaws and biases in your vision (and we all have them) and your viewing environment to influence the outcome. Brian
participants (7)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
John Gnaegy
-
John Robinson
-
José Ángel Bueno García
-
Millers' Photography L.L.C.
-
Pylant, Brian