Color on an LCD

[Mary Bull]

What is color calibration?

Once I have accidentally or by great effort, as I learn to use my G2, made a decently composed shot, how can I know that I've made the best representation of the colors, when I take the image into an image editor?

My ViewSonic LCD monitor is four years old. I am running on a Windows XP SP2 platform.

I guess I have two questions:

1) Is there a way for me to check or fix its color calibration--hopefully not a too expensive way?

2) If not, how should I go about looking for a color-calibrated monitor for a Windows computer?

I know I'm jumping ahead from using the digital camera to using the digital darkroom. It's my most puzzling question, though, right now. And this feels like a non-threatening place to ask it.

I never even heard of color calibration until I started reading at OPF.

Mary

[Dierk Haasis]

My ViewSonic LCD monitor is four years old. I am running on a Windows XP SP2 platform.

Unlike CRTs LCDs don't denigrate that much over time.

1) Is there a way for me to check or fix its color calibration--hopefully not a too expensive way?

Apart from some rather expensive LCD/TFTs an actual calibration is not possible because you cannot change the colours [which you can change for CRTs].

2) If not, how should I go about looking for a color-calibrated monitor for a Windows computer?

Don't. The Viewsonics, I have heard, are quite capable monitors; why exchange it if it principally works well? You should look for profiles for your monitors and your printer/ink/paper [Epson's canned profiles aren't bad], install them, set them where necessary.

Be aware that

a) Photoshop Elements is not colour managed, as isn't Irfanview
b) you will not get better pictures or colours
c) colour management is about consistency [particularly if user or equipment changes].

Essentially calibration and profiling is a standardised way to get experience into the work-flow. If you work with the same monitor, same printer, same ink, same paper, and you know their differences, you don't need another form of colour management.

[Ray West]

Hi Mary,

as Dierk just said. I've not noticed any colour issues with what you have posted here, fwiw. If you go to http://www.doorhof.nl/int/ for example, on the bottom of the page there is a black/white strip. You should set your monitor contrast/brill settings so you can see most of the shades, and that should do it.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Mary Bull]

Thanks, Ray.

This has been worrying me for weeks, even before the skin tones thread in another forum here at OPF.

That was the first I knew of color calibration in monitors.

I didn't like to take up anyone's time by asking. When my printer died, it really came to the forefront of things I wanted to know, however. I think it's fortunate for me, that at just this juncture, the Entry Digital Phhotography forum was created.

Thanks a mil to you and Dierk, both. And to Asher, also, for this new "room."

Mary

[Richard McNeil]

I am a bit confused. There is hardware sold, Spyder 2 among them, that claim to calibrate LCD monitors. Are these hardware calibration tools any good?

Richard

[ChrisDauer]

While I can't speak for the Spyder 2, I did watch Gregg Loewen calibrate my tv. He used hardware connected up to a laptop to get color temp readings and move/shift color curves around (I still have his print-outs of before and after). I was very impressed and it was well worth it to me.

So this is a partial answer. I don't know if the Spyder 2 is any good; but the hardware calibration tools can help a great deal, if you know what you're doing.

-Chris

[Dierk Haasis]

While I can't speak for the Spyder 2, I did watch Gregg Loewen calibrate my tv.

TV = CRT?

CRTs can easily be calibrated as you can change the behaviour of the ray gun and several other components [though there are cheaper CRTs that may not alow this conveniently]. This is not possible with LCD/TFTs though some of the hi-end ones allow for some changes via filters (I guess).

TMK, the best you can do with LCD/TFTs is having a custom profile so any software aware of them will translate images to what the monitor can show.

[StuartRae]

This is as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. Both CRTs and LCDs can and should be profiled.

2. Calibration can be done in one (but NOT both) of two ways.

a. By adjusting the hardware controls on the monitor.
b. By loading a set of values into the LUTs of the video card when the PC is started.

(a) is the best method, but will only work for CRTs.
(b) will work for both CRTs and LCDs, and can give quite acceptable results.

Regards,

Stuart

[Matthew_Kress]

Richard -- I don't have a Spyder but I do have an i1 from Gretag (now X-Rite, I guess).

The following is the understanding of someone who is very much a beginner in the color management arena, so I'm sure that there are many others who can correct and augment what I write.

For my 19' LCD from Dell (4 or 5 years old) the i1 and associated software guides me through a calibration process whereby I change the R/G/B and brightness/ contrast values until I meet their target (I don't have the information with me so that's as specific as I can get right now...) PLUS, after the puck (I'm assuming its a photospectrometer) detects the brightness/ contrast/ color values, the software generates a profile that my monitor then uses w/ color managed applications to display the correct colors on my screen.

For my laptop LCD, all I can do is profile it and cannot calibrate it (it simply doesn't let me adjust the R/G/B values) but the profile still lets the monitor do a relatively good job of matching the colors on my calibrated monitor.

Being able to profile/ calibrate my monitors has let me do a better job of printing consistent, reliable photos from home. Does it make the colors better? Nope. But I know that if any of my relatives print pictures of my kid from SmugMug, that they will consistently get the same colors that I see on my monitor (so no more trial and error of getting prints on line then trying to adjust my monitor to get the right results.)

One other thought -- you can get sample prints from many of the photo printing companies (EZPrints for sure) which lets you download the image onto your computer as well as get a hard copy from them (for free) -- this way you can do a 3 way comparison -- compare the image on your monitor to the hard copy image you received from EZPrints (or wherever) and, if you print at home, compare those to what comes out of your printer. If nothing else, it gives you a target (the print from EZPrints) that you can use as a reference of what should be fairly standard colors and will tell you how far off you are. At least it worked for me.

Much longer than I planned. Sorry for rambling, but hope it helped a bit.

[Richard McNeil]

Matthew -- It helped alot. Thanks

[Ray West]

A year or so ago I found a load of confusing stuff re. ICC colour profiling issues. As I was using an OKI colour laser printer, no paper maker/whoever offered profiles, and OKI couldn't help. I spent days emailing OKI uk support different image files. Eventually I came across 'profile prism', at http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism/ and the help and faq files there. I Bought the software etc., and I was able, within about 20 minutes of the postman delivering it, to get excellent results, not just on the OKI, but _any_ paper, _any_ ink, and on _any_ printer connected to a pc (not Mac). But to get to the point I wanted to make, the explanation given by Mike Chaney, wrt. icc profiling and so on, is about the clearest I have found, and, he has a 'manual' method of setting up your monitor - no expensive gear required. Go to the link, above, and read the 'about' files, at least.

I have since bought a better lcd monitor, and the optix xr calibrator. The xr only gave a slight adjustment difference compared to my/Mikes manual method, but as Dierk implied, you need a higher-end display to be capable of doing some of the adjustments, but the profiling works, anyway.

I think, you will find more dramatic improvements, if you're comparing screen to printed output, by reducing the ambient light in the screen area, and viewing the printed image in its final situation -i.e. under artificial light, daylight, whatever, and make allowances by eye, rather than using relatively expensive vdu calibration devices. If you want higher quality prints, and if you want to spend a bit of money, then spend your money initially on profile prism, and then Qimage - from the same guy - if you have a pc system.

Best wishes,

Ray (not often impressed by software - but this stuff works well, and is very reasonably priced - I get no kickbacks ;-))

[Nicolas Claris]

Bonjour Mary [he said wispering]
I'm so glad I can post this bear for you [he said as a private joke]:

http://adrianwarren.com/pstutorials/pb/
A lot to learn easily there…

Hope you'll like this bear………

YFF


PS of course all others can have a look on this usefull link!
Thanks, Ray.

This has been worrying me for weeks, even before the skin tones thread in another forum here at OPF.

That was the first I knew of color calibration in monitors.

I didn't like to take up anyone's time by asking. When my printer died, it really came to the forefront of things I wanted to know, however. I think it's fortunate for me, that at just this juncture, the Entry Digital Phhotography forum was created.

Thanks a mil to you and Dierk, both. And to Asher, also, for this new "room."

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Bonjour Mary [he said wispering]
I'm so glad I can post this bear for you [he said as a private joke]:

http://adrianwarren.com/pstutorials/pb/
A lot to learn easily there…

Hope you'll like this bear………
Why, Nicolas, you have been inspired to post in rhyme!

I'm not planning to learn Photoshop CS, but I'm sure I will find info that's useful in general about image editors at that website.

Here, I want to continue briefly on the off-topic subject of the private joke: It relates to a bear hug I refrained from offering to Nicolas once, when I was feeling particularly appreciative of him.

IIRC, he said he was afraid of being hugged by a bear. Especially a big brown bear who catches trout and roams the north woods getting fat on blueberries.

Now, there's a picture! Who's going to post a big brown bear for us? Plenty of blue polar bears about. Need a brown grizzly one.
PS of course all others can have a look on this usefull link!
Of course. That's the whole point of making my question into a public thread.

PM help does help me. But a forum lays down help for whoever needs it.

Mary

[Asher Kelman]

Unlike CRTs LCDs don't denigrate that much over time.



Apart from some rather expensive LCD/TFTs an actual calibration is not possible because you cannot change the colours [which you can change for CRTs].

Don't. The Viewsonics, I have heard, are quite capable monitors; why exchange it if it principally works well? You should look for profiles for your monitors and your printer/ink/paper [Epson's canned profiles aren't bad], install them, set them where necessary.


Essentially calibration and profiling is a standardised way to get experience into the work-flow. If you work with the same monitor, same printer, same ink, same paper, and you know their differences, you don't need another form of colour management.

At first glance Dierk, I thought I would utterly disagree with what you have wiritten (my highlighting) when you say "dont".

I still disagree with you for putting in the "dont"!

However, you do mention but not further elaborate on profiling. That is where the remedy is!

Now to make it wasy for beginners if you have an LCD start with the profile process. I believe you do need your monitor profiled UNLESS

You never alter colors by what you see on the screen.

The screen is just a window. It, itself as a bias. It may show reds more strongly or have an issue with certain oranges for example. Now in the graphics card in your computer (and in certain LCD monitors) there are places for storing a whole library of conversion tables ("LUT's or look up tables) that allow colors to be reassigned. Some colors are made more saturated. Others might be shifted to a different hue and the brightness of all colors are adjusted up or down in some way.

But how do we get the instructions into the LUT's?

The answer is a profile. This is generated using an instrument which hangs down on to the surface of the center of the CD monitor screen. You click your mouse on a button on the screen and just follow the instructions. It is that simple!

To make sure the "puck" on your screen is reading colors from the screen, one wears neutral clothes and dims the room. The computer will make the screen flash a series of different colors and at different bightness. These are measured by the puck and recorded. These measurements are then used to construct a set of adjustment instructions.

It is unimaginably easy! If you can send an email, set a clock, bake a cake, or roll a joint, you sure can profile you monitor.

There's likely to be someone near you who has a calibration puck/device/Spyder, spectrophotmeter,colorimeter or what ever. For your viewsonic, any available instrument would be fine.

Without that, you have no idea what a change in color on you screen would mean for a final print unless you are blessed with infinite patience.

So what is always needed for the best prints is, without exception, a color managed workflow.

While you are working, you must have a window to you view a representation of your image file that does not trick you into thinking, for example that the blues are to dull. If you adjust that to look good on thescreen, the print could then be aweful.

So, the lesson is always profile your LCD.

Also if you can, do it once a month or at least every 6 months as the LCD electronics can drift.

Asher

[Nill Toulme]

Well stated Asher. A color managed workflow is an important step as you start to get serious about your digital photography, and a calibrated monitor is fundamental to a color managed workflow. There are a number of good resources to get you started on your understanding of this somewhat arcane but critical field of knowledge. One of them is here (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Nicolas Claris]

Why, Nicolas, you have been inspired to post in rhyme!
Bordeaux wine maybe ?-)

[Dierk Haasis]

I still disagree with you for putting in the "dont"!

As you already know - and Mary even more so - I tend to grabbing attention early on with a bland statement going counter to the most published opinion. In this specific case take also into account that I know Mary for quite a while - and I know a little bit about practical psychology [How and why do people work in mysterious ways in everyday situation?].

First of all 'Colour Management' is understood as an expensive and complicated process nowadays - and rightly so. If you go all the way it is expensive and you have a steep learning curve. And most of the time it is unnecessary.

What exactly is colour management? It is nothing but experience. I think we all agree about monitors and prints physically not being able to show exactly the same colours. If someone disagrees, please, read up on colour models (in this case additive vs. subtractive, or CMY[K] vs. RGB). The best we can get is an "almost there". This means we still have to know our equipment quite well to "know" what the print will look like from the monitor.

[Aside:] And don't get me started on so called soft-proofing. Anybody who has ever worked in or with a printing house can tell you that it is impossible to proof without printing with the correct machine settings on the actual paper used for the run. Even the Cibachromes and several other methods are merely a (very poor) cheap way to reassure, or better yet: becalm, customers.

IIRC, Mary currently tries to learn digital imaging from the bottom up: how to take photos, how to make use of more advanced settings in her camera, which RAW converter/image processor suits her best etc. She also uses a cheap colour laser printer, which is good for graphical presentations - reminds me of an advertising agency I worked for a couple o' years ago: the account managers came up with the brilliant idea to send their Powerpoint presentation files to the printing house to make brochures from them; what a laugh - but not for serious continuous tone image prints.

Over the past few years I found that misinformation and myths surround digital imaging, some are self-made, some come natural. For instance [applicable in this case], many folks use their camera TFTs to judge sharpness and colour (only composition can be). Another urban myth is the focal length multiplier (nope, a 200 mm lens does not become a 300 with a dSLR). A more elaborate and not as clear-cut one surrounds colour management.

For starters, you don't get better colours in a (perfectly) colour-managed work-flow. you only get more consistent and reproducible colours. As long as you don't change your set-up and are the only one evaluating pictures you can do it by your own experience; colour profiles add the experience of other people. Which can be a good thing if you have more than just a fleeting idea about what you are doing. It is necessary the moment you often change your set-up and work in conjunction with others, i.e. different monitors, various printer-paper-ink combinations, outsourcing to print houses, sending photos to agencies etc.

Even more problematic is calibration, so I don't get started about that (most TFTs and printers without a RIP cannot be calibrated; no TFT can be really calibrated).

Asher, do you really think we should load all our knowledge about digital imaging upon poor little Mary just now? May I remind you that even hardened Priests of the Church of DI get led astray in colour management sometimes, remember the metallic look of skin?

On a more practical note for Mary, a good way to come up with consistent colours I already hinted at and everybody agreed:

- look for a monitor profile; it should already reside in C:\Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color, if not search on Sony's Web site in the support/download area
- install Microsoft's (new) Color Management Tool
- set the monitor profile default (see the first step)
- let your G2 tag images with AdobeRGB
- if possible install a profile for your printer
- get QImage, sit down for an afternoon and go through the help (Mike Chaney also offers an on-line tutorial accessible through the Help menu)

Up to step 4 everything is quite straightforward, after that it gets messy, but the moment you have set up everything in QImage, you don't need to worry anymore.


PS: Much more interesting for colour rendition is a neutral reference. May I endorse Michael Tapes WhiBal.

[Asher Kelman]

Dierk, How can I not endorse your post? (There's still a metalllic look on those images, albeit less on my Eizo :)

Mary, Just pointers to emphasize.

For the Monitor: see if we can find someone near you to set up the color on your monitor. If we have a knowledgable OPF member near you, then that would be easy. Alternatively, a god camera store might do it with the sale of your printer. you'll need to bargain hard on the price, LOL!

When you are ready and buy an epson printer: install the epson software that comes on a disk with any new Epson printer. They self install in the right place. The Epsonprinter profiles are magnificent. When you get your printer, we'll give you step by step instructions for great printing from photoshop merely by selecting the correct options.

Asher

[Nill Toulme]

Dierk and Asher raise interesting questions (interesting to me at least) regarding the difference between "profiling" and "calibrating" a monitor. I'd have to do a bit of research to determine whether, properly speaking, those terms can't be used more or less synonymously for our purposes.

Setting the semantic question aside, however, as I see it there are at least two different distinctions at work here. One is between (a) calibrating/profiling your display system only with software (e.g., the Adobe Gamma utility, default manufacturer-provided icc profiles, etc.), or (b) doing it with a hardware-based system such as a colorimeter or spectrometer.

The other is between (b1) accomplishing this exclusively by addressing the video card's LUTs, (b2) doing it by a combination of b1 and making adjustments to the monitor directly, as for example by adjusting a CRT's separate RGB guns, or (b3) addressing the monitor directly, via a DDC/CI path.

Back to the semantic point momentarily, I think some of us are using "profile" to refer to (a) vs. "calibrate" for (b), and others (Dierk?) to distinguish between (b1) and (b2). Personally, to the extent I use the terms differently at all rather than just loosely-goosily, I think I fall into the former camp, in that I tend to think of "calibration" as being hardware-based as opposed to a software-only solution — even if that hardware-based process involves no adjustments whatsoever to the monitor itself.

Now to the extent Dierk is a member of the latter camp, I think he's partly right when he says that generally speaking CRT's can be calibrated while LCD's can only be profiled. For a first-camp member this statement is incorrect, however, because it has long been possible to apply hardware calibration/profiling solutions (e.g, Spyder, Optix XR, Eye One Display 2, etc.) to LCD's. But even for the second-camp crowd it's no longer entirely accurate, as there are an increasing number of good LCD's that can be calibrated more or less directly.

For example, I have one of the new NEC 2090uxi's. It falls into category (b3), which at the moment is about as good as it gets from a color profiling/calibration standpoint. Using NEC's proprietary Spectraview II software and an Eye One Display 2 puck (jargon for a colorimeter), it bypasses the video card entirely and addresses the display's own internal 12-bit LUTs to calibrate it and produce an icc profile for use in a fully color-managed workflow. It does this quickly and easily and essentially without user intervention other than hanging the puck on the screen and pressing the Calibrate button in the software.

The other thing that's going on in this discussion is some mild dispute about the value of a truly color managed workflow. I think Dierk's perhaps right, at least in theory and in part, when he argues that color management "doesn't matter" if all you ever do is use one monitor and one printer and one paper. At some point you could tweak this that and the other to get acceptable results in that system. It's unlikely the results would be ideal in the sense of providing everything the system would be capable of, but they would be acceptable. Even that has some difficulties though because of the multiple variables involved and having no objective, as opposed to arbitrary, starting point. If your prints don't match your monitor, do you adjust your monitor or your printer settings?

But how many of us are working in such a completely closed loop system? A truly color managed workflow with a calibrated (hardware-based) starting point will give consistent results both within the system and across other systems. And when you change printers or papers, you *know* what to adjust.

The good news is that the relative difficulty and expense of doing this effectively have both decreased very substantially over the past couple of years. Anybody can do it now, and IMO, anybody who's reasonably serious about their digital photography *should* do it.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Martin McLean]

I say yes to a voice of reason from the confusion which is Color Management.

Thanks Nill.

[scott kirkpatrick]

There are three levels of effort possible in making sure that what you see on your monitor is what others who are equally careful will see.

1) display standard targets (10 levels of white-to-black, or standard color targets) and make adjustments so that they come out right. Hard work. Confusing. But see Norm Koren's websites, www.imatest.com and www.normkoren.com for a good discussion, instructions, and test targets.

2) purchase a colorimeter (about $100 to $200) and associated software to make the comparisons automatic. These are hassle-free, fairly good quality, and will tune up any CRT, LCD monitor or relatively new laptop for accurate color. I use the eye-1 from Gretag (purchased thru Rawworkflow). It's the best in several reviews. It prints out a results chart each time you do a new analysis, so that I could tell, for example, when my old laptop just wasn't bright enough to produce the full range of colors anymore. Just ask for D65 (6500 Kelvin) and gamma = 2.2, and step back. Done, as long as the display can meet these standards. The Eye-1 also measures your ambient lighting, and lets you know when it might distort your viewing conditions significantly.

3) purchase a spectrophotometer ($1000 and up) and associated software. With this kind of equipment, you can tune up digital projectors, $2000 flat screen tv's, whatever you like. But as Mary observed, you need a computer and some interfacing gear to run all this. It is laboratory grade equipment.

Naturally, I think (2) is a good investment. Maybe someday I'll find a research grant that will pay for (3), but I'm not holding my breath. The reason (2) is so simple is that a "colorimeter" just measures three standard colors, chosen to match CRTs and LCDs, while the spectrophotometer can handle anything that you can see and some things that you can't.

Profiling printers is a much more complicated story. Since printers don't give off light, you can only use methods (1) and (3), The cheaper, simpler (2) packages can't handle this. The most common solution seems to be to purchase good profiles, use paper which is consistent in its properties, do a lot of careful comparisons under controlled lighting, and learn what sort of "Kentucky windage" to add for the results that you want. Sort of an expensive (1) variant.

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

Nill, I didn't see your post when writing my note above. I fall into the camp who believe that "calibration" is setting display hardware parameters, and "profiling" builds corrections into the LUTs. So I would say that using Eye-1 Display2 on a CRT does a bit of both, in two clearly separated parts of the program, and for an LCD does almost exclusively profiling.

Dierk and Asher raise interesting questions (interesting to me at least) regarding the difference between "profiling" and "calibrating" a monitor.

[some say it]... is between (b1) accomplishing this exclusively by addressing the video card's LUTs, (b2) doing it by a combination of b1 and making adjustments to the monitor directly, as for example by adjusting a CRT's separate RGB guns, or (b3) addressing the monitor directly, via a DDC/CI path.

Dierk... is ... partly right when he says that generally speaking CRT's can be calibrated while LCD's can only be profiled.

The other thing that's going on in this discussion is some mild dispute about the value of a truly color managed workflow. I think Dierk's perhaps right, at least in theory and in part, when he argues that color management "doesn't matter" if all you ever do is use one monitor and one printer and one paper. But how many of us are working in such a completely closed loop system?

The good news is that the relative difficulty and expense of doing this effectively have both decreased very substantially over the past couple of years. Anybody can do it now, and IMO, anybody who's reasonably serious about their digital photography *should* do it.

Nill
~~


I certainly agree with your last points. One of the first steps in getting serious about digital is to be able to produce images that you can share with others who will view them on other displays. That's not closed loop.

scott

[Richard McNeil]

A quick Thank You to Mary for starting this thread! I really enjoyed the discussion.

Richard

[Andrew Rodney]

What is color calibration?
Mary

I suggest you start with this primer:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details/Color_Management_and_Display.fci

[Dave New]

For those (like me) that are daunted by the initial outlay for option 3) -- the $1000-plus spectrophotometer route, if you have a decent flat-bed scanner you can finesse the printer profiling with a much less expensive solution.

There are a couple of sources (I don't remember which ones off the top of my head) that will vend you a scanner profiling package that includes a calibrated color target. You place the target on the scanner bed, and run the profiling software so you have an accurate idea of what you see with your scanner.

Now, print the electronic version of the supplied target on your printer, using your printer, ink, and paper combination with no printer profile selected, and after a suitable drying period (usually 24 hrs), scan the printed target on your profiled scanner. Any differences from the original calibrated pre-printed target can be calculated, and a suitable printer profile results.

It's a bit round-about, and may not produce as accurate results as directly reading printer output with a pricey spectrophotometer, but the price for packages like this are quite reasonable (under $100, if I recall), and for non-fussy work, can give good results.

Having recently acquired an Epson 4990 flat-bed scanner (they are discontinued, but if you can find one in stock at a big-box store, it's a good deal, since it includes the hardware infrared dust/scratch reduction channel), I intend to explore this route for experimenting with my R1800, rather than buying a spectrophotometer that would be easily 2-3 times the cost of the printer.

For the future, I must applaud the newest HP printer, for including the spectrophotometer in the printer. Considering the (purported) cost of said spectrophotometer, and the included inks, HP is practically giving the printer away. It will be interesting to see if this concept can be pushed down into the smaller (and cheaper) printers, thus solving this particular problem for all users of their fine art printers.

Edit: Ray and I were posting at the same time. I took a quick look at the Prism software. It's an example of what I was just talking about. You need a flat-bed scanner to do printer profiling with it, but a flat-bed is a lot less expensive than a spectrophotometer, and you can use it for a lot of other things. You may already have a sutiable one, so that part comes for free.

[Mary Bull]

Dierk said, and I promised here to follow these recommended steps:
On a more practical note for Mary, a good way to come up with consistent colours I already hinted at and everybody agreed:

- look for a monitor profile; it should already reside in C:\Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color, if not search on Sony's Web site in the support/download area
I looked. It wasn't there.

I went to the View Sonic website and found the signed driver for WinXP. Downloaded and installed it.
- install Microsoft's (new) Color Management Tool
Did that.
- set the monitor profile default (see the first step)
I'm at that point. It says the default is sRGB.

Is that what I should choose?

Reason I ask, is that next you say to set the G2 to tag with RGB.

Currently it tags with sRGB.
- let your G2 tag images with AdobeRGB
See my question above.
- if possible install a profile for your printer
Ray West has just posted some advice, below, on a profile for the color laser printer. So that may be possible.

And it seems as if one will be available for the Epson inkjet.

I read somewhere in this thread (I think) that HP has a built in color profiler in one of its inkjet printers. But maybe that's high end and more than I want to spend?

- get QImage, sit down for an afternoon and go through the help (Mike Chaney also offers an on-line tutorial accessible through the Help menu)
Next to-do on the list.

I just wanted to report in on progress so far, and ask the question--just to be absolutely certain--if I should use MS's sRGB default with the new color management tool or RGB.

In other words, does the selection for the monitor need to be consistent for the selection for the G2?

Off to get Qimage now.

And thanks a mil for all the wonderful support--@Dierk and @ all who have posted to this thread.

Mary

P.S. I got three good mushroom shots and one passable holly berry shot from my late-morning adventure with AV f2.0.

[StuartRae]

Reason I ask, is that next you say to set the G2 to tag with RGB. Currently it tags with sRGB.

Mary,

The G2 doesn't give you a choice of colour space. In any case, it doesn't make any difference at all if you shoot in RAW. It's the RAW conversion software that set's the colour space. Canon software will honour the tag, other converters won't.

Also please be aware that aRGB contains colours that most monitors can't display, so to some extent you're flying blind. If you tag a JPEG destined for the web or non colour-aware applications with aRGB it will look washed out.

Stuart

[Mary Bull]

Is my nearsightedness getting to me?

When I looked at the text with my RAW shoots after conversion this morning, I thought it said sRGB.

So, in step one of the new Windows Color Management tool I should change it from s (or a?) RGB to RGB?

Just to clarify.

I appreciate you more than words can say, Stuart. (And I'm aware that the "a" key is right next to the "s" key on our QWERTY keyboards, so "a" could have been a typo?)

Mary

[StuartRae]

Mary,

Dierk suggested you tag with Adobe RGB (aRGB), which is a larger colour space than sRGB (the default for the web and all non colour-aware applications, and a good approximation for the colours which most monitors display).

I'd suggest that you stick with sRGB for now.

Profile and calibrate your monitor first. Once it's displaying correct colours the Epson printer profiles should give pretty close renditions.

Stuart

[Mary Bull]

Thanks, Stuart.

As you well know, my deficiencies lie in vocabulary and terminology equally as much as in my actual understanding and skills.

Well, I'll leave it for the time being at the Windows XP default sRGB.

Further progress report: QImage demo is downloaded (saved) and waiting to be installed.

What an adventure I'm having!

I appreciate you more than words can say.

Mary

[Asher Kelman]

Please keep on topic. This is for Calibration/Profiling LCD Displays. Fun posts, greeings" "Laybeack cafe", "Profiles for an Epson Photo Printer to that thread.

Just my own view:

1. Buy an colorimeter. If that is an option for a modest sum, start a new thread for that!

That will get you where you want.

If you need the best prints and your monitor is profiled and you view it in opimal light, with no bright colors on you or in the room then:

2. Use a grey card or WhiBal card in all your shots.

We'll start a new thread for that on how to use that.

3. Try not to adjust colors, just brightness and saturation until you can profile your monitor.

4, Read Andrew Rodney's Article

Asher

[Kumar Brahmajosyula]

I have been trying to get my head around this whole calibration/profiling thing. I have a Mitsubishi Diamondcrysta RDT178V, and run Win2K. The color gurus suggest that the only possible adjustment that can be made on LCDs is the brightness. So why is it that calibration software allows LCDs to be calibrated using RGB controls? Why don't they simply disable everthing except brightness when LCD is selected? That way, they could be calibrated correctly, isn't it?

I can understand monitor manufacturers putting in those controls - more doodads mean more dough!

Or am I not getting it?

Kumar

[Asher Kelman]

You are stuck in nomenclature!

Read Andrew Rodneys articel it will help. But as I have said above, the profiling will reassign all colors, each with their own RGB composition, saturation and brightness so that a perfect color file will preceptually seem pretty damn perfect to most many of us.

As I wrote above, this is called a profile. A list of mathematical conversions that are stored in your graphics card or, if that is available in the LCD monitor. These are called LUT or look-up tables.

You are not altering the RGB characteristics of the LCD. However you are creating a profile so that the window through which you look at your file appears to be clear and not like a pierce of colored glass.

But read Andrew's article and then return and see if there are more questions!

asher

[Dierk Haasis]

1. With the help of Microsoft's new colour management tool select the Viewsonic profile as default.
1a. Go to Start->System tools [currently no idea how the entry is called on an English XP]
1b. Double-click Color
1c. Go to Devices
1d. Select Displays and then your monitor
1e. Click Add
1f. In the following dialogue select the monitor for your monitor and click OK
1g. Select the profile in the Color Profiles box and clcik on Set as Default.

2. Do the same for your scanners and printers listed under Devices but select their appropriate profiles (not the monitor profile, not Adobe RGB, not sRGB).

3. You may still need to set the profiles manually in any colour managed application you have, like Photoshop (not Elements!) or QImage.

4. sRGB is only a good choice if you go for Web output; it's the lowest common denominator.

It is commonly said that Adobe RGB is wider than sRGB, which is wider than many CMYK gamuts. Well, that's right - up to a point. There are colours in most CMYK gamuts exceeding AdobeRGB (even ProPhoto) as there are many more colours in almost any RGB gamut exceeding most CMYK gamuts. Since the colour models in question [additive vs. subtractive] are compatible only in 'for all practical purposes' mode you will never see on paper what your monitor shows.

Since many folks here decided to get much deeper into a very technical topic than is appropriate ATM - Mary, do yourself a favour: don't get a colori- or spectrophotometer unless your nephew has a few hours to set everything up so you don't have to do anything but load your photos, work on them and put them out - let's get a few basic things off:

- RGB and CMYK are device-dependent
- it follows that both are relative, not absolute
- a 255 or 100% [respectively] value does not say anything about the actual colour
- SOHO printers are often labelled RGB-printers, they aren't
- the drivers of SOHO printers translate from RGB to CMYK
- hence any application before the driver sees the "printer" as RGB
- Anybody interested in colour as a technical topic should get a book by Bruce Fraser, his Real World Photoshop CS2 or his Real World Color Management.
- Unfortunately when it comes to colour management and ease of use the Mac is far ahead of Windows.

I stand with every warning I ever gave towards Mary, particularly the very first one: Don't. The whole discussions shows the problem, instead of helping Mary we confuse her [if you are not confused by all our half-hearted attempts to tell you what's right you should check your medication]. There's more than one good reason whole books have been and are written about colour management - either we come up with a concise way to relate what's in them or we should just leave it and let Mary do the most basic [= most important] steps.

Will a full-fledged colour management for Mary solve the original problem? Perhaps. Will it be overkill [read up on what she tells us about how often and for what purposes she prints]? Definitely.

Some of us are even confusing calibration with profiling - which is not a moot semantic point*, it's about the very technology at the heart of the matter - we are, however, telling Mary what she has to do to ... what?

To end on a really sarcastic note, here's the ultimate tip for you: Get a CG-series Eizo, get a colorimeter from X-Rite, get one of the new HP Z-printers. Then ask your nephew to set everything up correctly; that you do every 3 months. I guarantee you perfect results.



*I have come to the conclusion, lately, that any serious discussion about semantics has an underlying very real problem.

[Dierk Haasis]

The last post, which I leave unaltered for posterities sake, may be a bit over the top. What bugs me is that we are in a board using 'Entry' as a qualifier, we are trying to convey the practical basics here, I guess. This is, so to speak, the 101 on Digital Imaging.

With colour management we are already in a more advanced course, most tips on what to do and how to obtain are post-grad courses. Mary is a beginner.

On a personal note, I think it is much better to help her out with creative input, like the tip to photograph cats and children at their eye level, than to delve into one of the most un-creative, technical issues at hand. A topic most photographers and graphic artists gaven't understood half-way.

[Asher Kelman]

I'm trying to develop a way of dealing with 3 things which make threads harder to follow:

1. Off Topic (O.T.): Here the solution is easy if enough steam has generated behind a sub-topic, we move these posts to their own threads

2. Social joking around: These will eventually be removed to a companion thread. "Related chats" which will be one ongoing thread on how we handle this.

3. Complexity: Transfer to the appropriate section and leave a link here.

4. Argumentative: Where the text in our opinion, diverts attention from a simple view, then thatt ext will be changed in color to slate grey. If it better belongs in another forum, then it will be transferred, but the best thing is for posters to realize that ahead of time and post advanced argument in another place.

We have to leave it to the best judgement of each poster as to what is the minimum needed to get the job done.

[Mary Bull]

Asher, I have tried.

The physical presentation at Andrew's website makes it impossible for my eyes to resolve his text. I have just now sent him an OPF PM explaining the issues which I have with it.

They are unique to his website. I have no such problems reading here at OPF.

Mary

[Asher Kelman]

Let me know the issues to see if we can help.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Mary,

Go back to that article and cick on the print option on the actual top of that article (not the Print on your browser.

It will open up a full page which is easy to read.

Asher

[Mary Bull]

1) Font displays too small on my screen. Looks about 8 pt, even with Opera 9/View zoomed to 200 per cent

2) Insufficient contrast between font color and font background color. My eyes will simply not resolve the text characters with the light blue font I see there.

3) The HTML colors glare at me, making it extremely difficult for me to maintain focus on a single lline of text.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Asher, the page display is so bad that I cannot even find the Print option on it.

See my comments in my just-previous post.

Mary

[StuartRae]

I stand with every warning I ever gave towards Mary, particularly the very first one: Don't. The whole discussions shows the problem, instead of helping Mary we confuse her

Dierk,

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say.

Regards,

Stuart

[Mary Bull]

Stuart,

Of course, I now have the Windows Color Management Tool and a profile.

SOT:
However, the PM e-mail replies (7 of them) which I sent you Sunday-Tuesday, have all turned up as Returned Mail about an hour ago. Mostly they dealt with my efforts to use WiziWYGXP. I think its inability to save a color profile was due to my lack of a color driver for the monitor (since downloaded and installed, of course).

I am taking the liberty of putting this information in a forum post, in case my e-mail to you about the bounces is also returned. Tried to send you an OPF PM, but the software said it could not find you.

Anyhoo, now you know. < said with a smile >

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Dierk,

1) I have done the basic things you recommended.
2) I shall go back and reset to Adobe RGB.
3) Monitor is looking good and running well.
4) I'll be in touch by private E-mail with you about my printer purchase, when my nephew arrives back in town on Friday.
5) Meanwhile, I am shooting a lot, and I am trying to practice the principles of composing in camera which you have earlier advised me to use.

Mary

[Cem_Usakligil]

Asher, the page display is so bad that I cannot even find the Print option on it.



Hi Mary,

If you follow this link (http://www.takegreatpictures.com/default.aspx?path=/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details&params=object/9984/_design_/print), it will take you directly to the print option page. Hope it helps. If not, send me PM for further help pls.

Regards,

Cem

[Nill Toulme]

Mary, did you look at this tutorial (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm) I linked to upthread? It goes into a bit more depth (maybe more than you want, maybe not).

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[KrisCarnmarker]

Also, a very nice set of tutorials can be found at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm, specifically the "Color Management, Part 1" through Part 3. Lots of diagrams that help clear up some issues, IMO.

[Dave New]

Ok, in keeping in the spirit of the 'entry' level designation of this forum, I'll modify my recommendations to the following:

1) Don't make any adjustments whatsoever to your digital images. In fact, don't look at them on any computer screen, because if it is not calibrated and profiled and the image being viewed in a program that honors the profile (none of the Windows native viewers, do, by the way, like Explorer, etc), then it will never show what you might see in a print, anyway. Pay no attention to sRGB vs AdobeRGB, or any of that alphabet soup.

2) If you are using a Canon camera, then get a Canon printer, and plug the camera directly into the USB port on the printer, and use the PIM (Print Image Matching) or whatever Canon wants to call it these days, to get the printer to print the closest approximation of what it thinks the shooter intended when they snapped the photo. In fact, if your camea sports a 'print' button, you will discover what Canon intended it to be used for. Read your camera and printer manual to see how all this 'plug n play' is designed to work for the casual snapshooter.

If this doesn't produce satisfying results, then you will need to concentrate on getting a better image in the camera in the first place. Try color-balancing using custom white-balance with a WhiBal (http://www.rawworkflow.com), or playing with the preset color-balance settings in the camera. Any attempt to make corrections on a non-calibrated/profiled/color-managed computer will just frustrate you, as you chase after tweak after tweak, trying to get the printer output to look anything like what you see on the screen.

This may seem harsh (and even sarcastic) to the old guard, here, but as Asher cautioned, for folks that are trying to do entry-level digital work, it is way too complex to introduce all the color-management issues at this stage, no matter how well-meaning that may be.

For folks that are just getting their feet wet in digital, and are coming from a point-and-shoot 35mm film experience, where they shot color negative film (very forgiving in a number of ways) and took it to the local drug-store/photo emporium (where a skilled(?) operator used a fairly sophisticated color- and contrast-correcting machine to save many a poorly-exposed, wacky color-cast print, anything more complex than 'plug the camera into your manufacturer-matched inkjet printer and make 4x6 prints' is just simply too much information.

I realize that a lot of folks that used to snap 35mm negatives are very disappointed or at least surprised when they find that the prints they get from a typical digital camera are under/overexposed, or have weird color casts, when they typically never saw those kinds of results from their drugstore prints. This is the underbelly of digital photography these days, and why people that were casual film shooters either give up on digital, or just figure that somehow the cameras are defective or deficient. Some of them come to forums like these looking for simple answers, and find out that there are none (besides the simple advice I outlined above). Simple answers (at least for the current state of the art of digital photography) tend not to be satisfying to the more advanced photographers, here, but sometimes we have to just give the simple answer and move on.

[Dierk Haasis]

2) If you are using a Canon camera, then get a Canon printer, and plug the camera directly into the USB port on the printer, and use the PIM (Print Image Matching) or whatever Canon wants to call it these days

Unfortunately that's, although I like your approach, not possible. Yes, you can connect the G2 with (any) direct print printer - but only to get the images with DPOF printed as is. The G2 does not support any of the later, more advanced technologies. Which leaves Mary again with trying to get everything right by using the printer's image enhencement options (if it has any) - only with a smaller and lousier monitor.

[Mary Bull]

Cem, thanks for trying to help.

But every page on that website glares at my old eyes so fiercely that I truly cannot read text on that site or find download buttons.

Andrew Rodney has just replied to my OPF PM to him that it is not his website and he has no control over it. They simply asked him to write the article for them.

I can live without reading that article. My needs are simple, and they have already been met by following the advice of Dierk Haasis.

Mary

[Richard McNeil]

Mary,

Why don't you print the page. It should be readable then.

Richard

[Nill Toulme]

...and it is very much worth reading.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Mary Bull]

Never mind. Haven't you been reading what I said about it?

I can't navigate on that website because I can't see it.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Well, not to me, for all the hassle it's caused me.

As I posted above, my needs are simple and they have now been perfecly met by following the advice of Dierk Haasis.

Mary

[Richard McNeil]

Never mind. Haven't you been reading what I said about it?

I can't navigate on that website because I can't see it.

Mary

Yes I read your posts. If you go to the page and right click anywhere on the page you would get a popup windown that has a "print" selection. That is what I was suggesting. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Richard

[Nill Toulme]

Mary did you try Cem's link (http://www.takegreatpictures.com/default.aspx?path=/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details&params=object/9984/_design_/print)? It takes you straight to a very clean black-on-white print version.

And I promise it's worth the effort, if only for the *wonderful* optical illusion used to illustrate why attempting to "calibrate" anything with the human eye is an exercise in futility.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Dierk Haasis]

What's up with the pages from Dry Creek, I just opened them for the first time just now and they are black on white with relatively large type? Using Opera 9.02 without any highly customised user CSS - I see what the authors intended us to see.

Mary, can you send me a screenshot of what you are seeing (PNG preferred)?


PS: Mike Chaney's (http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/tc_index.html) highly interesting and entertaining articles on printing and more.

[Mary Bull]

I'm no longer interested in reading the article by Andrew Rodney.

That site did something to Opera 9 when I tried to use its e-mail function (thinking that it was Andrew's website and that I could get some help from him about the unuseable display). First it rejected the e-mail. And from then on Opera sends me an error message overlaying whatever web page I'm visiting, including OPF, about every 5 minutes. Even if I'm not focused on the page--have minimized it to tray--the error message overlays whatever I'm trying to do on-screen.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-9/1213006/Image5.GIF

I've cleared the cache. I even deleted *all* private data, trying to get Opera 9 to forget about it. I think the thing may be with me forever. That's the thanks I have for trying to be polite and cooperate about reading Andrew's article.

I am not going to read it, now. I know, with regard to color calibration, all I want to know.

And if you had actually been reading all my posts, you would know that I have said three times that my needs are now perfectly met.

Kindly quit pushing me to learn more than I want to learn.

Mary

[StuartRae]

Mary,

It looks as if the Opera Javascript console has somehow got switched on. In Firefox it's under the Tools menu item. Maybe the same for Opera.

Any other Opera users out there?

Stuart

[Mary Bull]

Okay, Dierk, I've just sent a PNG to you by private e-mail.

It's what I get when I open this URL in a new window:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOM...nd_Display.fci

Definitely not black on white.

Mary

[Nill Toulme]

What's up with the pages from Dry Creek, I just opened them for the first time just now and they are black on white with relatively large type? Using Opera 9.02 without any highly customised user CSS - I see what the authors intended us to see.

In my browser they are indeed black on white, but the type size doesn't seem unusual —about the same size as what I see here, on a nice clean page layout.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Nill Toulme]

Okay, Dierk, I've just sent a PNG to you by private e-mail.

It's what I get when I open this URL in a new window:

http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOM...nd_Display.fci

Definitely not black on white.

Mary

You guys are talking about two different sites, I think. Dierk referred to the Dry Creek article that I had referred you to earlier, here (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm).

Mary don't let a problem with some weird website frustrate you with the whole substantive question! ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[StuartRae]

Mary,

I've just dowmloaded and installed Opera.

What you need to do is:

Under Tools select Preferences.
In the Preferences window open the Advanced tab.
Click Content and then click Javascript options in the right hand pane.
Uncheck the box next to Open console on error.

Hope this helps.

Stuart

[Cem_Usakligil]

I use Opera and have a pretty good idea what might be going on here.
Should Mary want me to help her, I'll certainly do my best. :-)

Best regards,

Cem


Mary,

It looks as if the Opera Javascript console has somehow got switched on. In Firefox it's under the Tools menu item. Maybe the same for Opera.

Any other Opera users out there?

Stuart

[Dierk Haasis]

OK, the Dry Creek site is definitely easily readable, the Takje Great Pictures site is one of those seizure-inducing lay-outs but still easily readable with blue on white text. I just sent Mary the link to the print version and - lucky I did - a PDF of it.

Opera hasn't gone belly-up on it, yet, and I wouldn't know why it should from the source code.

Stuart, thank you for telling Mary how to switch of the error console, which was a bit buggy in several [beta] versions before 9.02 - it tended to switch itself on and couldn't esily be switched off.

[Mary Bull]

Cem. after about 7 hours of fighting that pop-up alert every 5 minutes or so, my eyes were simply worn out.

I did my best to stay with the thread, and was too intent on what was being said to me to realize that I could use FireFox, although there have been a few reports that it is more vulnerable than Opera.

So here I am using FireFox to read at OPF.

Stuart's steps went only so far. There was no Content to click on. Stuart said:
Under Tools select Preferences.
In the Preferences window open the Advanced tab.
Click Content and then click Javascript options in the right hand pane.
Uncheck the box next to Open console on error.
There was Javascript to click on, which brought up its console.

But there was no entry "Open Console on error."

If you have another set of instructions, which will match the menus and dialogue boxes of Opera v. 9.2.8585.0, I would be most grateful for the help.

It's a small leaning curve, to get familiar with FireFox, and I would really prefer to use Opera, if I can.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Thanks, Stuart.

It came very close to helping. The menu in my version of Opera does not offer the choice "Content."

I have just now posted to Cem asking him if he can offer further help, for the menus and dialogue boxes in Opera version 9.2.8585.0.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Dierk said:
OK, the Dry Creek site is definitely easily readable, the Takje Great Pictures site is one of those seizure-inducing lay-outs but still easily readable with blue on white text. Thank you, Dierk. After I received your answer to my private e-mail, I explained in my private e-mail reply to you that for my eyes to resolve the characters at the "Take Great Pictures" site, the blue is too light on the white background. There is insufficient contrast in that text for me.

I just sent Mary the link to the print version and - lucky I did - a PDF of it.
And I do very much appreciate it, especially the PDF. I shall open it and read it tomorrow, when my eyes are less tired.

Opera hasn't gone belly-up on it, yet, and I wouldn't know why it should from the source code.
I very much prefer to use Opera. I just need to get this error console stopped from popping up in it about every 5 minutes. As I wrote to Cem and to Stuart, Opera version 9.2.8585.0 does not offer the "Content" choice in Advanced. I am hoping Cem will be able to help.

At present I am at OPF using FireFox.

Stuart, thank you for telling Mary how to switch of the error console, which was a bit buggy in several [beta] versions before 9.02 - it tended to switch itself on and couldn't esily be switched.
Well, I'm not there yet, and I haven't been able to find the solution for myself, using Opera Help.

But, at least, I finally realized that I do have a back-up browser on my machine, besides Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Not yet, NIls.

By the time I read that post of yours, I had been struggling with the aftermath of the "Take Great Pictures" site for about four hours.

I left the computer at about noon, after leaving OPF a bit earlier, and I went to do other things, while my eyes recovered from trying to write with the Opera Error Console popping up in front of them, making me lose my place, about every 5 minutes.

After a rest, I realized that I could use FireFox.

So it's my temporary browser, until I can get Opera's manic error console calmed down.

Mary

[Nill Toulme]

Well, as my mother always said... this too will pass. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Asher Kelman]

Mary,

PM me with your best email, I'll send you easy to read texts!

Asher

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Mary,

I was just about to leave the house when I saw your post asking for further help with Opera. I really have to go now since I have a meeting with a client the whole day (and it will include a dinner tonight as well). So it will be some 24 hours before I can even get back to you on this. I just thought that I should let you know that I am not ignoring you or anything. My apologies for the delay. :-)

Regards,

Cem

[Dierk Haasis]

I've helped out on Opera. I guess Mary just overlooked the entries.

[Mary Bull]

I've helped out on Opera. I guess Mary just overlooked the entries. Dierk, I appreciated so very much your PM with the PNG.

However, I already had that entry unchecked.

And the error console is still popping up every five minutes when I have Opera up, even with only a blank page and minimized to tray.

I think my copy of Opera 9.2.8585.0 must have gotten corrupted.

My plan is to uninstall Opera, download a fresh copy from their website, and install that.

It's the only thing I can think to do.

Meanwhile, I'm getting more comfortable with FireFox. Took the time to configure it to better meet my needs.

But I still would prefer to read OPF in Opera, and I think the reinstall will accomlish that for me.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

I have successfully reinstalled Opera 9.02.

The problem with the Error Console pop-up is gone.

A big thank-you to everyone following the thread for your patience with me while I was trying to deal with it.

Mary

[Mary Bull]

Mary,

PM me with your best email, I'll send you easy to read texts!
Asher, thanks. My eyes were so exhausted yesterday by the time that I found your post, and the priority to get the Opera Error Console problem fixed so uppermost on my mind, that I put off sending you a PM.

And now there is no need.

I have read Andrew Rodney's article--which is good and basic, but I already knew most of what he said, by the time I finally got to it.

And I've read the article at the Dry Creek website. I found a couple of things in it that did meet my needs: the black-white test and the gray-scale test. The color profile which I had set up using Windows Color Management Tool seems to have worked pretty well on my low-end LCD.

I had average results (saw a definite change at step 8) with the black-white test. And the gray scale showed no bands at all to my old eyes. Plus, only a slight bluish color-cast at the far end of the white on the bar.

I am a happy camper.

Mary

[Asher Kelman]

You deserve a new LCD for all the work!

I'll have to email Granpa Channukah!

Asher

[Mary Bull]

You deserve a new LCD for all the work!

I'll have to email Granpa Channukah!

Asher
Thanks a mil, Asher. i hope it's not going to make too much trouble for you, editing out the conversation in re my corrupted Opera application.

It was a godsend to me to get all this on-line help with that persistent Console Error screen.

I think the thread has had a good run, and I learned a lot about color calibration on an LCD My personal thanks to all who posted, on or off topic!

Mary

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Mary,

I am terribly sorry for leaving you without any answers but I have been away for the whole day and a part of the night too (entertaining clients is a though job but someone has to it, says he smilingly). Just woke up, haven't had a coffee yet but logged in to see how things have gone since yesterday. I am very glad to read that your problems have now been resolved thanks to the helpful bunch out there :-). In the future, if you have any inquiries re. Opera or any other PC related issues, please feel free to PM me anytime.

Kind regards,

Cem

[Mary Bull]

You're going to be my main man, Cem.

At least, when you're not out to dinner, making your living entertaining clients. < sorry, could not resist >

Seriously, I do appreciate the offer and will take you up on it.

Mary

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Mary,

You can mail or PM me anytime, please don't hesitate. I'll PM you my personal e-mail address as well just in case.

Have a nice day.

Regards,

Cem

[Holly Cawfield]

What an amazing amount of information there is in this thread regarding colour management. All of it worth reading and one day I know it's going to be very useful to me. It was mentioned on one of the pages about Spyder calibration.

I had the very upsetting experience Mary suggested in her initial posts. First posting photos for critique and only later finding that their colours were nothing like what I was seeing on the monitor. It was two things that brought my attention to this subject of monitor calibration and they happened within 24 hours of one another. The first was a comment about a background that I thought was quite black and the people viewing it remarked on the blotchy green background. My reaction was a very intelligent, "huh?" Later that day I picked up photos I had ordered for print and they all looked as if they had been bleached.

In a kind of comical panic, I googled and ran to the store and bought the Spyder Suite. As Asher mentioned in one of his posts in this thread it was a remarkably simple solution ....though perhaps a 'digital entry' one. Nevertheless, the photographs on my monitor and prints now match quite exactly. My learning curves in so many areas are, at present, just too steep to try and attempt anything too technical in the way of colour management. Later that may well be the case but for the present this is a very workable solution.

Just thought I'd had 2 cents. :-)

[Nill Toulme]

Thanks for resuscitating this thread Holly. It was interesting going back over it. My own understanding has evolved somewhat since last October, to the extent that I don't entirely agree with myself anymore! ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,


. . . But how do we get the instructions into the LUT's?

The answer is a profile.

Not exactly.

The loading of the LUT and the function of a profile are separate but related.

- The LUT load brings the response of the monitor chain (video card plus monitor proper) to a standardized behavior - giving the monitor chain a clean (but somewhat arbitrary) "color space".

- The "matching" profile is consulted by an application (such as Photoshop), which uses it to transform the image from a standardized intermediate color space (PCS: the Profile Connection Space) to the color space of the monitor (as it has been arranged by the LUT settings).

Here's how that works in practice.

When I run a calibration of my CRT display with the ColorVision Spyder calibration system, the result is two things:

- A set of LUT entries. These have been loaded into the LUT at the end of the calibration session, and in addition a small program has been written, and placed in the Startup folder (so it will run whenever the computer is booted) which will write those same values into the LUT (each time the computer is booted).

- A profile, which is consulted by applications as mentioned above.

There is nothing that makes entries into the LUT based on the contents of the profile.