Monitor calibration

[Rachel Foster]

What do you recommend?


and which forum should this question be in?

[Edward Bussa]

Here's a good link to a review by people who know what their talking about: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm

One popular option (cheap/value) not mentioned in the review is the Huey...

Also, Datacolor just announced Spyder3 which seems like it should be worth a look...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07102201spyder3.asp

I haven't bought yet, so I can't give a personal recommendation...

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks! I've seen spyder recommended by others.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

What monitor do you have Rachel?

Those with a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) can be calibrated as there are things that are indeed adjustable. The LCD displays, by contrast, are what they are when they are manufactured and while they may drift from that state as the device ages, the display actually cannot be calibrated. One can alter the brightness, yes that's true, but that is not calibration.

What one does do is to profile the LCD monitor screen output. So various colors are called up by the software then then "puck" one hands over the flat surface, measures that color in hue and intensity and brightness. When all this data is collected, the software creates a table which links the needed color values and the actual colors delivered.

So from now on to get good color that we want, the software creates a Look-Up Table (stored often in the graphic card, (LUT table) by which whenever a particilar color is called for in an image, the software goes to the LUT and then tells the display to deliver a color as close to the true color as possible.

IOW, every picture is made up of colors that are discovered on a map of redirects! This means that one really needs a great record profile.

It turns out that this is easily done.

A Spyder, even an orginal one used is fine. One can do better but to have a benefit you probably need a better display.

Displays are good or bad based on a number of factors including:

Most displays are attractive and sell well for reasons tha don't help us in photography: Razma-taz bright colorful display for showing movies, playing games and impressing friends.

For us, we need:

A stable display where the profile taken today, will be valid an hour from now or tomorrow and the next week. Often the profle will drift as the electronics and lights age. However, at the very least, the profile should be stable for work in between scheduled re-profiling.

All LCD monitors need to be re-profiled at regular intervals.

The display will be most accurate in the center, where it was profiles, but the profile may not apply as accurately as one works one's way to the edges and corners.

More money will deliver a monitor that is more atable and uniform over the screen.

If one has a monitor that is at the lower end and drifts more, then getting the most expensive profiling system is not going to necessarily give one better color. the money is better invested in a more sophisitcated screen.

I tried a Dell 23" monitor. This was the birghtest screen I had seen with very punchy color. Unfortunately the color was drifting too much for trusting enough to know whether one needed to color correct a photograph. Buying a more expensive profiling system would be a waste of money.

I have used the Spyder, version ! and it works! It's a colorimeter, very simple but will do the job. If you can afford a better display, then you can still used the spyder, but then the Gretag MacBeth or Xrite spectrophotmeter are worth getting.


Asher

[Barry Johnston]

Would this help at all ?

http://www.pbase.com/barryvj171/image/88575089/original.jpg

Regards,
Barry.

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Barry, I'll check that out.

Asher, I'm working on a laptop. I'm wondering if this is a problem? I have an HP Pavilion 6567dv.

I'm just about to run adobe gamma.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks, Barry, I'll check that out.

Asher, I'm working on a laptop. I'm wondering if this is a problem? I have an HP Pavilion 6567dv.

I'm just about to run adobe gamma.

Rachel,

Many/most laptops (don't know about yours) are hard to get right, even with an expensive spectrometer. Don't waste too much money on profiling it.

Adobe Gamma doesn't work on LCDs, don't bother.

Bart

[Will_Perlis]

"Would this help at all ?"

Barry,

Yes. It indicates that an Eye-One Display 2 (What was their naming dept. smoking or injecting?) can do a nice job with my monitor and my video card.

The basic problem is, one can't really tell what gadgets play well with others without trying them unless there's a report on the net about identical gear, and even then ...

It's frustrating.

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,

The Monitor Calibration chart above is a nice way of looking at your screen. Give us a report!

Then it depends on money. If you can afford a nice LCD monitor then you can get a profile to optmize the appearance of colored images on the screen. Notwithstanding Bart's valuable comments, if you cannot see the color in your files, then you cannot accurately adjust color of your prints. In that case I'd use auto color in your camera and a take a standard exposure using a gray card and register that in your camera. Then I'd be very limited in color corrections unless you have a problem with a print.

Asher

[Rachel Foster]

I think I need to check into connecting an external monitor to my lappy. The problem is I can't resist hitting the contrast and it's terribly hard when the monitor isn't true. I think if I connect an external monitor my work might improve.

[Edward Bussa]

Is there a good resource on color stable displays?

[Asher Kelman]

I don't know a particular site. The displays that come to mind or the Eizo CG 21 and the latest NEC monitors. Do a search for a review and they should compare with like quality PS worhty dosplays. Even a great display should be checked every month at least.

Asher

[Edward Bussa]

I've been desiring the Dell UltraSharp 2407FP - I've heard it is the same panel as used in Apple's 24 inch widescreen - do you know of any good or bad regarding this LCD panel?

[James Newman]

Very interesting and informative thread. I have a 17" LCD display, inexpensive Gateway model, but the image quality, at least to my untrained eye, seems really nice. It works for me at least. I used it merrily for about 3 months and then bought the Spyder to profile it. It really made quite a difference. The reason I got the colorimeter was because a number of people were commenting on the color of my pictures looking a bit off to them in one way or another. I know you can't always go by comments like that because you have no idea what they are using to look at your pictures in the first place. Some were people I know though and they are very religious when it comes to profiling their monitors so I took their word for it. It's been great so far since profiling it but I was wondering, especially after Asher's post, how often should one re-profile their monitor? Ooops. Nevermind the last question. Once a month it is.

[Barry Johnston]

Rachel,

Here is an interesting page on how to set up your monitor etc, it's quite in depth, but I should imagine be quite accurate.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#Monitor_test_pattern

Regards,
Barry.

[Asher Kelman]

Barry,

Norman Koren is a very color savvy guy! So I looked at the first two images where one should see no wavy lines. Well I saw something! The black and white lines in the center shift up at one point. Nothing wavy at all. No colors at all. It's a pity that then expected normal appearance is not described clearly!!

Right off the bat I can see my monitor, according to the two diagrams for gamma might need recalibrating!!! Ha Ha! Black point may not be set right? I'll have to reprofile my monitor and then check to see how the diagram works again!

Asher

[Barry Johnston]

Yes, I've been wondering how long I've been using an uncalibrated monitor for !! ?? :~(

I only hope that all my photos so far displayed are alright....

Barry.

[Asher Kelman]

For sure Barry!

So, I wonder how the blue jay gets ready each day without a mirror!

Asher

[Greg Rogers]

Rachel,

Here is an interesting page on how to set up your monitor etc, it's quite in depth, but I should imagine be quite accurate.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#Monitor_test_pattern

Regards,
Barry.

Great link, Barry. FWIW, it was this page compliments of Norman where I began my quest into color management several years ago. Quick Gamma is a great utility, and I used it until buying my first colorimeter.

Note: Make sure to remove Quick Gamma before (and after) proper calibration with a colorimeter as well as killing Adobe Gamma)....or things get very messed up.

This is not for Barry's info as I assume he knows it. It would be bad for anyone reading this thread and having a calibrated monitor to install Quick Gamma to take a "look-see".......that's the reason for this post. I can't recall if Norman makes that clear on the linked page or not. No time to check right now.

For Rachel: Because you are using a laptop (me too 95% of the time)....be wary of the wavy line test being discussed on Norman's page. It is very dependent upon where your eyes are positioned vertically with respect to your laptop screen. The solution remains proper calibration with a colorimeter.

-Greg

[Will_Perlis]

"Well I saw something!"

Asher,

I've never NOT seen some artifact or the other when looking closely at (calibrated) monitors and test pix. I think it's a matter of getting close enough rather than getting to perfect.

Will

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So, I wonder how the blue jay gets ready each day without a mirror!

It's simple, they don't have bad hair days ...

Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Norman Koren is a very color savvy guy! So I looked at the first two images where one should see no wavy lines. Well I saw something! The black and white lines in the center shift up at one point. Nothing wavy at all. No colors at all. It's a pity that then expected normal appearance is not described clearly!!

This type of charts is best viewed when squinting, looking through your eye lashes. At the actual gamma value there will be a zero contrast differential. The charts are useful for a periodical calibration check.

In addition to display gamma calibration (which is not really possible with LCDs), here (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/index.htm) is a similar chart (select the gamma 2.2 version (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/22.htm)) but it expands the idea to RGB gamma curve calibration, I also recommend(*) it to verify accurate profiling(!).

(*) Caveat, the author of that 'AIM-DTP' site is a 'linear gamut' zealot, so take the rest of his pages with that in mind.

Bart

[Rachel Foster]

Well, I hooked my lappy up to an external monitor (NEC...but I don't remember the specifics) and it makes a big difference. Now I'm on to trying to figure out the calibration.

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

Don't forget about the ambient lighting, reflections, etc.

Best Wishes,

Ray

[Rachel Foster]

I'm still working on the calibration stuff, but in the meantime, I think I'm getting a handle on the focus issue that keeps coming up. I couldn't see it. My spouse couldn't see it. I'm suspecting the laptop was the problem. I've moved to an old desktop but it's hooked to the aforementioned nec lcd monitor. It's not great, but I saw the fuzziness that everyone kept mentioning.

So, finger on shutter button is gone. All is going to be done with remote shutter release now. I was in the park today and shot with with a 75/300, no is, tripod, and shutter release. This is not offered for compositional elements, just the focus question.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/leaves/rachel019.jpg

I remember a crusty old curmudgeon on OPF saying weeks ago I should use a tripod and remote shutter release. What was his name...it'll come to me. He was right (but let's not tell him that, ok?).

[Rachel Foster]

Well, once I put my stuff on an external monitor, I was shocked by what I was seeing. What looked fine and in focus on my laptop is harsh and poorly focused on the external monitor. I managed to get a new 22 inch HP monitor widescreen. Now I'm back to the basics, figuring out what settings I need and lighting works.

And using my remote shutter release for every shot.

[Will_Perlis]

Rachel,

I'll suggest you take a look at some of Phil Askey's samples for the XTi before you start tinkering.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page30.asp

You can download some at their full resolution to see if their sharpness compares with yours and how the colors show up.

Also, a color checker card (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=color+checker&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t)will go a long way to relieving anxieties or pin-pointing problems.

[Rachel Foster]

Thanks, Will, but the tinkering I'm talking about is with the physical set-up at the shoot. I'll confess...I've managed to acquire an HP desktop with a 22 inch monitor and I'm not touching it for a while. I'm going to work on the "Rachel" factor before I start messing with cams or monitors.

[Will_Perlis]

Rachel,

IMX it's hard to know if the stuff at the front-end is working right if the back-end isn't. From my side of the monitor the little twig and leaves don't look very sharp at all. That's why I suggested a comparison with some known highly detailed pictures.

[Rachel Foster]

They don't??? Well maybe a trip to the eye doc is needed then!

In the meantime, I'll ck out your links. Thanks.

[Rachel Foster]

Oh, mine are not there yet, I agree. That's what I need to work on and I think it's me, not the monitor.

Steps taken: tripod always if possible, remote shutter release. The Parkinson's is affecting my work, no doubt about it. Now that I can see it, I'm going to do some experimenting.

[Will_Perlis]

The Parkinson's is affecting my work, no doubt about it.

Most likely. I'm on some meds that are costing me about two or three f/stops in hand-holding ability. It's new and it's well beyond vastly annoying. Anyway, for the close-ups you might try the flash at the highest shutter speed the camera will support. Then shoot the same subject without it. You'll be able to compare what camera motion is doing to your pictures.

[Ray West]

Hi Rachel,

This image does not necessarily show camera shake, I think it may be depth of field, focus issues - the tip of the stem looks fairly sharp, maybe a slight breeze on the leaf.

Best wishes,

Ray

[Rachel Foster]

Ah. I recently shot a rose just like that, but on purpose.

That's the Rachel factor...knowing when I've got the square in the right place. I'm shooting a rose tonight and even though roses have been done to death and beyond, I like what I'm getting.

It's all about persistance and listening. I don't always agree with feedback, but every comment I've received has made me think. If only I'd discovered the laptop issue earlier. And if only I'd listened to you, Ray, about the remote shutter even if I couldn't see what everyone else was seeing....

Me and Frank Sinatra....

[Jon Mark]

Many/most laptops (don't know about yours) are hard to get right, even with an expensive spectrometer. Don't waste too much money on profiling it.

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor. My experience has been contrary to traditional wisdom. Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

[Asher Kelman]

Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

Stability!

Asher

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor.

LCDs differ in their capabilities. I've calibrated my Desktop LCD and my Laptop LCD. Both are calibrated as accurate as possible with the EyeOne Photo (spectrometer type), but the Laptop's LCD reds seriously 'suck', because it lacks in Gamut, and is more sensitive to viewing angle. IOW, I cannot judge color accurately/reliably, despite optimal calibration.

I'm not saying your Laptop's LCD is no good, but I also cannot say that the HP one is. I can say that it is a guessing game which ones are usable, and most are not.

Bart

[Edward Bussa]

Does Apple have an advantage here? Are the Apple laptops made with higher quality LCD's?

After reading this thread, I googled "Apple Color Myth" just for kicks, and I read how Apple is being sued for claiming "millions of colors" when their laptop panels are just as bad for omitting sections of the spectrum... ???

[Asher Kelman]

Here's my point of view, a geshtalt force that guides me.

On my 17" Mac Laptop, I do not make color alterations for any file for printing. I do find the screen is great for evaluating most images, but as Bart points out, it's not ideal. I do quick adjustments in color for a jpg to be posted in sRGB. However, I'd never want to invest time in serious photoshop work in my 17" MacBook Pro as I know this should be done on a better quality Eizo monitor.

If one keeps edits on the laptop to simple cropping, rotations and tonality (levels and curves) changes one is pretty safe. For color, grey cards, WhiBal or another standard is required, necessary, needed, compulsory to have some assurance of color independant of the monitor.

No monitor can show you what is present in the file! what matters is you don't screw it up by essentially looking through a ccolored piece of glass to you precious piucture! Women know this! If you buy a dress, you take it outside to see it in the daylight. Why? Because you don't trust you color judgement when the color of the light is wrong. Same with looking at your picture via the window of any monitor. You will do better with a professional monitor, but nothing will give you a free pass.

Ulltimately, one can even print from any LCD monitor and make all adjustments based on the final print only!

All in all, like any relationship, one cannot expect good results without investing the effort! Just think one is buying an expensive dress for some fine lady!

Asher

[Greg Rogers]

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor. My experience has been contrary to traditional wisdom. Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

Jon, if that's the MacBook Pro with the brand-new LED-backlit display, that is perhaps a horse of a different color. <horrible pun>. I'd expect it to perform well after calibration from what I've read about it. The only thing I know nothing about is if it has a wider colour gamut or not. In fact, I'm holding off on laptop upgrade hoping that this screen goes mainstream, or at least finds it's way to the PC market sometime.

For the rest of us with no LED-backlit display on our laptops, I still contend strongly that a decent laptop monitor isn't all that bad when calibrated, and totally worthless if not. But understandably not good enough for many experienced photographers / photo-editors.

Regards,
All

[Jon Mark]

I really like this discussion since monitor calibration is very intimidating to the beginner. The debate is do I buy it or can I get by -- at least that was the case for me. In retrospect, monitor calibration was the best "investment" that I have done since I was perpetually frustrated by colors/hues which were off.

Granted a laptop monitor can't compare to an EIZO or similar product which was designed for color accuracy -- often then cost as much if not more than a macbook pro... However, I still think profiling/calibrating provides a way to make sure the edits that you make to an image is in the right direction. It sure as heck beats guessing since I guessed wrong for over a year!

Bart's comments and input are very much appreciated as he's got much more experience than I. I don't think Rachel will go wrong by investing in a colorimeter to profile her laptop screen. As she improves, it can be used to profile her other equipment (future EIZO monitor?) as she expands her skills.

Just my 2 cents...

[Greg Rogers]

Jon, could you expand (perhaps via reflection on your thoughts previous to taking the colorimeter plunge) on what exactly you found intimidating? Did you envision the process as some complicated procedures that would baffle all but the great photographic and computer-literate minds that meet here? Could you also expand a bit on how you feel about it now, and how long from "out of the box" to your first calibration took?

It might help others reading / participating / and/or lurking here to take the plunge!

Regards,
Greg

[Asher Kelman]

If you can program your VCR your probably have 100 times more knowledge than required to use one of the color profiling pucks, anyone you chose, it doesn't matter a lot.

If you can understand a Viagra, Bounty Paper Towels or the Maytag Lonely Repairman adverts, you are ready to do profiling without pain!

Do you know how to play Bingo? That's far to much brain work. You don't need it. Drink at least 1 glass of wine, better 2 then you will have left the attention needed to do a perfect job. Why, simple! There's really nothing to do except put the device on your monitor and click!

Asher

[Greg Rogers]

I have no idea how to program a VCR. I do understand the other 3 though. <ahem>

Re my first colorimeter (clueless, had no idea what one even looked like at the time), I'd guess 20 mins from out of the box to.....voila. Done. And back then I believe 15 minutes or more was sitting there wondering if the stupid thing was ever going to finish. (thankfully much faster now). (note that that previous sentence is regarding my first colorimeter and operating software, not Viagra)

-Greg

[Jon Mark]

Jon, could you expand (perhaps via reflection on your thoughts previous to taking the colorimeter plunge) on what exactly you found intimidating? Did you envision the process as some complicated procedures that would baffle all but the great photographic and computer-literate minds that meet here? Could you also expand a bit on how you feel about it now, and how long from "out of the box" to your first calibration took?

It might help others reading / participating / and/or lurking here to take the plunge!

Regards,
Greg

Greg,

In researching colorimeters a year ago, I read Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Color Management." Talk about biting off more than I could chew! Reading about device profiles, ICC profiles, colorspace profiles and others very much overwhelmed me. I didn't know where these were located and how to select/use them. So I waited...read more...digested more...and the next thing knew, a year had passed. I stopped printing since I was never satisfied with the colors and hues.

Fed up, I took the plunge after I met someone who recommended ColorEyes Display Pro. I was told the software put the profiles where they needed to go. Googled ColorEyes Display Pro and found some very positive reviews online -- especially of the software interface.

Conviced a buddy to calibrate his system too. The process took 15-20min. Selecting things like target white point, gamma, white luminance, and color temp were explained in relatively simple language so I could understand what I was selecting and why. Initial impressions right after calibration was that our monitors were less bright.

Looked at my old pictures and they were ALL off -- that's not the color I intended and thought "oh $h1t" what did I just do. So I profiled again and no change. So I took an original image and post processed to my usual work flow. Printed on my i9900 and my jaw dropped. That night we went through over 20 8x10's and at least 50 5x7's. We changed inks on the photo printer multiple times...

In the end, I was happy with the result, and was more irritated that I waited so long to decide to make the decision.

Asher is right, anyone can do it and its not complicated at all. The terminology confused me the most. Everyone has their preferences of devices -- based on reputation, cost, interface, etc. I chose ColorEyes and it worked for me. Others have been happy with spider and others; sometimes passionately -- almost akin to the Canon and Nikon debates...

I think the mistake is for those that wait or put it off. Consistent feedback over the last 4 months is people's comments in regards to the color. Each time I hear that, it reinforces my decision that profiling the monitor was the right choice. Even my wife who almost fell over when she found out how much I spent agrees that the pictures are more appealing to her since the colors are nicer...

Hope others find this helpful.

[Greg Rogers]

Great post Jon. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your experience. Little doubt this will help some folks as they stumble across this thread.

My regret years back was the time wasted with various other methods which involve guesswork and too much reliance on the human eye.

Regards,
-Greg