Brooktaw
Established
Hi
The recent thread about the importance of monitor calibration has prompted me to get on and buy a calibrator prior to printing work for an exhibition.
Since user reviews for the main candidates seem to fluctuate widely between "it made the world of difference" and "it just turned my screen green". I thought I should check in here for any recent experience before taking the plunge..
Any suggestions for a good device gratefully received.
Chris
The recent thread about the importance of monitor calibration has prompted me to get on and buy a calibrator prior to printing work for an exhibition.
Since user reviews for the main candidates seem to fluctuate widely between "it made the world of difference" and "it just turned my screen green". I thought I should check in here for any recent experience before taking the plunge..
Any suggestions for a good device gratefully received.
Chris
Ronald M
Mentor
Suggest you do a search for companies offering such tools, then phone and ask.
Mac screens can not be fully calibrated as they are missing some controls.
Last hint, holding down F1 or F2 + option will allow brightness to change in smaller steps. You need to get it down to 90 cndls per sq meter.
Eizo Color edge series are made for proper color work. They will self calibrate after initial setup. Next time buy a screen and computer, not a package.
Mac screens can not be fully calibrated as they are missing some controls.
Last hint, holding down F1 or F2 + option will allow brightness to change in smaller steps. You need to get it down to 90 cndls per sq meter.
Eizo Color edge series are made for proper color work. They will self calibrate after initial setup. Next time buy a screen and computer, not a package.
mod2001
Old school modernist
If you print yourself, you can use tools like Xrite's colormonki photo to create printer profiles,works for me like a charme with my iMac. Disadvantage is that you have to repeat the whole procedure for each type of paper, thats why I use only the same 2 papers stocks. When I work with external provider for bigger prints, I ask them to print my reference files on the paper we want to use and create printer profiles based on the results. works also perfectly.
In regards to monitor calibration, yes, the iMac retina displays are not callibrators dream, however, imho the differences to real graphic monitors are mostly overrated (at least for private usage).
Having said that, the Eizo's are a dream to work with for Color stuff, independent of the callibration advantages.
Jürgen
In regards to monitor calibration, yes, the iMac retina displays are not callibrators dream, however, imho the differences to real graphic monitors are mostly overrated (at least for private usage).
Having said that, the Eizo's are a dream to work with for Color stuff, independent of the callibration advantages.
Jürgen
x-ray
Mentor
Unfortunately glossy screens and especially the retina displays don't calibrate properly. The reason is they're designed to enhance what's actually there. They make images look brighter, sharper and contrastier than they really are. Actually I'm unaware of any display that apple makes currently that's really suitable for accurate editing.
As mentioned some of the Eizo screens are top notch and I understand HP makes one that's particularly good. While some people manage to work on a glossy screen most of us that do a lot of precise editing find a mat screen to be more accurate. I'm using a Lacie, don't remember the model, that fortunately is still calibrating correctly. It has a mat screen and displays 117%of Adobe RGB. The Eizo models designed for editing display 99 percent. Again unfortunately Lacie got out of the monitor business a few years ago. Next monitor will be an Eizo.
I'd suggest the colormonki as well. They're inexpensive and easy to use.
As mentioned some of the Eizo screens are top notch and I understand HP makes one that's particularly good. While some people manage to work on a glossy screen most of us that do a lot of precise editing find a mat screen to be more accurate. I'm using a Lacie, don't remember the model, that fortunately is still calibrating correctly. It has a mat screen and displays 117%of Adobe RGB. The Eizo models designed for editing display 99 percent. Again unfortunately Lacie got out of the monitor business a few years ago. Next monitor will be an Eizo.
I'd suggest the colormonki as well. They're inexpensive and easy to use.
willie_901
Mentor
I use the OS X calibration tool with a 2011 Apple Thunderbolt Display. This is a TFT IPS active-matrix LCD display with a glossy glass covered screen and LED edge-lit backlighting.
When I saw prints from a local pro lab, they came out shockingly similar to what I saw on the display. In fact, the results seemed too good to be true. Not only were the color hues perfect, but shadow region renditions perfectly matched the monitor. I asked one of the lab techs if they adjusted/corrected my images. They insisted they did not. I then independently asked the lab manager who confirmed no adjustments are made. B&W prints were also succesful.
I did take two additional steps. I made sure my work area was lit by lamps with the same color temperature. These were recessed ceiling lamps. I blocked out all outdoor light. I also tweaked the calibration about three times a year.
I also had excellent results using MPIX. But I did select their Color Correction option.
I never had a client complain about JPEG image brightness or color rendition. Of course when my images were printed in print ads, production techs probably made adjustments.
I use two monitors in post-production work. The second monitor is an Asus PA-246. I can not properly calibrate the Asus using the OS X calibration tool. The brightness is not a problem, but I can not remove very faint color casts. I don't review final renderings with the Asus, so I never bought a third-party calibration kit.
One exercise I would do is to photograph a calibrated gray card (I use a WhiBal G7) illuminated by a source with a single, known color temperature. Make sure the exposure at base ISO is maximized but not clipped and use raw. This is a useful, independent check for initial raw rendering parameters that produce pure gray.
When I saw prints from a local pro lab, they came out shockingly similar to what I saw on the display. In fact, the results seemed too good to be true. Not only were the color hues perfect, but shadow region renditions perfectly matched the monitor. I asked one of the lab techs if they adjusted/corrected my images. They insisted they did not. I then independently asked the lab manager who confirmed no adjustments are made. B&W prints were also succesful.
I did take two additional steps. I made sure my work area was lit by lamps with the same color temperature. These were recessed ceiling lamps. I blocked out all outdoor light. I also tweaked the calibration about three times a year.
I also had excellent results using MPIX. But I did select their Color Correction option.
I never had a client complain about JPEG image brightness or color rendition. Of course when my images were printed in print ads, production techs probably made adjustments.
I use two monitors in post-production work. The second monitor is an Asus PA-246. I can not properly calibrate the Asus using the OS X calibration tool. The brightness is not a problem, but I can not remove very faint color casts. I don't review final renderings with the Asus, so I never bought a third-party calibration kit.
One exercise I would do is to photograph a calibrated gray card (I use a WhiBal G7) illuminated by a source with a single, known color temperature. Make sure the exposure at base ISO is maximized but not clipped and use raw. This is a useful, independent check for initial raw rendering parameters that produce pure gray.
BillBingham2
Registered User
While it goes against the idea of a single great monitor/system/... what about a second monitor for color balancing?
B2 (;->
B2 (;->