Newbie monitor calibration question - Page 2

Ben_Edict · 11-01-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Go to a lab and save yourself endless grief and $$$$. Ink is scary expensive and so is paper.

I would second that notion! If your pics are mainly to please your friends and family, you either got them printed externally or you use your existing printer. Use the paper advised by Canon and they will have useable profiles included in the Canon printer driver.

Anything else will require a lot of investment and a steep learning curve. Nevertheless I would buy a calibration device for the monitor (the Spyder3 Pro is cheap and good), because this will really make a big difference.

One thing, you should learn is, to work in the correct colour space, because all your efforts with calibration will be useless, if you work in a colour space on your computer, that is not supported during printing. Most labs will expect JPG-format in sRGB colour space and it is the easiest route for you to work in that colour space throughout. If you want to take advantage during post-processing of the larger AdobeRGB or ProPhoto colour spaces, you should make the colour space conversion to sRGB yourself, when saving JPGs for printing. This will make a huge difference in the final print colours.

Ben

mysticcowboy · 11-03-2009, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by gsrokmix

Thanks for all of the advice guys. Some more to chew on! Will something like the ColorMunki be able to send it's profile to any printer? My wife has a Canon MP830 that I would probably play with before getting a dedicated printer for my Mac. I do music production for a living and don't even have a dedicated Mac printer yet. As far as matching paper to printer goes, where do I start? Will the manufacturer recommend a specific paper for optimum results?

I have the MP830 at home and have gotten it to produce very acceptable home photos. I use Costco paper (Fuji) and the PhotoPro setting. Cheap isn't always bad. Printing from Photoshop is a mess and by default gave a nasty orange cast. It took me some time to work up a custom profile for the printer. When my wife prints she uses the Canon printer utility, which does a decent job for snapshots. I do keep her Mac calibrated with a Spyder3.

At my office I have a Canon PRO9000 printer, which I find to be exceptional.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs

Spotmatic · 11-03-2009, 05:40 AM

George,

FWIW, ColorEyesPro was recommended to me by a knowledgeable photographer. Not the cheapest but very good and easy to use. I plan to get it because reading about calibration gives me a headache.

Ben_Edict · 11-03-2009, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Spotmatic

George,

FWIW, ColorEyesPro was recommended to me by a knowledgeable photographer. Not the cheapest but very good and easy to use. I plan to get it because reading about calibration gives me a headache.

The ColorVision software, included with the Spyder3 is more or less completely automatic and does not require expert kowledge to get good results. So, I think, this is also a very viable option.

Ben

Ahab · 11-03-2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by gsrokmix

I will check out the Epson, thanks. What are some of you other guys using?

George

I use an Epson with Kirkland Glossy Photo Paper. I've been told it's made by Ilford. My prints are very close to what shows on my late model IMac screen. I calibrated the screen using the Display Calibrator Assistant available in System Preferences.

tlwyse · Yesterday, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by gsrokmix

Hi,

I want to print some photos taken with my K20 on an inkjet printer. I am shooting RAW & using ACR & PS CS4 to PP & touch up. I use a Mac Pro w/ an Apple Cinema HD display. In order to achieve the best prints should I be shooting & editing in Adobe RGB? I am shooting PEF. Should I swith to DNG since I'm using all Adobe sw?

The choice of RGB "Working Space" profile could be a discussion all it's own. "Working Space" (Adobe's term) is synonomous with "editing space". I'll try to summarize the pros and cons....

Much of this decision comes down to an "output-centric" philosophy or an "input-centric" approach.
Output-centric means that you work/edit using a working space profile that is a good fit for the type of output you'll use for your images. If it's online or web-only output, sRGB would be the preferred working space. If it's print and you'll primarily be using matte or "uncoated" fine-art type papers, sRGB would still be a good choice for these lower-gamut papers. If your print output will be on wider-gamut inkjet papers such as Ilford Gold Fiber Silk or others of that ilk, AdobeRGB(1998) would be the preferred working/editing space as many of the better inkjet papers can exceed sRGB handily and push towards AdobeRGB. Newer printers such as the Epson 7900/9900 with their Utrachrome HDR inks can go beyond AdobeRGB which means an even "wider" working space than AdobeRGB might be called for.

An "input-centric" philosophy basically means that you want to capture and retain ALL the color that was present in the original capture...regardless of whether your output/printing system can actually reproduce those colors. The underlying idea here is that while today's printing systems may be "limited" to roughly AdobeRGB currently, there may be advances in ink/paper/printhead technology in the future that enable you to reproduce more of the original color gamut of your images. By using the widest color space possible (i.e. ProPhotoRGB) you're protecting your image "investment" for future advances in printing technology. Conversely, if you go with something like sRGB as your working space, you will effecively be deleting perhaps a lot of extra "color" that may be useful in the future.

While the answer might seem "obvious" to some that going with the widest working space profile today to protect against future advancements in printing technology, there are consequences....
First off, if you're going to use something as wide as ProPhotoRGB, you need to be prepared to work in 16 bits/channel (16bpc). A few years ago this would've been a concern since 16bit images are double the size of 8bit images and, naturally, will take up more hard disk storage and will add to the time it takes to edit and process your images. Today I don't think that's such a concern with the processing power we have and with storage being as cheap as it is today (example: I just purchased an external 2TB drive (WD MyBook Studio Edition) for a bit over $200, something unthinkable a few years ago). So, again, you'll need to work in 16bpc if you intend to use a wide gamut color space.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, if you choose to work in something like ProPhotoRGB, you need to understand that there's a very good chance that they'll be colors in your image that will go well beyond your monitor's ability to display them and your printer's ability to print them. ProPhotoRGB is MUCH wider than the best displays and the best printing technology we have today and likely for the foreseeable future. The fact is, your Apple Cinema HD display is probably an "sRGB" display....only a few of the very latest displays are considered "AdobeRGB" displays such as the latest EIZO displays and some of the newer LED-backlit displays. It's VERY likely that if you choose ProPhotoRGB as a working/editing space, you'll effectively be blind to many of the colors that exist in your images, depending on how you processed them.

My opinion? Choose a moderate working/editing space profile such as AdobeRGB. It's a bit beyond your display but some of the newer displays and better ink/paper/printer combinations can approach AdobeRGB. ProPhotoRGB is, frankly, a dangerous working space profile in my opinion. If you're concerned about protecting your images for future wider gamut printing and display technologies, the answer is simple: shoot raw/DNG and archive these for future use. Shooting raw is your best protection against advancements in output/display technologies. When something better comes along, simply re-render your raw image to a wider gamut working space profile.

I have read much about monitor calibration & am still confused as to the process.Simply loading a color profile won't do the trick? A hardware calibrator like a Spyder 3 Pro (which is reasonably priced for me & I've read some good things about) will tweak my monitor better so my colors onscreen will more closely match my prints?

There's really TWO critical things for accurate printing (or, more correctly, accurate "soft-proofing" of your images before you hit print). The first and most critical piece is a good hardware calibrator and software package. Interestingly, there was a LONG discussion on this recently on the Apple Colorsync list that was very informative. I've no direct experience with the Spyder3 but a colleague of mine that is the developer of ColorEyes Display Pro software speak highly of this instrument. Without question, the EyeOne Display and Display2 colorimeters are junk in my and a lot of color management professional's opinions. The two "best" colorimeters (as opposed to spectrophotometers) out there are the discontinued X-Rite DTP94 ("Optix") and probably the Spyder3. I'll get back to spectrophotometers in a moment as you may want to consider that option as well.

The second critical piece is having good and ACCURATE printer profiles. Even with the best display and calibration hardware/software, it won't mean a thing if you don't have good printer profiles. Getting good printer profiles usually means either downloading profiles that are specific to your printer/paper combination, having custom profiles made for you by a profiling service or simply getting the hardware/software necessary to do it yourself. By a large margin, having the ability to create your own custom profiles for your particular printer and paper combination is going to get you the best results.....but cost may be prohibitive. The entry fee for doing your own custom profiling is going to be around $1,000 for a basic spectrophotomer and profiling package (I would recommend the EyeOne Pro spectro and it's bundled software package for a start....but you can easily go well over $4,000 for the very best gear).

Back to display profiling for a moment....one of the "dirty little secrets" of using a colorimeter for display profiling is that the colorimeter needs to be tuned to the particular display's chromaticities. This "tuning" involves special filters that are optimized for the particular RGB chromaticities/spectral bands of that display. This generally means purchasing a specially tuned colorimeter for the particular brand/model display you happen to be using. Many of the newer LED-backlit displays offer custom colorimeters for exactly that reason. If you use a "generic" colorimeter, you might get lucky and it will work fine or it may not, depending on how closely the filters match your display. Enter the spectrophotometer.....spectros work fundamentally different in that they don't use filters but instead have an array of sensors tuned to capture discrete spectral bands. Usually it's at least 20 nanometer (nm) spacing but, in the case of the EyeOne Pro, it's actually a much higher resolution sampling of 3.3nm bands that are upsampled to 10nm band reporting. For this reason spectrophotometers do NOT need special tuning for a particular display technology but can in fact be used for any display. The catch? Price. While the typical colorimeter can be had for around $100-200, the relatively inexpensive (for a spectro) EyeOne Pro will set you back a minimum of around $800. There's also another spectro option recently introduced to the market called the ColorMunki, also by X-Rite. It's in the $400-500 range and comes with software for monitor *and* printer profiling. That's the real advantage of both the EyeOne Pro and ColorMunki spectros is that fact that they can be used for BOTH display and printer profling. In theory, since you're using the same instrument for both display and printer calibration/profiling, you should have very good correlation between your display and your final print....in theory.

How often should you calibrate/profile your display? Back in the CRT days, this was necessary at least on a weekly basis if you were critical about your color accuracy. Now with the much more stable flat panel displays, I think once-a-month is reasonable. Most monitor profiling packages have the option to install a little reminder application that will warn you when your display passes "x" number of days since it's last calibration.

My laundry list would look like this:
GOOD system:
Display: Spyder3 colorimeter and bundled software or find a used X-Rite DTP94 and get either ColorEyes Display Pro or the excellent basICColor Display software. Probably run you about $200-300.
Printer: Try and find good custom profiles or have them made for you by a service (generally about $150 per profile as I recall). If you stick with the printer manufacturer's media, they should have them for free (Epson printer+Epson media) but if you go 3rd party media, see if the paper manufacturer offers custom profiles of their media for your printer. If not, you'll have to have custom profiles made for you.

BETTER system:
X-Rite ColorMunki Photo ($500 list).
With this you'll be able to make decent display and printer profiles.

BEST system:
X-Rite i1XTreme package ($1,500 list). Includes EyeOne Pro spectro and printer profiling software. It also includes monitor profiling software but I would strongly recommend getting either ColorEyes Display Pro or basICColor Display software...they're better than what comes bundled with the EyeOne XTreme package.

Did this help? Did you fall asleep...or did your head explode?

Regards,
Terry

tlwyse · Yesterday, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Fletcher

AdobeRGB was originally created by the late great Bruce Fraser because it was a good gamut match for the hardware at the time and especially since it encompassed most of the gamut of printing presses. Modern inkjets with new ink/dye technology are greatly expanded in gamut. AdobeRGB is still a good choice for a working profile - but it may not allow you to get the most out of your print (especially if you are using new inks/dyes like Epsons HDR line). It also future-proof your edited images. For example, if you have an AdobeRGB image that you've worked hard on and in 10 or 20 years, you become famous and your early images are all the rage - when you go to print the image on new hardware... well you get the idea.

Personally, unless I have a very good reason not to, I edit in ProPhoto RGB.

First off, AdobeRGB was most certainly NOT created by Bruce Fraser....Bruce was the "author" of a custom space called BruceRGB...Adobe came up with AdobeRGB(1998).
I knew Bruce casually and his loss still reverberates throughout the imaging world....there hasn't been anybody that's come along yet to fill his shoes. He was a smart but humble man with very little ego. We've not had anybody come along so far with his unique combination of intellect and humility.

Careful when you state "Modern inkjets with new ink/dye technology are greatly expanded in gamut". In most ways, Epson 7900/9900 excluded, there hasn't been really much in the way of gamut expansion in the last 8-9 years or so. The real advancements have been a move to wider gamut *pigment*-based inks that approach or slightly exceed the gamut of the much less stable dye inks and a cooresponding improvement in color constancy (sometimes incorrectly referred to as "metamerism").

Even the newer Epson x900 printers and their Ultrachrome HDR inks only exceed AdobeRGB in specific color regions....but no printer/paper combination can match the dynamic range of ANY RGB working space profile since by definition they cover L*0-100. The very best printer/paper combinations only cover a range from about L*4-98 (a 2.40 Dmax is achievable only on the very best of papers). Don't get me wrong, the new Epson x900 series is very good but we still have a ways to go before a printer can fully encompass the AdobeRGB color space, let alone something like ProPhotoRGB.

Regards,
Terry

tlwyse · Yesterday, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by gsrokmix

I will check out the Epson, thanks. What are some of you other guys using?

Well, ahem, I've got a few:

* Epson R1400 for quickie "proof" prints such as contact sheets and for general printing needs.

* (1) Epson Stylus Pro 4000. I've contemplated selling it but it's still the only printer I have that can auto-switch between Photo Black and Matte Black inks....invaluble for going from semigloss and gloss papers to fine art papers.

* (2) Epson Stylus Pro 7800. Got them as a "barter"/trade deal with a customer that replaced them with a pair of HP z2100 printers.

* Speaking of....I've got an HP z2100 on permanent loan from HP. Nice printer....builit-in spectrophotometer (self-calibrates and can build it's own ICC profiles), auto-switch between Photo and Matte Black inks. Quality is superb in my opinion, every bit the equal of the Epson's except for the newer x900 series.

* Got an Epson Stylus Pro 9600 coming in next week....finally a 40+ inch printer for the really big stuff.....medium format digital here I come! (I can dream, can't I?).

For RIPs, I use both ColorBurst and GMG Colorproof.....no printing using RGB drivers here! (except for the R1400).

Terry

tlwyse · Yesterday, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by tlwyse

* (1) Epson Stylus Pro 4000. I've contemplated selling it but it's still the only printer I have that can auto-switch between Photo Black and Matte Black inks....invaluble for going from semigloss and gloss papers to fine art papers.

Clarify: only *Epson* printer I have that can auto-switch between Matte/Photo Black inks.

Terry

tlwyse · Yesterday, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by gsrokmix

I have read much about monitor calibration & am still confused as to the process.Simply loading a color profile won't do the trick? A hardware calibrator like a Spyder 3 Pro (which is reasonably priced for me & I've read some good things about) will tweak my monitor better so my colors onscreen will more closely match my prints? Does this need to be done often? I work in a small room with a low ceiling and recessed lights which are currently incandescent flood bulbs. No natural light to speak of.

I am not a pro but I would like to get some good prints without "learning the really hard way" if possible.

After reading your post a bit more carefully, I realized I probably went a bit over the top (ya THINK?) with my first explanation. I'll try to explain the process so you might understand better....

There's monitor CALIBRATION and there's monitor PROFILING....two distinctly different things but generally most monitor profiling packages include both.

The simple thing is just PROFILING your display....during the profiling process a series of know RGB values are displayed on your screen and then measured with either a colorimeter or spectrophotometer...these measurements are generally either Lab or XYZ ("device independent" values in color management-speak). Once the measurements are taken, a profile is created and saved on your system somewhere....which you then need to make sure your system is actually using by going to your OS's display settings or preferences and either select it manually or at least verify that your system is using it.

The profile itself is nothing but a table of values (look-up table or "LUT") that correlate particular RGB values sent to the display with what is actually being displayed on the monitor....."x" RGB values = "x" Lab/XYZ value on screen. Photoshop and other profile-aware applications will use this so RGB values in your image are correctly rendered to your display.

So that's a profile.....note that a *profile* does NOT change the physical behavior of your display, it is only a means for a profile-aware application can adjust it's preview for the particular characteristics of your display...the profile is simply the means to tell the application what alterations need to be made to render an accurate preview. I'll also throw in that a proper profile can NOT be created with just your eyeballs via some sort of "visual" calibrator like what Apple provides....you MUST use an instrument of some sort to get measured results....whether that instrument is a colorimeter or spectrophotometer doesn't matter all that much.

The CALIBRATION part is a bit different....calibration actually physically changes the behavior of the display. It's not exactly a NECESSARY part of the profiling process but it's definitely recommended.

The calibration part usually consists of at least three, possibly four different metrics. First, and probably most important, is setting the white point or color temperature of the display. Opinions vary on what this should be but I'll generalize that the color temperature should be between 5000 and 6500 degrees Kelvin (loosely referred to as "D50" and "D65"). If you're interested in doing critical color or accurate "soft-proofing" of your images before hitting print, the color temperature should loosely match your normal viewing environment. Note that it should match VISUALLY but not necessarily the strict color temperature of your lighting (don't set the monitor temp to 3400-3700 K even if your environment is tungsten). I happen to use a D50 viewing booth and have found that a color temp of 5500-5900 degrees Kelvin produces a good visual match as far as white point between my display (EIZO CG211) and my Ilford Gold Fiber Silk prints. Your mileage will vary.

The second "metric" of calibration is the luminance level ("brightness") of the display. This can be whatever suits you but if you're interested in standards, it's generally recommended to "turn down" most flat panels to a luminance level of between 120-150 cd/m2. Usually the color temp and luminance go hand-in-hand....the higher the luminance, generally the lower you can go with the color temp setting (but don't go below 5000K generally). The lower the luminance of your display, generally the higher you need to go with the color temp setting. At a luminance of 150 cd/m2, a color temp of around 5500K should work well....below about 120 cd/m2 you may want to go as high as 6500K to get a nice white point that correlates well with your viewing environment.

The third metric is the display's tone reproduction curve (TRC) or "gamma". For Photoshop, it doesn't much matter what you choose since it's profile-aware and well correct the preview to whatever gamma setting you choose. Having said that, generally you want to choose between a 1.8 and a 2.2 gamma, with 2.2 gamma generally the preferred choice since this correlates well with the "native" gamma of most un-calibrated displays (i.e. those folks with un-profiled displays that will be viewing your images online). With certain profiling software packages, you can also get into more esoteric TRCs based on CIECAM and L* gamma. I personally use L* "gamma" since it's a bit more perceptually uniform than a 2.2 gamma and will render shadow detail a bit better.

The last metric is usually the monitor's black point or the black luminance level. This is usually around .10-.30 cd/m2 but you can generally just use the software's default for this.

So, after that lengthy explanation, here's the short version of how it works...

1) Perform monitor *CALIBRATION...
a) Set color temperature and luminance level(s).
b) Set gamma level.
2) Create Monitor PROFILE...
a) display/measure patches and record the results.
b) create display profile and save to system.

It's also important to note that the profile itself is built "on top of" the calibration settings.....change the calibration in any way, say the monitor brightness or contrast, and you MUST re-profile the display.

* On high-end monitors with hardware LUTs (EIZO and others), the calibration is more or less automatic meaning you don't necessarily have to fiddle with the monitor's controls manually. With hardware LUTs, you simply request the settings you want to use and the display, in combination from feedback sent to it from the measurement device, will automatically adjust the hardware settings to achieve that. There's also the side benefit of >8bit LUTs with these displays resulting in much smoother rendering of gradations compared to using typical 8bit LUTs of video cards.

Later,
Terry

gsrokmix · Yesterday, 08:19 PM

Wow Terry! Thanks for the very detailed reply. I definitely did not fall asleep and yes my head almost exploded! Your post answered a lot of questions I had and then some, tying all of this together for me.

Thanks very much!

George