2010-09-12 01:46:53
I used to use Photoshop 4 or 5 years ago - and, at that time, had to calibrate my scanner, monitor and printer. Has that requirement stayed the same - or is it easier now to calibrate the equipment?
#1
I used to use Photoshop 4 or 5 years ago - and, at that time, had to calibrate my scanner, monitor and printer. Has that requirement stayed
the same - or is it easier now to calibrate the equipment?
wrote in message news:
I used to use Photoshop 4 or 5 years ago - and, at that time, had to calibrate my scanner, monitor and printer. Has that requirement stayed the same - or is it easier now to calibrate the equipment? ==============
Do you still have the same equipment?
wrote:
I used to use Photoshop 4 or 5 years ago - and, at that time, had to calibrate my scanner, monitor and printer. Has that requirement stayed
the same - or is it easier now to calibrate the equipment?
Monitors still need to be calibrated. Printers usually come with profiles, so most people do not calibrate themselves. Scanners also still need to be calibrated.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:34:06 -0500, Johan W. Elzenga
wrote:
wrote:
I used to use Photoshop 4 or 5 years ago - and, at that time, had to calibrate my scanner, monitor and printer. Has that requirement stayed
the same - or is it easier now to calibrate the equipment?
Monitors still need to be calibrated. Printers usually come with profiles, so most people do not calibrate themselves. Scanners also still need to be calibrated.
Do more people (professonal photographers) use professional print shops
now?
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the brightness/contrast settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the brightness/contrast settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.Thank you - interesting!! Are you saying that color doesn't have to be calibrated anymore if I use the provided profiles? In the past, I've found the provided profiles to be garbage. Of course, this was about five years ago.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the brightness/contrast settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the brightness/contrast settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
wrote in messageWhat is your opinion of the Munki?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
My monitor, a Sony SD-HS95P, has a bad factory supplied profile. Dark black areas became a posterized green and Sony was not helpful. I bought a Huey (photometer) and calibrating and re-profiling the monitor made a great difference. I now use a colormunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration and profiling and am working at using it for paper profiling as well At this time I can't comment at this time about profiles for printing.
Paul Simon
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:
wrote in messageWhat is your opinion of the Munki?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will
yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived
brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see
on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
My monitor, a Sony SD-HS95P, has a bad factory supplied profile. Dark black
areas became a posterized green and Sony was not helpful. I bought a Huey (photometer) and calibrating and re-profiling the monitor made a great difference. I now use a colormunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration and profiling and am working at using it for paper profiling as
well At this time I can't comment at this time about profiles for printing.
Paul Simon
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:
wrote in messageWhat is your opinion of the Munki?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will
yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived
brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see
on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
My monitor, a Sony SD-HS95P, has a bad factory supplied profile. Dark black
areas became a posterized green and Sony was not helpful. I bought a Huey (photometer) and calibrating and re-profiling the monitor made a great difference. I now use a colormunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration and profiling and am working at using it for paper profiling as
well At this time I can't comment at this time about profiles for printing.
Paul Simon
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:
wrote in messageWhat is your opinion of the Munki?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will
yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived
brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see
on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- ---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors. They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
My monitor, a Sony SD-HS95P, has a bad factory supplied profile. Dark black
areas became a posterized green and Sony was not helpful. I bought a Huey (photometer) and calibrating and re-profiling the monitor made a great difference. I now use a colormunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration and profiling and am working at using it for paper profiling as
well At this time I can't comment at this time about profiles for printing.
Paul Simon
Well, it seems to work fine as a monitor calibrator/profiler. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had much success using it for printer calibration, but I think it's just due to my still being on the learning curve. I got to the colormunki by having problems mentioned earlier with monitor profiling, and I bought the cheapest hardware I could find, a Huey. It worked well enough for that. I then bought the colormunki to replace it as I was (and still am) having problems with color printing. I got a nice discount on the colormunki and paid about $350 for it rather than the $500 list.
It seems to work at least as well as the Huey for monitor calibration but I can't comment on printing profiling yet. I can't compare it to any other hardware except the Huey as I mentioned.
Paul Simon
========================
I've had good results with print profiling. I had photographed something from the kitchen with a few yellows, reds and brown/blacks. I did the monitors and the Canon MP970. I found the CM created print profile to be quite good when I held the print against the original items.
I haven't done much printing for a few months and don't have time to do any testing at the moment.
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:31:32 +1000, "N" wrote:
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:
wrote in messageWhat is your opinion of the Munki?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:I remember reading the first edition a while ago and then bought the current
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.I bought that book (I think) years ago. I wonder where it is now? I've
"Paul Simon" wrote in message
"lofi" wrote in message
Color matching is not the problem with flat screen monitors. The difficulty is matching brightness as the reflectivity of even glossy
paper is far less than the brightness of an LCD.
Hence a "properly" calibrated LCD, regardless of panel technology, will
yield color matched prints that are 1-3 stops darker than the perceived
brightness of the LCD panel.
"Properly" means that the LCD is set to its native brightness and contrast settings, which is what most calibration devices advise in their
manuals. This is absolutely incorrect.
Short of a dedicated graphics panel turning down the
brightness/contrast
settings of most LCDs (regardless of technology) toward the magical number of 90 will yield the most predictable results but individual users
will have to tune their own workflows.
In any event never judge a print in direct relationship to what you see
on the LCD screen, judge the print on its own merits under proper lighting after it has dried for half an hour.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---
Your answer is simplistic but correct to the first order. The greatest
error in <print> matching is monitor brightness set too high. Calibration
is adjusting brightness and contrast and a properly calibrated monitor will
match print "lightness" and contrast. A second adjustment to monitors is
profiling. Profiling is adjusting individual color light levels to a chosen
gamma so that colors on the monitor will closely resemble print colors.
They will never match exactly especially for more saturated colors.
A good reference book is "Real World Color Management" by Fraser, Murphy
and
Bunting, Peachpit Press.
Paul Simon
been too ill during the past years to do anything with photography and PS. Has it been updated to reflect the latest technology?
second edition. If I recall there isn't much that was changed.
My monitor, a Sony SD-HS95P, has a bad factory supplied profile. Dark black
areas became a posterized green and Sony was not helpful. I bought a Huey
(photometer) and calibrating and re-profiling the monitor made a great difference. I now use a colormunki spectrophotometer for monitor calibration and profiling and am working at using it for paper profiling as
well At this time I can't comment at this time about profiles for printing.
Paul Simon
Well, it seems to work fine as a monitor calibrator/profiler. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had much success using it for printer calibration, but I think it's just due to my still being on the learning curve. I got to the colormunki by having problems mentioned earlier with monitor profiling, and I bought the cheapest hardware I could find, a Huey.
It worked well enough for that. I then bought the colormunki to replace it
as I was (and still am) having problems with color printing. I got a nice discount on the colormunki and paid about $350 for it rather than the $500 list.
It seems to work at least as well as the Huey for monitor calibration but I
can't comment on printing profiling yet. I can't compare it to any other hardware except the Huey as I mentioned.
Paul Simon
========================
I've had good results with print profiling. I had photographed something from the kitchen with a few yellows, reds and brown/blacks. I did the monitors and the Canon MP970. I found the CM created print profile to be quite good when I held the print against the original items.
I haven't done much printing for a few months and don't have time to do any
testing at the moment.
Guess I don't understand. You have to calibrate the monitor to *something." Usually, that *something" is the printer. Therefore, what you see on the monitor closely resembles what is printed. You are actually calibrating the monitor to the printer/ink/paper you are using - all at the same time. If you were to change the paper, for instance, you would have to create a new profile for that specific paper. The same would happen if you changed the ink (which I wouldn't recommend - always use the printer manufacturer's recommended ink). You can also calibrate the scanner to the monitor (so that what you scan looks to the eye like what is on the monitor) and, then, the printer to the monitor. Then, all three pieces of hardware will be calibrated to each other. If you change one of the variables, then all bets are off. I suggest you research this issue so you totally understand what you're doing. I don't mean to be critical (I went through the same thing myself). But, it's important to understand it so your prints come out like you expect. The Munki should do all you want.
Well, it seems to work fine as a monitor calibrator/profiler. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had much success using it for printer calibration, but I think it's just due to my still being on the learning curve. I got to the colormunki by having problems mentioned earlier with monitor profiling, and I bought the cheapest hardware I could find, a Huey. It worked well enough for that. I then bought the colormunki to replace it as I was (and still am) having problems with color printing. I got a nice discount on the colormunki and paid about $350 for it rather than the $500 list.
It seems to work at least as well as the Huey for monitor calibration but I can't comment on printing profiling yet. I can't compare it to any other hardware except the Huey as I mentioned.
Paul Simon