Color Matching

P
Posted By
PeoplesChoice
Sep 12, 2010
Views
1229
Replies
18
Status
Closed
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?

Powered by Creative Market

N
N
Sep 12, 2010
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?


N
N
nomail
Sep 12, 2010
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.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 12, 2010
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:33:02 +1000, "N" wrote:

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?

No. I plan to build a high powered Windows 7 PC and use a flat screen monitor.
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 12, 2010
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?
N
nomail
Sep 12, 2010
wrote:
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?

Some do, some don’t.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
G
gowanoh
Sep 13, 2010
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.

— —
PS
Paul Simon
Sep 13, 2010
"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.

— —
PS
Paul Simon
Sep 13, 2010
Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 13, 2010
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:37:34 -0700, "lofi" wrote:

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.

— —
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.
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 13, 2010
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
PS
Paul Simon
Sep 14, 2010
wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.

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
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 14, 2010
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.
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
What is your opinion of the Munki?
PS
Paul Simon
Sep 15, 2010
wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.
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
What is your opinion of the Munki?

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
N
N
Sep 15, 2010
"Paul Simon" wrote in message

wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:50:55 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.
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
What is your opinion of the Munki?

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.


N
P
PeoplesChoice
Sep 15, 2010
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 message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.
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
What is your opinion of the Munki?

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.
PS
Paul Simon
Sep 16, 2010
wrote in message
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 message
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:00:24 -0700, "Paul Simon" wrote:

Sorry, left my comments offl. See below.
"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
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?
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.
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
What is your opinion of the Munki?

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.

First, monitor <calibration> is used to set the white level to a particular luminance. Moitor color <profiling> creates a color profile to match standard internal colors i.e., 8 bit rgb data to CIE perceived colors on the monitor using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer and a given system gamma, generally 2.2 for monitors. Monitors are not matched to printers, but to an internal standard. Printers are profiled by using internal 8 bit rgb numbers and matching them to CIE perceived color.

I think you should go back to the book we mentioned earlier. Color management is a system where a central color management engine uses color profiles associated with various input and output devices to transfer subjective color from one device to another. For example, a color monitor profile is used by the color management engine to present a standard eight bit color to the monitor, knowing the monitor’s response via it’s color profile so that the color presented is the one defined by the CIE coordinates. That same internal color representation (8 bit rgb color image) is then taken by the color management engine with the printer’s profile for a particular ink and paper to create the same (or close to) color on the paper.

All bets are not off. This way one monitor can be replaced by another monitor without any effect on printer results if both monitors are calibrated and profiled. The same with changing printers, inks or paper.

Paul Simon
J
Joel
Sep 16, 2010
I don’t have the original so I will try to give some general information. Even you use the exact same equipments, the MONITOR may still need to be calibrated depending on.

– the lighting situation around you. Unless the lighting is exactly the same then you may not need to calibrate to suite the newer lighting.

Example, different light source could give different feeling, different effect. Like you have the window opened to have directly sun-light to monitor, you have windows closed, you have the light brighter, dimmer etc. then your eyes will see the differences.

That’s why in the calibrate it gives the options to set the brightness and tone to whatever you like, the hardware calibrator has an electronic eye to measure the current lighting condition to adjust the monitor.

– If you print from the exact printer with the exact same setting, and you are happy with the result. Then you do not need to calbibrate the monitor

IOW, you calibrate your tool (monitor for example) to the color you like, and trying to match the other device (printer for example). Or monitor calibrating just give you the general idea that your MONITOR is OK (may not be 100% perfect but not way off), and if you don’t get the average result (I say average because not all people like the exact same thing) then the chance that other hardware is off.

*If* both monitor and printer are well calibrated (good setting) but you still don’t like the result then it’s pretty much mean you like something different than most people, and all you have to do is adjusting your end (usually adjusting the photo) to whatever you like.

I don’t expect many people understand the whole general idea of what (monitor) calibrating is about.
J
Joel
Sep 16, 2010
"N" wrote:

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 just upgraded my CRT to 24" LCR little over a year ago, and I haven’t calibrated this LCD yet to know how well it works with the LCD. I am a professional photographer (haven’t done much in the past 2-3 years because of age and health) so I retouch for printing not displaying, and I use hardware calibrator to calibrate my CRT monitor to match the Photolab I use.

I used to do my own printing, but photplab is much cheaper now so I haven’t printed my own for many years. And I don’t have (any) problem with any photolab for many years.

– Before, I have to go to their web page to download their printer profiles. Some photolab changes quite often (like days or week) depending on the employee

– I know different photolab often give different result, depending on the printer, the ink, the paper, and combination. And many photolab asks or give you the option to allow them to auto-adjust to their setting, or print from your setting.

So, just like I have mentioned in other message. As long as you have your monitor calibrated or knowing that your monitor is in working condition (not off) then all you have to do is adjusting the photo to match the photolab.

Photoshop has option to load and compare the color of some specific printer profile (Ctrl-Y I think), but Photoshop has some issue displaying some specific color channel (especially the shinny red and few others) so sometime ^Y won’t be much help either.

Powered by Creative Market

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections