Caedes

Photography

Discussion Board -> Photography -> Monitor Calibration

Monitor Calibration

brphoto
08/04/04 8:52 AM GMT
As many people comment on the colors of images here, those who haven't already, should consider calibrating their monitors. That way, if an image is red; everyone will see the same red, not pink or burgundy (or any number of thousands of shades in between).

Monitors need to be properly calibrated and profiled to accurately display color and tone. ISO standards for digital imaging state that a monitor should have a white balance of 6500K and a gamma of 2.2. The most accurate method of calibration is to use a colorimeter or a spectrophotometer; however these are costly pieces of hardware. The easiest and least expensive methods are:

- Adobe Gamma utility (If you have Photoshop or Elements, found in the Windows Control Panel) (It’s really simple and will walk you through the calibration steps)

- Apple Colorsync utility.

If you don’t have either of these, search the internet for “monitor calibration” and you will find a plethora of fairly accurate color calibration techniques.


Some tips for accurate image editing/viewing:

- Disable screensavers and monitor sleep functions, and wait at least 1 hour after turning on a CRT or 20 min for an LCD before editing images. (To allow the colors to stabilize)

- Re-calibrate at least once a month to ensure accuracy.

- Enable Photoshop's color management (allows devices like a camera, monitor, printer, etc. to “see” the same colors.)

- Work in subdued lighting (no bright, direct light hitting the screen)

NOTE: The monitor will seem awfully yellow at first, once you get used to it, the normal setting of 9300K appears to be way too white.

All of these methods with the exception of the colorimeter and spectrophotometer are not 100% accurate; they are as close as one can get without shelling out a few hundred for a good calibration device.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."

Comments

Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
::noobguy
08/04/04 12:58 AM GMT
I find that adobe gamma is highly innacurate. Most new video cards come with gamma and color balance utitlities, you can find these in the adapter configuration under the windows video settings. The best way I've found to calibrate a monitor is "manually". Print one of your photos at a local printing store. Adjust your monitors gamma and color balances while keeping this photo open on your PC, attempt to match the colors in the printed photo. I have used various ICC profiles, and gamma software and NEVER gotten the results that I have gotten manually. I try and keep my monitor calibrated so I know what I am working with on the computer will show up the same once printed. I wouldnt worry too much about what other caedes users though, all monitors are different and most people are going to use a 9300k white balance because the colors are less offensive.
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
08/04/04 7:26 PM GMT
ISO standards? the correct daylight settings are 1.8 gamma on 5500 k temp. software calibration sucks and at the very least you should get yourself a pantone spyder for calibrating your CRT or LCD which is dirt cheap if your serious about your colour work.
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
brphoto
08/04/04 7:58 PM GMT
Are you viewing your sample print under D50 balanced light? Did the lab properly print the photo? (A lab print can not be trusted as an accurate, standardized sample, the colors and tones are set arbitrarily by either the machine or operator and only to a "consumer" level of accuracy.) Plus, prints will always look a bit different than the original source; it’s just the nature of the paper and dyes, so using an inaccurate sample to calibrate a monitor would render unacceptable results. I agree, the utilities are not truly accurate, but I find the manual way has far too many opportunities for significant error. Ideally, money would grow on trees, and we all could spend $1,500 on a spectrophotometer for a 99% accurate color management workflow.

(2.2 is the standard for the Windows operating system and the Internet-standard sRGB color space. The standard for Macintosh and prepress file interchange is 1.8; a white point of 6500K is accepted as the norm for monitor viewing in the photographic industry)

I have found the Pantone Spyder to be less desirable for my needs; I use the Gretag Macbeth Eye One Photo, as it will profile everything including the printer. This coupled with a SpectraLight III viewing booth takes care of my color management needs.
0∈ [?]
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
::philcUK
08/04/04 8:07 PM GMT
pantone spyders are around 90 quid and i calibrate my monitor to gretag/euro or dupont cromalin standards. i view work under normlicht daylight lamp viewing booths and change the lamps every six months to retain the colour fidelity. there is no need to spend anywhere near that much money - a pantone focused calibration system can be purchased and upgraded to include print fix spectrometer for a fraction of gretags prices. if you cant be bothered with all that - cromalin and gretag icc profiles are freely available to download off the net for your monitor and printer calibration albeit in a limited capacity. I use all this in my own office as money - as you so correctly pointed out - doesnt grow on trees but at client sites where money is less of a problem they have much more advanced gretag kit. I've found that i can achieve as good a match with my pantone calibrators and fine art proofers as they can with gretag and digital cromalin proofers. which is nice :-)
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
::noobguy
08/04/04 9:03 PM GMT
like I said, I want my photos created on the pc to match my prints. whether the print matches reality is another story. I dont want unexpected results when I print my photos. And I'm not worried about other caedes members. There is no way we are all going to get our monitors in sync.
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
08/05/04 3:33 PM GMT
was that what was suggested? - must have missed that....
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
::noobguy
08/05/04 4:17 PM GMT
"As many people comment on the colors of images here, those who haven't already, should consider calibrating their monitors. That way, if an image is red; everyone will see the same red, not pink or burgundy (or any number of thousands of shades in between)."
0∈ [?]
::philcUK
08/05/04 6:17 PM GMT
ah - tunnel vision/speed reading strikes again :-)

must pay more attention etc. etc.
0∈ [?]
"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps"
::noobguy
08/05/04 7:13 PM GMT
lol, all good
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):

Subject: