Calibrated Monitor - Is it supposed to look like this?

[Didace]

Following the advice given many times here and elsewhere, I have calibrated my monitor (using x-rite ColorMunki Display). I had anticipated that the settings were too bright but was not prepared for how much change there actually was. It has been a few days since I did the calibration and I'm not noticing it as much now, but I keep wondering if this is what I'm supposed to be seeing on a properly calibrated monitor. Or, have years of looking at too-bright monitors trained my eyes to expect something that is wrong?

Is there anyway to test that everything has been set properly? I ran the calibration a second time and got what appear to be the same results.

[Manfred M]

A properly calibrated and profiled screen is the basis for a good colour managed workflow. This will mean that when you edit your images, the colours are being reproduced correctly. Anyone else with a calibrated and profiled screen should be seeing the same colours as you are.

That being said; you still may find that your screen is too bright (mine is) when I print and I do have to make an additional adjustments to get my prints have the right brightness.

[Didace]

That being said; you still may find that your screen is too bright (mine is)

I should clarify that everything looks very dark to me now.

[IzzieK]

I have always wanted to ask this question...when you calibrate your monitor, do you make sure you calibrate it to the current light in the room or do you shut your blinds and black out curtains? When I calibrate my monitor, I shut my blinds and the curtains because in my mind, where my monitor is situated, during the day the light changes (facing SouthEast) each time...so to compensate for this, I shut off all light source(s), calibrate my monitor, then let in the light again (as I needed to use it for my piano too not just my pooter.)

A properly calibrated and profiled screen is the basis for a good colour managed workflow. This will mean that when you edit your images, the colours are being reproduced correctly. Anyone else with a calibrated and profiled screen should be seeing the same colours as you are.

That being said; you still may find that your screen is too bright (mine is) when I print and I do have to make an additional adjustments to get my prints have the right brightness.

[pnodrog]

Most uncalibrated monitors tend to have both the contrast and in particular brightness set to high. In another thread Seagull flying against blue sky there has been some comment that the whites are burnout but on my screen they look marginal but O.K. Have a look and see what you think.

[IzzieK]

Ouch! That was my post...I know it is marginal but it is still a bit overexposed. I had not seen any of Otavio's shots that was bad at all. And that impromptu shot of that seagull wasn't bad but...

Most uncalibrated monitors tend to have both the contrast and in particular brightness set to high. In another thread Seagull flying against blue sky there has been some comment that the whites are burnout but on my screen they look marginal but O.K. Have a look and see what you think.

[Manfred M]

You should be setting up to work under your "normal" lighting conditions. If you set up in a dark room; your irises will open up and the screen will look a lot brighter than it would under normal working conditions.

I use a rather ancient xRite - i1 device, so can't suggest how the newer hardware works. When I profile my screen, the first step is to take an ambient light setting. My photo / video edit computer is in a basement office with neutral grey walls and a decent, but not high level of light. To me this is ideal, as the ambient light level is relatively constant.

[chauncey]

Be aware that even with that properly calibrated monitor and a printer/paper profile used to soft-proof...your prints will look different under different lighting scenarios.

[Colin Southern]

@ Didace & Isabel,

In short, it depends on the colorimeter and personal preference.

Colorimeters like the Spyder III & IV measure ambient light levels (which are key) and make a (cough, lame) recommendation based on that, but personal preference also plays a big part. Most suites will want to calibrate and profile to around 100 to 120 cd/m2 - and yet I run mine to 200 cd/m2 ... but I also like bright room lighting. In an ideal world, I should be using both lower monitor and lower ambient light levels - and have neutral gray walls - but I don't live in an ideal world.

Didace, you'll probably find if you sit in the dark the levels are OK - but obviously that's not what you want to be doing. My suggestion would be to re-calibrate for around 160 to 180 cd/m2 and additionally, have a check of a few gray scales to ensure you can distinguish both the darkest and lightest series of patches (sorry, I don't have a pointer to one just at the moment -- hopefully someone else can point you to one).

[pnodrog]

Ouch! That was my post...I know it is marginal but it is still a bit overexposed. I had not seen any of Otavio's shots that was bad at all. And that impromptu shot of that seagull wasn't bad but...

Yes you are right I have just checked the histogram and it looks as if some clipping has occurred. But on a calibrated monitor there should be detail in most of the head area.

[xpatUSA]

Here's one from another site that reviews cameras:



They "calibrate [our] monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks [above]. We recommend that, to make the most of this review, you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C."

[Colin Southern]

Yes you are right I have just checked the histogram and it looks as if some clipping has occurred. But on a calibrated monitor there should be detail in most of the head area.

For what it's worth, I find that even on calibrated and profiled screens it's often hard to differentiate a lot of upper highlight detail, even though histogram and/or highlight alerts aren't showing it as clipped.

[IzzieK]

OK these all answers my question -- that I have to recalibrate my monitor -- in an ambient light (current lighting conditions that is.) Thanks for all the replies. I really appreciate this very, very much. You have all been helpful.

[Didace]

Thank you all for your input.

While doing some searching I came across this website - Lagom LCD monitor test pages.

My monitor seems to do very well on these tests. Are any of them worthwhile? Which ones would you say are more important (assuming they are any good at all)?

[Polar01]

The most important one is the X-rite ColorMunki, do not use any of these so called test pages if it has any thing to do with colour correction You have to remember that if you are using your eyes to judge if the colour is right, you are incorrect, as you see a colour differently than I do, unless you have a standard to judge against. This will be most noticeable when and if you put the image on a colour corrected system then you will see that the image is real crap colour wise.
The grey scale is good as you should be able to see all the shades, now the one Ted showed is 26, most are only 10 levels, more levels the better, however 10 is good.

Cheers: Allan

[IzzieK]

What sort of ColorMunki do you use? I googled it and they have 4 models, $79, $89, $157 and $379...Is the more expensive the best one or are they all the same in their functions, some with extra accessories, the lesser value with no accessories...

The most important one is the X-rite ColorMunki, do not use any of these so called test pages if it has any thing to do with colour correction You have to remember that if you are using your eyes to judge if the colour is right, you are incorrect, as you see a colour differently than I do, unless you have a standard to judge against. This will be most noticeable when and if you put the image on a colour corrected system then you will see that the image is real crap colour wise.
The grey scale is good as you should be able to see all the shades, now the one Ted showed is 26, most are only 10 levels, more levels the better, however 10 is good.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

At the risk of being boring because I always mention this, be aware that a perfectly calibrated monitor will not display color accurately when using a browser to display images if the browser doesn't properly display them. All browsers are definitely unequal. I have settled on using Firefox and would not go near Windows Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.

[Manfred M]

Thank you all for your input.

While doing some searching I came across this website - Lagom LCD monitor test pages.

My monitor seems to do very well on these tests. Are any of them worthwhile? Which ones would you say are more important (assuming they are any good at all)?

These "test pages" are totally useless as they rely on your eyes, rather than a standardized and calibrated colorimeter to do the assessment.

That being said, your screen can still be the weak link. Low end screens have been built to hit a price point and the audience will be people watching video or playing games; not photo editors looking for excellent colour fidelity.

[Polar01]

No Isabel there are only three models in the ColorMunki line, smile, display, and Photo, now there is another line i1 solutions line which is geared for the professional. Smile works only on your monitor, Display monitor plus projector, and Photo everything including calibrating of photos.

Cheers: Allan

[Didace]

Thanks again for the replies. A few random items:

• I use Firefox for a browser.
• I have and used the x-rite ColorMunki.
• My monitor is a HP 2311xi. Not high-end by any means, but it's pretty good for the price, at least according to the reviews.
• I asked about the test site to see if any of it could be used to determine if the calibration had been done properly.
• On the gray-scale Ted posted, I can easily see A,B,C. X,Y,Z are distinguishable but I need to look closely.
• With the ColorMunki, there is an option to do "Easy" or "Advanced". I chose easy as this is new to me and the documentation about what advance requires isn't great.
• Does anybody have any insight on using the advanced option and what it entails? Should this be the way to go?

This could just be much ado about nothing. It's just that the change in brightness was dramatic to the point that some photos I thought to be a bit over-exposed now look fine. I think in the end I may just have to retrain myself on what I'm looking at.