Down the Rabbit Hole of Colour Managment

[TheBigE]

All,

So after reading through the great information in Grey Card and White Balance I started looking at my options for WhiBalance Cards and quickly ended up really liking what I saw in the X-Rite Colour Passport. In short, this makes sense to me and I can really see the value in having and using the Colour Passport Done and sold, and away down the rabbit hole I went...

Naturally, I then of course started reading about Monitor Calibration/Profiling. There was not stopping the fall down the rabbit hole at this point. I could immediately see where this would fit and the benefits, as a note I use my MacBook Pro Retina display and in various room environments for all of my PP work. I have seen, and can understand how different lighting conditions and monitor profiles can impact the color rendering of photos.

My purpose here is not to evaluate the merits of the different tools out there to conduct this exercise (monitor calibration and profiling) I certainly think there are plenty of good quality tools that can obtain the required results. However, my final question lies with - what does calibration and profiling gain me? Points 1 and 2 below are what I think:

1. I can fully accept the need to meet a standard and know that my work is calibrated to a standard. This gives me an internally good feeling to know that what I saw, captured and displayed are all the same This is enough for me to see value and I could stop here. But I am falling down a rabbit hole here.....so let me go on.

2. Should I ever want to have my photos printed, then (assuming I found a calibrated printer) I could be happy to know that my photos would be represented correctly and no need for additional modifications before printing.

These are both more than enough for me to justify monitor calibration/profiling as a good exercise. But what about the other outputs of photos - let say I want to post to social media, on smug mug, email etc. My thought is - others would not see the images the same way as I do unless their system was calibrated? Am I correct in this assumption?

Most of what I do will be done electronically to the above mentioned sites, does Monitor Calibration and Profiling have any impact on these or is it minimal.

Any thoughts or inputs are appreciated. Thanks

Erik

[Mike Buckley]

My thought is - others would not see the images the same way as I do unless their system was calibrated? Am I correct in this assumption?

Yes, you are correct. The only way you can ensure that others see essentially the same thing you see is for you to provide them a print. Even then, if they are looking at it using a different light source or have issues with their eyes, their perception will be different than yours.

Most of what I do will be done electronically to the above mentioned sites, does Monitor Calibration and Profiling have any impact on these or is it minimal.

That depends on your point of view. I use a profiled and calibrated monitor. If it matters that I am seeing your image displayed on my end essentially as displayed on your end, that is up to you.

My thinking is that anyone who doesn't profile and calibrate their monitor is eliminating a relatively easy and inexpensive step that, when not done, prevents them from being a serious photographer; anyone who isn't serious about the consistent display of their images is a casual photographer, not a serious photographer. There is nothing wrong with being a casual photographer but being casual and serious are not the same.

Another way to look at it is that I don't concern myself with things I can't control, such as whether other people profile and calibrate their monitors. However, I do concern myself with things I can control so I profile and calibrate my monitor.

Aside from sharing your images, imagine changing your monitor or video card in the future. If you don't profile and calibrate your hardware, your images might look very different to you every time you make a change to your system.

[Simon Garrett]

One enormous can of worms opening here. Take it that every statement of mine below is preceded by "IMHO".

1. I can fully accept the need to meet a standard and know that my work is calibrated to a standard. This gives me an internally good feeling to know that what I saw, captured and displayed are all the same This is enough for me to see value and I could stop here. But I am falling down a rabbit hole here.....so let me go on.

Getting colour right and consistent certainly helps. Monitor colour, contrast and white point vary quite a lot. Unless it's calibrated and profiled (with a hardware tool: i1, Spyder etc) a monitor might be displaying somewhat incorrect colour. There's no way of telling by eye. If you edit an image so the colours are correct to your judgement, you might in fact be introducing errors in the colour that are cancelled out by errors in the monitor.

2. Should I ever want to have my photos printed, then (assuming I found a calibrated printer) I could be happy to know that my photos would be represented correctly and no need for additional modifications before printing.

Yep, if the monitor is calibrated/profiled, and the printer (whether yours or a commercial print shop) uses colour management, then the colours will be the same, allowing for limitations in both monitor and printer rendering - but you can predict that to some measure with soft proofing.

These are both more than enough for me to justify monitor calibration/profiling as a good exercise. But what about the other outputs of photos - let say I want to post to social media, on smug mug, email etc. My thought is - others would not see the images the same way as I do unless their system was calibrated? Am I correct in this assumption?

Clearly you can't control the viewing environment of people viewing your image on the web, and the vast majority of people viewing the web don't use calibrated/profiled monitors, of course.

Some people say that's an argument for not calibrating/profiling one's own monitor because:

1. If people viewing my image don't use colour management I should do the same, so I am closest to them.
2. Because other people don't use colour management there's no point in my using it anyway.

Point 1 is nonsense: it suggests that somehow all unmanaged web browsers are the same, and if I don't use colour management my images will be the same too! Unfortunately all unmanaged web browsers are different, with fairly random errors in colour rendering. It doesn't make it better to add some errors of my own!

Even point 2 is wrong, IMHO. Here's why I think so. The majority of images on the web from commercial sources (broadcasters, films, news sites) will have roughly the right colour. Most people don't use colour-managed browsers (calibrated/profiled monitors), so may display false colour. However, they get used to what correct colour looks like on their false-colour browser! So your image will look best if colours are correct - because people are used to seeing mainly "correct" colour on their browsers, albeit rendered incorrectly. I hope that makes sense.

For me there's another reason why I like to use colour management (that is, use of colour-managed software, a calibrated/profiled monitor, and profiles for the printer). It provides not only better accuracy, but consistency. Once colour management is set up, it just works. When I change my monitor or printer, provided I have appropriate profiles then the colours are the same.

[chauncey]

what I saw, captured and displayed are all the same

Never gonna happen...what you should have said is 'What I remember seeing" as time changes one's perception.

others would not see the images the same way as I do unless their system was calibrated? Am I correct in this assumption

Absolutely correct.

For the guru or color management, go here...http://digitaldog.net/

[Manfred M]

Erik - the only way you will ever know that your colours are correct is to do your editing on a calibrated and profile computer screen. If someone else suggests your colours are off, at least you know that it is their computer, not yours.

The second issue is printing, and here when you follow a colour managed workflow, you are looking at specific printer (ink) and paper profiles. Again this ensures that the colours in your prints come out correctly.

Websites are only going to display what you have posted, so if your colours are correct, they will display correctly, but only if you post sRGB images (other colour spaces are not supported and an AdobeRGB or ProPhoto image will look muddy) and use a color managed browser. Firefox is colour managed, and I believe Chrome is as well.


All that being said using a custom profile, as per the xRite tools or a white card are going to speed up your workflow because nailing the white balance is going to be very quick in post, assuming that you are not shooting under mixed lighting conditions.

[Mark von Kanel]

LOL enjoy your journey down the rabbit hole! just wait till you get into printing your own stuff... The hole goes Down & Down & Down & Down & Down..... All part of the learning curve, enjoy the fall.

[James G]

Erik, I'm afraid Mark and Manfred have the right of it...
ALL the previous feedback is on the button...
I have profiled my camera, I have profiled my monitor, I now profile papers for my printer/ink setup. Why?... because doing so means that I have established a workflow for image processing which is 'technically' consistent from end to end... so....
I cannot blame my camera, my monitor or my printer for my less than adequate skills as a photographer !!!!!

I'm the problem and I have to face up to it squarely and admit.. (at least to myself), that I need to find a way to profile myself to be more consistent, develop a better 'eye'.... and generally do better at the capture stage

I can't con myself that a different monitor or a 'better' bit of hardware is going to generate the necessary improvements....

[Richard Lundberg]

I'm continually amazed by the lack of understanding of the necessity of color management for photographic work. I've seen posts in this forum and others by people who are almost proud of the fact that don't have a profiled display, particularly those who only work sRGB.

[Mark von Kanel]

I'm continually amazed by the lack of understanding of the necessity of color management for photographic work. I've seen posts in this forum and others by people who are almost proud of the fact that don't have a profiled display, particularly those who only work sRGB.

You have? dont remember seeing any comments like that on here!

[Simon Garrett]

I'm continually amazed by the lack of understanding of the necessity of color management for photographic work. I've seen posts in this forum and others by people who are almost proud of the fact that don't have a profiled display, particularly those who only work sRGB.

I don't know whether it's on here or other forums, but I've read people suggesting that it's a good idea not to use colour management if producing pictures for the web, so you are "the same as most people on the web". This is, of course, nonsense. You can't be the same as people that are all completely different.

But you can aim at the middle of the pack, by using colour management yourself.

[chauncey]

Aside from the color management and monitor profiling aspect of the equation, one needs to be aware
of the impact on your images from altering color spaces and bit depths.

As an example...I work in PS CC ProPhoto color space, yet when I hit that "Save for Web" button, all sorts
of funky things happen. Saturation go up as well as brightness...more adjustment layers are called for.

Then ya gotta deal with your hosting site and what they do to your cherished images.
All in all, the words PITA come to mind.

[Mike Buckley]

But you can aim at the middle of the pack, by using colour management yourself.

Sadly, I seriously doubt that the middle of the pack profiles and calibrates their monitor.

[Mark von Kanel]

Sadly, I seriously doubt that the middle of the pack profiles and calibrates their monitor.

Thats why on CIC we are.....

The leaders of the pack rummmmm RUMMMMMM....

[DanK]

Erik,

It really isn't a rabbit hole. Well, color management is, but calibrating your monitor isn't. It is a very simple process if you can get access to the right hardware. In my opinion, it is absolutely essential.

Dan