Which calibration device?

[xpatUSA]

I use monitor calibration software but, IMHO, it's merely eye candy.
We go thru all the hassle of insuring soft proofed/"color corrected" (whatever that even means)
images that will most likely never even be printed, and then, come to find out that after
all that image tweaking...it still doesn't look "right" because of different display lighting scenarios.

To quote the infamous teacher, Scott Kelby, "when in doubt, make another print".
Oh, hell yes...make another print at what, $5-10 a pop because the reds are to bright under
that lighting...makes sense to me...yeah right it does.

I agree with William's sentiment but I don't print at all.

Maybe one day, but right now my monitor remains satisfactorily un-calibrated. Just sayin' . . . . .

[Davidgypsy]

I have successfully used a Spyder product for years. If you choose from that line of products, you would select the model based on the device(s) you plan to calibrate. The company has a chart on their website explaining which products each model will calibrate.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike. I currently use Spyder 5 Express on a dual monitor system.

Good Luck, David

[Mike Buckley]

Maybe one day, but right now my monitor remains satisfactorily un-calibrated. Just sayin' . . . . .

It could be that your monitor happens to present a relatively accurate display. My previous monitor was just fine in the sense that calibrating it resulted in so little change that I wouldn't have noticed the difference until viewing a before-and-after comparison. That's very different from my current monitor, which displays a noticeably green color cast before calibrating it or before the Spyder profile is loaded upon bootup.

[chauncey]

It appears that once more my communication skills have failed me...my bad.

My comments, directed toward the hobbyists among us, were more philosophical than anything...
I was questioning why we, myself included, spend so much time/money/whatnot in an attempt to
create a great image which, in all likelihood, will never be printed. Personally, of my almost 20,000
images, only about 8 have been printed. The rest are merely the eye candy, to which I alluded.

We continue to ask our peers...which gear/software is better for a particular type of image or PP.
Valid questions to be asked in seeking eye candy to occupy our hard drives.

We chase this indescribable "pursuit of perfection" within this insane hobby that we've chosen to
occupy our time...why. To say that it helps keep a doddering old man's mind reasonably sharp
would be my personal response. Albeit, maybe a cheaper one might have wiser.

So, I ask again, if we don't print, why soft-proof or calibrate or anything else, sans printing?
And, even if you print...total satisfaction is unattainable.

Awaiting the torches and pitchforks.

[Manfred M]

It appears that once more my communication skills have failed me...my bad.

My comments, directed toward the hobbyists among us, were more philosophical than anything...
I was questioning why we, myself included, spend so much time/money/whatnot in an attempt to
create a great image which, in all likelihood, will never be printed. Personally, of my almost 20,000
images, only about 8 have been printed. The rest are merely the eye candy, to which I alluded.

We continue to ask our peers...which gear/software is better for a particular type of image or PP.
Valid questions to be asked in seeking eye candy to occupy our hard drives.

We chase this indescribable "pursuit of perfection" within this insane hobby that we've chosen to
occupy our time...why. To say that it helps keep a doddering old man's mind reasonably sharp
would be my personal response. Albeit, maybe a cheaper one might have wiser.

So, I ask again, if we don't print, why soft-proof or calibrate or anything else, sans printing?
And, even if you print...total satisfaction is unattainable.

Awaiting the torches and pitchforks.

Pitchforks are optional.

You are ignoring one important part of the workflow; camera to computer. If you are working in raw, then you really should be using a calibrated and profiled screen. Frankly you should be doing this for jpegs as well.

Unless you do so you with have no idea if your colours or brightness are correct or not. This is not eye candy but rather just good practice. I just don't understand why an advanced photographer would ever consider anything else. If you are careful and are happy with your SOOC jpegs, won't argue, but if you know better than your camera, then you need to have an appropriate workflow.

[Mike Buckley]

So, I ask again, if we don't print, why soft-proof or calibrate or anything else, sans printing?

I calibrate my monitor because I share my images electronically and I like knowing that I have done everything I can do to ensure that others viewing my images electronically are seeing the colors I am intending them to see. That can be done only if I calibrate my monitor (among other things). As a serious photographer, I feel that I have that responsibility to other serious photographers who are taking the time to review my photos, much less make comments about them.

I realize that many people are viewing my images not using a calibrated monitor and, thus, probably are not seeing the colors I intend them to see. I can't do anything about that other than influence them with the hope that they will change to the use of best-practice viewing.

I was questioning why we, myself included, spend so much time/money/whatnot in an attempt to
create a great image which, in all likelihood, will never be printed.

Far more people have viewed electronic versions of images made by the master photographers than their prints. I'm glad the masters and the current leaders of photography took the time to make their images as good as possible; it's not as if that would matter more if I would view one of their prints instead of or in addition to viewing one of their electronic images.

[xpatUSA]

It could be that your monitor happens to present a relatively accurate display.

It's a humble NEC MultiSync LCD1990SX, well below the standards of most folks here, I imagine. I'm not as bothered about color accuracy as some but if I shoot a 24-patch mini color-checker card under my Sylvania mini-craft CFL desk lamp using custom WB and convert it to JPEG (color-balanced on the mid-gray patch) and then hold the card next to the screen it looks good enough for my purposes. My old eyes are pretty tolerant to color error, though, so that's probably a factor. Plus, shooting Sigma cameras can make one pretty tolerant anyway!

Now, if there existed an "acutance calibrator" that makes all images perfectly sharp irrespective of the shooter's skill, that I would buy tomorrow

[TonyW]

I have been following this thread with interest because I need to check my monitor, especially for brightness. I have a quote for the X-rite i1 display pro for $236 Australian which seems like a reasonable price. However, at least until I get it, I am not sure exactly what it does. My computer is a fairly recent Mac with the 27" screen, which seems generally good to me. However, the brightness is easily adjustable and that is probably the most important thing to check. Will the calibrator tell me what it should be?

I had some prints made by a local reputable lab recently and they came out about the right colour, i.e. about how I expected, but a bit too dark. However, the look of the prints depends on the light on them when they are viewed, so that before they are done the viewing conditions should also be checked. Will this device tell me anything about the ambient light?

The other thing I am having trouble finding out is what adjustments are possible on my screen.

[Manfred M]

I have been following this thread with interest because I need to check my monitor, especially for brightness. I have a quote for the X-rite i1 display pro for $236 Australian which seems like a reasonable price. However, at least until I get it, I am not sure exactly what it does. My computer is a fairly recent Mac with the 27" screen, which seems generally good to me. However, the brightness is easily adjustable and that is probably the most important thing to check. Will the calibrator tell me what it should be?

Tony, regardless of the computer you are using, you have no idea as to whether the colours are accurate unless your screen has been calibrated and profiled. It may be close or it may be totally off; you just won't know unless you use one of these devices. The way they work is they display known colours and compare how close the colour your computer display is and then makes an adjustment so that it is right on. My x-Rite i1 is rather long in the tooth and I really need to replace it one of these years, so being older technology, it may not be as automatic as the newer tools. I have to set a number of screen parameters manually before running the profiling software. With a profiled screen you will KNOW the colours are "right".

I do my photo editing in a windowless office and have a fairly low level of ambient light, which is extremely consistent. Some of the better profiling tools even adjust for change in ambient lighting conditions.

The fact that your prints are coming back too dark tells me that you computer screen is turned up too bright. With mine, I have the brightness turned down all the way and even then, I can't get it dark enough, so I have to compensate in print prep by brightening up what I see on my screen a set amount. This amount once set, and as long as you don't touch the screen's settings, this amount of compensation can be repeated over and over again.

Viewing conditions are a whole different kettle of fish. The problem is that this is usually highly variable as a room can be lit by artificial light when dark or brilliant direct sunlight at other times of the day. When I do my test prints, I will read them in an indirect daylight location during the middle part of the day. I find this works well for me.

I had some prints made by a local reputable lab recently and they came out about the right colour, i.e. about how I expected, but a bit too dark. However, the look of the prints depends on the light on them when they are viewed, so that before they are done the viewing conditions should also be checked. Will this device tell me anything about the ambient light?

The other thing I am having trouble finding out is what adjustments are possible on my screen.

[Mike Buckley]

However, the brightness is easily adjustable and that is probably the most important thing to check. Will the calibrator tell me what it should be?

My calibrator's information tells me to make sure the monitor is set to the default settings. My calibration tool is the entry level tool, so I don't know if better information about that is provided with a more sophisticated tool.

The other thing I am having trouble finding out is what adjustments are possible on my screen.

That being the case, maybe your best solution is to use default settings and let the calibrating software work its magic.

I had some prints made by a local reputable lab recently...

You need to use a closed-loop system to achieve predictably desirable prints. If you were using your own printer, you would close the loop by profiling and calibrating your monitor, printer and paper. When you are not using your own printer, you need to profile and calibrate your monitor. You then need to load the profile provided by your printer that pertains to the paper you have selected or, in the case of the printer I use, you need to obtain their electronic file to ensure that the print and display of the electronic file are similar.

Keep in mind that reviewing a print and electronic presentation of the same image will never reveal the exact same results. That's because reviewing a print involves reviewing reflected light and reviewing an electronic presentation involves reviewing direct light. Additionally, reviewing a print involves a CMYK system and reviewing an electronic presentation involves an RGB system.

[dje]

However, the brightness is easily adjustable and that is probably the most important thing to check. Will the calibrator tell me what it should be?

Will this device tell me anything about the ambient light?

Tony I have a Spyder PRO which, as I said in my previous post, does include a brightness setting. I don't know about the X Rite i1 but I suspect it may also have one as it is more than a basic model.

With the Spyder calibration process, ambient light is measured first and I believe this is used to determine a recommended luminance for the monitor (mine was shown as 120 cd/sq m), and also a white point (colour temp). Then at one point during the calibration, it recommends that you adjust the brightness (luminance) of your monitor to the suggested value (120 in my case). This is optional but whatever the brightness is after this step, calibration proceeds on the basis of this setting. I'm not sure that reasonably small variations in brightness have much effect on colour however.

I'm still learning the "ins and outs" of my new toy though.

Dave

[Simon Garrett]

So, I ask again, if we don't print, why soft-proof or calibrate or anything else, sans printing?

Because unless you calibrate and profile your monitor, you really have no idea if the colour you see is accurate. For example, suppose the image looks a bit green, so you alter the image accordingly in Photoshop or whatever you use. But was that green because the image was too green or because the monitor was too green? If it was the monitor wrong, you've now made your image wrong, and it will look wrong on any other monitor with correct colour.

Of course, most monitors aren't calibrated and profiled, so you can't control how it will look on other peoples' monitors. Uncalibrated, unprofiled monitors will have unpredictable errors in the colour rendition. However, if the image is right on your monitor, you reduce the average overall error.

Another reason for calibrating and profiling a monitor is for greater consistency. Monitor colour drifts with time, and of course the next monitor you buy might have slightly different colour. So all the effort you take to get the colour right will be wasted on your new monitor.

Many modern monitors have a factory calibration; this is much better than nothing, but the reviews I've read say that user calibration/profiling is invariably more accurate than factory calibrations.

And, even if you print...total satisfaction is unattainable.

Agreed. But if you use a calibrated/profiled monitor and printer profiles (even presupplied profiles that come with the printer or paper) then you can get IMHO much more predictable colour, and less wasted paper.

[Mike Buckley]

So all the effort you take to get the colour right will be wasted on your new monitor.

Good point! I had never thought of that.

[James G]

I've been 'following' this thread with a mixture of feelings, and thoughts on the subject but have been 'anticipated' by others before commenting, on several occasions.

It has occurred to me that as photographers, (amateur, professional, experienced, inexperienced etc), we take our craft seriously. I understand that musicians take their 'art' equally seriously and I have never known a musician to not tune their instrument before playing.

Surely, if you want a symphony of light, , then the orchestra (camera, monitor, printer), must all be in tune. 'Tuning' .... 'Calibration'.... no brainer!

So, I ask again, if we don't print, why soft-proof or calibrate or anything else, sans printing?

`

It's a bit like singing on your own in the bath.... great for you but not necessarily for anyone else listening ...I wanted to get 'singing from the same song sheet' in somewhere.... but I'll leave that for someone else to run with.....

[Davidgypsy]

I have been following this thread with interest because I need to check my monitor, especially for brightness. I have a quote for the X-rite i1 display pro for $236 Australian which seems like a reasonable price. However, at least until I get it, I am not sure exactly what it does. My computer is a fairly recent Mac with the 27" screen, which seems generally good to me. However, the brightness is easily adjustable and that is probably the most important thing to check. Will the calibrator tell me what it should be?

I had some prints made by a local reputable lab recently and they came out about the right colour, i.e. about how I expected, but a bit too dark. However, the look of the prints depends on the light on them when they are viewed, so that before they are done the viewing conditions should also be checked. Will this device tell me anything about the ambient light?

The other thing I am having trouble finding out is what adjustments are possible on my screen.

Hi Tony, FWIW I use Harvey Norman (Hobart) for printing and find that with my Spyder calibrated system I need to select Auto Correct to get the right exposure on prints. It works and it is consistent. I don't do any adjustments to monitors after the calibration process. Also check you print results in daylight not under shop flouros. The Spyder calibration system does take ambient light into consideration as I suspect most other good quality calibrations tools would do also.

Regards, David.

[Loose Canon]

I understand that musicians take their 'art' equally seriously and I have never known a musician to not tune their instrument before playing.

Surely, if you want a symphony of light, , then the orchestra (camera, monitor, printer), must all be in tune. 'Tuning' .... 'Calibration'.... no brainer!

That is the best analogy I've seen so far.

[Manfred M]

That is the best analogy I've seen so far.

+1 to that Terry!

[Stagecoach]

I understand that musicians take their 'art' equally seriously and I have never known a musician to not tune their instrument before playing.

When I was attempting to learn to play the guitar I purchased an electronic piece of kit to achieve 'tuning' of the instrument.

I wonder if all great guitarists believe that an electronic means is better than tuning by ear?

Not a clue to as to the answer just an observation, but I never did manage to progress my guitar playing short lived ambitions other than to be able to tune it according to my fancy gadget

[xpatUSA]

When I was attempting to learn to play the guitar I purchased an electronic piece of kit to achieve 'tuning' of the instrument.

I wonder if all great guitarists believe that an electronic means is better than tuning by ear?

Not a clue to as to the answer just an observation, but I never did manage to progress my guitar playing short lived ambitions other than to be able to tune it according to my fancy gadget

Grahame, been playing the guitar for 60 years. When I started, a set of "pitch pipes" were often used. Tuning by ear could use several techniques but guitars with tremelo arms were a pain in the butt, requiring several passes to get it right. These days, electronic tuners make life easy for us all. I was jamming this very day and three guitarists tuned separately with their own gadgets and we were all perfectly in tune . . . until a few beers later :-D

I can tune by ear but gadgets are much mo' better and so much quicker!

[royphot]

There is one thing about Spyder that has not been mentioned so far, longevity. I am not sure if the same applies to Color Munki.

I am still using a Spyder 2 to calibrate my Win 10 monitor. I only had to download a new driver because I upgraded to 64 bit.

I also use the Spyder 2 Print Fix to make Printer Profiles, and the Spyder 4 download runs the old colorimeter perfectly well.

I notice today, that there is now a Spyder 5 Download available. Here's hoping.

Roy