Monitor Calibration & Profiling

[arith]

I've ordered one from Warehouse Express, on the grounds that they say it will work on my 128 bit graphics. Been watching the how to video and I don't even know how to answer which switches my display has, since they; contrast, vibrance, gamma, brightness are all disabled by nVidia which has its own contrast, digital vibrance, gamma, brightness, sharpness sliders.

When I designed the computer, it was before I took up an interest in photography and it was designed for speed. I did get a little help from the retired head of a research dept of a very famous computer company around before m$, so it wasn't really all my work which possibly explains why I don't know if the Spider will work.

The only thing I find annoying about photography is the price, I was hoping I would get away without doing this.

I found the display manual; if I disable an application running the display called Magicolor I get around ten controls on the display in addition to nVidia, but the display is washed out. Should I leave it on or off

[arith]

Right I've got it now and everything looks odd; except Colin's photo's. I have got an image in a competition that just plain isn't the image I thought I entered and it looks like a lot of my images suffer from haze or too low a black point.

BUT, my screen does not look right. In fact I followed the instructions and didn't touch nVidia but everything turned bright green. So I set nVidia to default and things apart from photo's look a bit washed out.

SO, how do I know it is right now.

Therefore I did a quick rework of the 16 bit tiff by adjusting to a more acceptable image by increasing black point, but I can't get rid of the purple shade without completely redoing it.

The original before calibration.



AFTER calibration

[Colin Southern]

SO, how do I know it is right now.

Hi Steve,

Take a photo of a colour card and see how that looks on your screen.

[mythlady]

I just printed out the first 12 x 18 print from my new Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II -- I'm very excited about that. It was a long process, to figure out how to do it . . . I downloaded an ICC profile for fine art rag paper (I was using watercolor paper), and I think I got it in the right place, because it showed up on the options in PS. The color isn't really right, but I didn't take the time to calibrate the monitor first (too excited to try it). Now I have to fiddle with that and see if I can get it right -- it makes my head spin a little, all this technical stuff having to do with printing, but I'm determined to learn it.

[Peter Ryan]

I just printed out the first 12 x 18 print from my new Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II -- I'm very excited about that. It was a long process, to figure out how to do it . . . I downloaded an ICC profile for fine art rag paper (I was using watercolor paper), and I think I got it in the right place, because it showed up on the options in PS. The color isn't really right, but I didn't take the time to calibrate the monitor first (too excited to try it). Now I have to fiddle with that and see if I can get it right -- it makes my head spin a little, all this technical stuff having to do with printing, but I'm determined to learn it.

Hi Elise,

I use the Canon Pixa Pro 9000 and it took me some time and a lot of ready to tame it. Here is my setup.

When you open the ‘MAIN’ printer dialogue box there is an option called ‘Color Handling’- choose Photoshop Managers Colour. (I assume you are using Photoshop.

Under ‘Rendering Intent’ I use Relative Colorimetric.

Click Black Point Cmpensation.

Now select page Setup and in the MAIN tab there is an option called ‘Color/Intensity’ where you can pick Auto or Manual. Choose Manual, click Set and in the ‘Color Correction’ box at the top choose NONE. This will stop any conflict between Photoshop and the printer arguing about who is in control of colour. If you don't do this then they fight and you get some great variations. This does not hold as a default so you may need to check it each time you start a new session.

Let me know how you get on. It is worth learning. I still stand by the printer and watch each print come out. My images look better large and I just love watching them materalise in front of my eyes and say to myself - I did that.

[mythlady]

Oh, thank you, thank you -- I think I did some of the things you suggested, but not all of them. And I will calibrate my monitor tomorrow (although my dear son just informed me that I have a crummy monitor and things will never be right ). I know exactly what you mean -- I was so excited to see the print coming out in that size, I'm sure I was grinning from ear to ear.

[Klickit]

Hi Elise,

I use the Canon Pixa Pro 9000 and it took me some time and a lot of ready to tame it. Here is my setup.

When you open the ‘MAIN’ printer dialogue box there is an option called ‘Color Handling’- choose Photoshop Managers Colour. (I assume you are using Photoshop.

Under ‘Rendering Intent’ I use Relative Colorimetric.

Click Black Point Cmpensation.

Now select page Setup and in the MAIN tab there is an option called ‘Color/Intensity’ where you can pick Auto or Manual. Choose Manual, click Set and in the ‘Color Correction’ box at the top choose NONE. This will stop any conflict between Photoshop and the printer arguing about who is in control of colour. If you don't do this then they fight and you get some great variations. This does not hold as a default so you may need to check it each time you start a new session.

Oh, MATE!!! I could kiss your feet, washed or unwashed! I have an iP4500 and was nearly ready to throw the thing out the window. I got it because it was the best printer I could afford at the time and have never managed to get anything decent out of it.

[Peter Ryan]

Glad I could help Elise and Kit. I just hope your prints come out the way you want because there is nothing nicer in photography than holding beautiful large prints you have created.

[Peter Ryan]

Just wondering if the Moderators feel there is a tutorial here based around printing set up, or is it too broad a subject?

[arith]

Oh, thank you, thank you -- I think I did some of the things you suggested, but not all of them. And I will calibrate my monitor tomorrow (although my dear son just informed me that I have a crummy monitor and things will never be right ). I know exactly what you mean -- I was so excited to see the print coming out in that size, I'm sure I was grinning from ear to ear.

Yes; I got back instructions from the Spyder help centre, followed them and got exactly the same, can't reach 90 candels so adjusting to 70. But I just found out that my monitor displays a different Gamma for different angles of view. So I printed the tram you see above without any adjustment added to the printer and a pic of Lichfield Cathedral Pond seen in comps.
The tram came out perfectly the same as on the display but the cathedral turned black

You must have to adjust the pic using the printer software; then maybe it comes out the same because for some reason it was very dark in there as well.

I know I can't afford this lot, I thought if others photo's look similar to mine everything must be hunky dory, but the cheapest monitor for photography is about £400, mine cost a lot in fact five times more than the average but is cheap TN film compared to this lot.

[Donald]

but the cheapest monitor for photography is about £400, (

Steve

I don't think you have to go anywhere near that price to get a very,very good monitor. My Viewsonic (which I know is the same one as Colin uses at home) is, I think, an excellent piece of kit and cost way under 200 GB pounds. I've got Spyder 3 Pro and monthly checks show very little, if any, shift.

[arith]

Cheers Donald; mine cost £230 but I have found out the gamma is different from different angles.

For instance this is corrected as best I can by standing about 3 feet away from the monitor and about level with it; which looks like the only correct gamma.



and this one is looking the same as the above from the seated position and slightly above:



I adjusted the top by moving the middle slider to 1.5 and reducing output.

I haven't got £200 unfortunately.

[mythlady]

Donald, I hadn't heard of Viewsonic, but now I see they have them here on the other side of the pond. Which model do you have?

My son was suggesting a Dell 2407 but it's close to $500 and I surely can't afford that right now (still paying off my 100mm lens).

[arith]

Yes; what sort Donald. I will have to put up with a low seat and I sort of line up at gamma 2.2 on this; using the calibrated screen of course.

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gamma_calibration.php

On most images it doesn't seem to make much difference but lately I have been doing things where it is critical. This chart is what I used before I had Spyder 3 Pro.

Spyder 3 is annoying though, it is constantly turning red when the ambient light changes and I change the profile but it still shows red.

[Donald]

Donald, I hadn't heard of Viewsonic, but now I see they have them here on the other side of the pond. Which model do you have?

Elise

I have the 2433wm. This is the link on Viewsonic's own site: - http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktop-monitors/lcd/x-series/vx2433wm.htm

[mythlady]

Thanks so much. That one seems to be only available used (at least at Amazon), but they have this one on sale for $169 right now:

Viewsonic VX2250WM-LED

Would that one be suitable? Thanks for the help --

Edited to say, suitable for a non-professional just starting out? My son recommends things that cost a ton of money, because he works in the field (and has a $1000 monitor himself).

[Colin Southern]

Spyder 3 is annoying though, it is constantly turning red when the ambient light changes and I change the profile but it still shows red.

I just unplug mine when I'm not using it.

[Donald]

Elise

I note that the 2250 is an LED as opposed to an LCD. Now, what that means in performance terms is way beyond my technical knowledge. It needs someone like, I suggest, Colin to come in and provide the explanation as to the difference (he should just about be waking up in New Zealand on Friday morning as I write this on Thursday evening).

The 2433 is a 24-inch, whilst the 2250 is 22-inch. But I really don't think that's a big issue.

So, other than the LED versus LCD question, I imagine, but do not know, that the 2250 would operate to what seems to be the normal Viewsonic high standards.

EDIT Oh he's awake. He's just posted ahead of me.

[mythlady]

Ah, I see, thanks -- I missed that one little letter change, LCD to LED. I think this may be the comparable LCD one, though it's a bit more expensive:

Viewsonic VX2233

[Donald]

Ah, I see, thanks -- I missed that one little letter change, LCD to LED. I think this may be the comparable LCD one, though it's a bit more expensive:

Viewsonic VX2233

Elise

Yes, this looks like the 22-inch version of the 2433 - which I've just worked out explains the respective names (2233 and 2433). I get there eventually!

The Viewsonic site seems to lead you to the opinion that LCD is 'better' for photographic purposes than LED. But, as I said above, hopefully some of the technically-minded folk on here will come in and explain this to me/us.