Monitor Calibration

[BrianH]

I would be interested in any members views who are using either Datacolor Spyder 4 Pro or Xrite Colormunki Display for monitor calibration. I have researched the web but get mixed reviews about reliability and compatibility. I want to use on PC's running Windows 7 Pro 64 bit (desktop and laptop), Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4. I have little interest in prints so not interested in printer profiling, I just want to proile my monitors for AV use. I have used a number of monitor calibration methods over the years but now want a more reliable standard to work to.

brian

[Bert]

Brian,

I use Xrite Color Munki Display, it is very easy to use and works well. The only problem I have had with it is when I had to download an update and could not do it. After calling them they told me to shut off my virus protection. After that I could download the update.

Bert

[BrianH]

Hi Bert,

Many thanks for the reply. I had given up hope of any response having posted way back in February. I had assumed that few people were calibrating their monitors using either of the products I had mentioned. I will give Color Munki a little more detailed investigation.

Brian

[Barry Beckham]

I have a Color-Munki, but I can't say I am that impressed with it. I have three Dell Flat screens here and it can't get them all to look the same. If it can't do that, then how good can it be. I always do the thorough calibration measuring ambient light in the room first too.

As it is I use one machine to record video tutorials, but they often lose subtle colour and contrast between monitors all calibrated with the color-munki. I bought mine from an acquaintance at a fraction of the cost of the new product and had I paid full price I would be seriously miffed. It does a job, bit nothing to impress me given the cost.

[cjdnzl]

I have a Spyder2pro, a bit older than the latest 4 but works quite well. I calibrate my Dell laptop and the Dell 23" monitor on the desktop. The results between lappy and desky are not too bad, given that the lappy is a 6-bit screen while the Dell is 8-bit. Most of my work is for printing, and I get pretty good agreement between prints and monitor, as far as one can compare print with screen. The Spyder works with my 64-bit win7 machine which is a bonus as well.

I gave up measuring ambient light, which I thought skewed the results depending on the light, whether subdued daylight or artificial light at night. I also calibrate for a gamma of 2.2 and 'native' colour temperature, trying for 6,500K didn't work too well with LCD screens.

Actually, I take care with the white balance within the camera, so as not to rely too much on correction during post-processing. I bought an ExpoDisc for setting custom white balance in the camera, and I set sRGB in the camera as well. I realise that Adobe and other colour spaces embrace more hues, especially in the greens, but my monitor gamut, like most consumer-grade monitors, cannot display the full range of aRGB, so there's not much point in using aRGB.

The ExpoDisk is excellent at balancing the camera for the ambient light. I am engaged now and then to take photographs of choirs, usually in a church setting, and the light in the church building is generally a mixture of incandescent, fluorescent, sometimes mercury vapour, and daylight filtered through stained-glass windows. I had endless problems balancing the prints until I got the ExpoDisk. After that the images just fell on the paper, already white balanced with no after-work needed.

I have come to realise that it's dangerous to rely on the monitor to adjust white-balance, one must have the camera image correct and then the monitor doesn't matter too much. Providing the gamma and brightness is ok, then trying to micro-manage the colour, relying on the monitor colour balance doesn't work for me.

Of course monitor balance is required when showing a slide show, likewise a projector should be calibrated, and I have calibrated the club projector with the Spyder. The colour profile of course resides in the driving computer, a fact that some members find hard to understand when they want to use their own lappy to drive the projector. They say "the projector is calibrated, right?", and I say "yes, but not with your computer", and they don't get it. Sigh.

[PGA]

They say "the projector is calibrated, right?", and I say "yes, but not with your computer", and they don't get it. Sigh.

And only with the specific screen that it was projecting onto!

What about the human element? Does everybody see a colour, let's say 18% grey, as being exactly the same as it is seen by the next person? How many folks have had their eyes colour calibrated?

Peter

[Guest Yachtsman1]

How many folks have had their eyes colour calibrated?

Peter

I believe this is available on the National Health Service, but only for RPS judges

Yachtsman1.

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

Someone said recently that the images they were showing were exactly as the colours were when the images were shot. They were at pains to re-assure all who were bothered that no enhancement was made in Photoshop and it got me thinking.

I now realise that over the past two weeks when I have shot over 300 images in the local botanical gardens in three visits that I can recall (accurately) all 17 million shades of colour in each of the images. This means of course that I can work the images through Camera Raw sometime later and get all the colours perfect to how they were at the time. Honestly! Well, we wouldn't want to add any artistic merit into the images, that would be cheating.

I have given up calibration and I go by what looks right to me. I have tried and tried with PC's, Laptops, PC projectors and I can get things just as close manually.

[David Porter]

Peter

I have given up calibration and I go by what looks right to me. I have tried and tried with PC's, Laptops, PC projectors and I can get things just as close manually.

Good to know Barry, you've just saved me the £100 plus I was going to spend.

[PGA]

I have given up calibration and I go by what looks right to me. I have tried and tried with PC's, Laptops, PC projectors and I can get things just as close manually.

Barry,

My previous post was, like yours, somewhat tongue in cheek in part. I am in total agreement with the sentiments that you express. I have never calibrated any of my equipment. My camera, projector and computer are all set to sRGB. Provided the manufacturers have done their job properly, they should all be "singing off the same hymn sheet". (N.B. I do not print in the photographic sense, hence the absence of the printer from that list of equipment).

I firmly believe that this subject of colour calibration is entirely subjective. I regularly show some of my sequences at gatherings of AV workers and have received, for the same show on the same day, the comments: "You need more saturation in your colours. Check your calibration" and "Your colours are too saturated. Check your calibration".

regards,

Peter

[cjdnzl]

And only with the specific screen that it was projecting onto!

What about the human element? Does everybody see a colour, let's say 18% grey, as being exactly the same as it is seen by the next person? How many folks have had their eyes colour calibrated?

Peter

Well, I'm not sure how you would 'calibrate' one's eyes, but a test procedure like Isohara Charts (nothing to do with ISO sensor speed) will tell if there is any imbalance in colour vision. I did a round with those charts for aircrew medical with no problems, my colour vision is good as far as they could tell.

At any rate, Kodak (I think) said that their aim was pleasing colour, not accurate colour - probably a way of saying that the film dyes had limitations. I think digital colour from my Canon is near perfect, and streets ahead of any colour film.

[Barry Beckham]

You know that old story that all those shiny fishing lures in the tackle shop are there to catch the fisherman not the fish.

You can say that about much of the photo equipment today and Calibration tools are a prime example as are Graduated filters.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Well, I'm not sure how you would 'calibrate' one's eyes, but a test procedure like Isohara Charts (nothing to do with ISO sensor speed) will tell if there is any imbalance in colour vision.

I did the test when I was 18 as part of the process of joining the BSAC (British Sub Aqua Club), I was told I was red & green colour blind, but didn't fail the test as the tester said the majority of males are colour blind to one degree or another.

Yachtsman1.

[BrianH]

Thanks for all the replies. My initial reason for raising this topic was because I had recently bought a new monitor and moved the older monitor to the second monitor position. It became immediately obvious that the images did not match on both screens, much like the situation mentioned by Barry. I therefore used my older (without calibration instrument) methods to set my main screen (which did not require much changing mainly just brightness) and then reset my 2nd monitor manually as close as possible to the main monitor.

Having read all the replies and taking into account how my AV's displayed at a recent competition venue I have decided that my main monitor is set up to an acceptable standard and produces, for me and apparently others, satisfactory results. So a monitor calibration instrument is currently on hold.

I do find it interesting, and satisfying, to note that many do not feel the need for calibration instruments/software as reading the photographic press would have you believe that most photographers use profiling software. I know that at this point many are probably shouting don't be lead by the press.

I also agree with the comments made that we all see colour differently and display venues vary considerably. You only have to visit various friends to note how differently their TV's are set up colour wise, all thinking theirs is the best. I also have to agree somewhat with Barry that perhaps sometimes we are duped into thinking we need something because somebody has invented it.

Brian

[Ken Cox]

brian

see

http://www.eye4u.com/home/

click special and set your grayscale

ken

[cjdnzl]

Thanks for all the replies. My initial reason for raising this topic was because I had recently bought a new monitor and moved the older monitor to the second monitor position. It became immediately obvious that the images did not match on both screens, much like the situation mentioned by Barry. I therefore used my older (without calibration instrument) methods to set my main screen (which did not require much changing mainly just brightness) and then reset my 2nd monitor manually as close as possible to the main monitor.

Having read all the replies and taking into account how my AV's displayed at a recent competition venue I have decided that my main monitor is set up to an acceptable standard and produces, for me and apparently others, satisfactory results. So a monitor calibration instrument is currently on hold.

I do find it interesting, and satisfying, to note that many do not feel the need for calibration instruments/software as reading the photographic press would have you believe that most photographers use profiling software. I know that at this point many are probably shouting don't be lead by the press.

I also agree with the comments made that we all see colour differently and display venues vary considerably. You only have to visit various friends to note how differently their TV's are set up colour wise, all thinking theirs is the best. I also have to agree somewhat with Barry that perhaps sometimes we are duped into thinking we need something because somebody has invented it.

Brian

It's been my experience that monitors, especially LCD monitors, are not too bad for colour accuracy, but are generally much too bright The older CRT tubes had the same problem, but generally had gamma correction built in. Hardware calibration will set the gamma* and brightness range correctly so that shadows and highlights are properly rendered. A too-bright monitor will possibly lead to people under-exposing their images to get a better tonal range on the screen, and will lead to prints (if they print) that are too dark when compared to the monitor image. My uncalibrated Dell monitor was almost blindingly bright until calibrated.

I would recommend calibrating more for setting gamma and brightness range than for actual colour correction. Don't be fooled, calibrating by eye does not work well. Also, if you have and use an earlier Photoshop version you will have Adobe Gamma Loader in your Windows Control Panel (I have no experience of Apple machines). Gamma Loader is loaded at computer start-up automatically, and you will have to disable auto start in the start-up list, or else it will render your hardware calibration useless. Wrong gamma settings will affect the relationship between shadow, mid, and bright tones on your screen, leading to colour density problems.

* See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

Regards,

Colin

[Urmas]

Brian,

If your monitor is "wide gamut" monitor, then make sure, you use newer calibrators, designed to cope with "wide gamut". It is not complete disaster, when you use older models, but it is better to be on safe side. I personally use X-Rite i1 Display Pro with excellent results both - display and projector.

Before calibration set your monitor to settings, where full capabilities are under your control. There is little sence to calibrate monitor using "sRGB" or "aRGB" presets. Usually "custom" or something settings give you the necessary freedom. Read your monitor manual for that.

Only if you can provide constant working environment (constant light in the room), the using ambient light correction is reasonable. Usually light conditions change so much that it is actually easier to have you monitor as calibrated etalon.

And last not least, Do not hope, that calibration makes your monitor displaying everything. Calibration does not make your monitor gamut larger. It simply helps to set gamma, white balance and correct color casts and some other image irregularities. Calibrated monitor enables you to see the best picture your monitor hardware is capable. And second, resulting profile helps the operating system use the most of your monitor capabilities when used in color managed workflow.

If you want to match images on different monitors after calibration, these different monitors must have the same hardware capabilities. There is no way to make images look exactly the same on cheap TN office display and professional grade wide gamut monitor. But they wil be much more similar than before calibration.

So, good luck! Once you get it right, there is no way back. Might take some time, If you have no previous experience, but the time is well spent.