Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote:Also, you shouldn't alter the screen brightness/quote
I think you should - modern monitors are very bright and can never match the reflectance of a paper print
I meant you alter the brighness to match you viewing conditions and then don't alter it again. Changing the brightness after calibration/profiling removes the usefulness of calibration/profiling.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: Quote:Those 16 shades at the bottom of this site... can you see them all?
Don't really know much about this subject but I can see 16 different shades so does that mean my screen is correctly calibrated?
No. It means you can differentiate those shades which is good but says nothing of how accurate the colours are or how neutral the greys are.
errr this was mention with my latest upload, so i could be looking at an ok shot i took and lightening it unessacarily, I've added a v6 to my recent to see if it is my monitor/pc or whether i was right bout bad lighting in the room
I have got to admit I am completely baffled by the calibration process. I recently bought a Spyder 3, thinking that even if I did not understand the process the equipment would sort it for me. Unfortunately, halfway through the calibration process I get asked to increase the contrast so that the indicator is in the 'middle'. No matter how far I increase the contrast it never gets to the middle and I end up with a screen that requires sun glasses to view.
I am thinking of using the printer like a good old fashioned enlarger, make test prints to get a good print and then alter the monitor to match the print. The problem with this though is that it is going to get expensive
Yes all the time . Thats how you get consistent results with colours. Mainly if your downloading work to a lab you should calibrate so any adjustments you make is less work for the lab who is seeing colour exactly how you see it.
I was reading an article recently that explained many PC/laptop manufacturers deliberately profile their screens to display more blue by way of compensating for the typical ambient light temperature most consumers use their products in. I also found that switching between my profiled and unprofiled settings did seem to drastically reduce the visible blues and effect (perceptibly) little else. This was however a calibration on my new work Mac so the results may have been more discernible on an older machine.
I use a Spyder 4 pro which has been brilliant so far although again only time will tell as to how effective it is.
It is really reassuring to know that when I send off a weeks worth of prints to my print shop that they will all come out exactly as they were intended.
Quote: To be honest if prints come out OK, and you transfer your work to others OK, then you are correct why worry.
If like me you were adjusting your printer colours etc and getting poor results from other sources. With the spyder I could go back to default settings in the printer and on-line printing came back close to correct (except for photobox being too dark).
So I think it is great, and with a problematic projector, it has been a great thing.
I`m building a new machine that will be running windows 7 so I`ll be moving from XP.
Its there any chance my spider will still work, its well old, the first one I think
I do calibrate and whilst prior to calibration my screen colours seemed ok on screen as your eyes may compensate and get used to the rendition the corrected screen is vastly diffrent and most definately better by a huge amount, especially at the post calibration point when i toggle between corrected and uncorrected screens. I would whole heartedly say CALIBRATE. My calibration tool (Pantone Huey), was approx £50 and money very well spent. Prior to calibration i had unexpected out sourced print results but since calibrating and also using profiles of the out sourced printers things have been spot on. Having said that my calibrator doesnt give me the same brightness levels that printed images come back to me at so I do tend to account for the fact that prints will always come back somewhat darker than my screen brightness rendition as the screen is backlit but prints arent.
I'm using the club's Spider Pro 2 on my win 7 64 bit machine OK Paul. Had to download new drivers for it though
Some how I don`t think mine will be supported
I put windows 7 on my new build last night, it worked out really well.
Quote: Having said that my calibrator doesnt give me the same brightness levels that printed images come back to me at so I do tend to account for the fact that prints will always come back somewhat darker than my screen brightness rendition as the screen is backlit but prints arent.
Many of the cheaper calibrators don't touch the brightness, as such, Paul. They flick the tone response curves around in a gamma adjustment, which makes it look like brightness is being tweaked, but the white level (brightness) and dynamic range remain unaltered.
The brightness/luminance level is rather arbitrary unless you're trying to match it to a known output, which is why it's sometimes omitted. There isn't a 'correct' brightness, though a new monitor at factory defaults would probably be too bright for most photographic purposes.
Quote: Some how I don`t think mine will be supported
If you're using a Spyder 2 it's supported by dispalGUI, which is one of the best calibration programs around (and free - though its 'menu' is a little daunting for anyone used to a wizard).
The first Spyder won't be supported, though you can hook up a lot of cheap calibrators to it and immediately gain some potentially useful calibration choices.
My next calibrator will probably be a monkey
I find that in terms of colour, prints from my Pixma ip4700, set to default, are virtually identical to the images on the monitor also set to default. (Presumably sRGB in each case.)
So far, I've not felt the need to use calibration devices, but of course I'm only using the one printer and never use online printing services, or submit images for publication, which is a different thing altogether I assume.
Quote: I'm only using the one printer and never use online printing services, or submit images for publication, which is a different thing altogether I assume.
...not so much. Online printing often relies on an essentially blind process where you don't know exactly what you'll get back, and there's frequently indifference towards absolute colour fidelity in image publication.
It's always possible you might squeeze more from your own hardware by calibration and profiling, but that's a personal choice.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st March 2014 - 31st March 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View March's Photo Month Calendar