Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Screen Calibration Problems


20 Aug 2010 12:10PM
I've just bought a new monitor (HP LP2475W 24") and a new screen calibrator - namely a Spyder Elite and I'm having a couple of calibration issues with it. In terms of what I want to achieve I'm about 70% there, however the images look about half- 2/3rds stop too bright. Dark tones/blacks could ideally be a little bit deeper. No matter what I do, I can't get it right. BTW. Colour balance is about 90% there. Currently the pics look a tiny bit yellow.

My current settings within the Elite software is Gamma 2.2, 6500 White point and brightness 120. On my previous monitor (which was calibrated with a Spyder 2 Pro), I had a settings of Gamma 2.2 & 6500 and had no colour management issues. Images on the screen looked great and prints came back from the printers (Loxleys) near enough bang on.

Furthermore, since using this new monitor, pics viewed online in Internet Explorer look a bit too red, whilst on Firefox, pics look a tiny bit washed out.

I have to admit, I'm not very knowledgeable about things relating to gamma and cd/m2. Can anyone help/advise?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
20 Aug 2010 12:25PM
I use the same monitor but I'm unfamiliar with the Spyder, I use the Gretag Macbeth.

Personally I calibrate with my White Point set to Native White Point rather than selecting 6500.
My brightness is set to 100, this is regarded as an optimum level for screen to print matching. Don't be surprised if you need to alter your monitors brightness to a very low setting, i.e. mine's on 21%, It's advisable not to go lower than about 20% for the greatest accuracy.
Some people advise altering the individual R, G and B values. This is incorrect on a modern LCD screen, it applies to older CRT monitors. Just skip that step and allow the Spyder to take care of that stage.
The only thing you need to physically adjust is the brightness setting, not the contrast or R,G,B settings.

You can't get accurate colours if using Internet Explorer with a wide gamut monitor such as the HP2475, as you've discovered. You need to use Firefox, etc and make sure you've enabled colour management.

You can get an indication of the quality of your monitor set-up and calibration HERE
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
20 Aug 2010 12:35PM
Also, for comparing your screen to print set-up it's a good idea to print one of the widely available printer test targets. These will contain lots of different areas to check. A good selection can be found HERE
Some are better than others and some contain lots of useful info on what you should be looking out for. I like the datacolor one.
GPTek e2
8 440 1 England
20 Aug 2010 2:31PM
Useful links - thanks bookmarking

Geoff
mlewis 10 1.5k United Kingdom
20 Aug 2010 3:06PM

Quote: however the images look about half- 2/3rds stop too bright. Dark tones/blacks could ideally be a little bit deeper. No matter what I do, I can't get it right. BTW. Colour balance is about 90% there. Currently the pics look a tiny bit yellow.


Lower the brightness. The brightness level you need to achieve is the one that matches prints under the lighting in which you view them. There is no one target to go for.
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
6 Sep 2010 10:02PM
An acknowledgement that you've even bothered to read the advice given would be nice or perhaps even a thank you Sad
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
6 Sep 2010 10:13PM
It's bloody rude especially when you've wasted time and effort posting a couple of replies and going to the trouble of tracking down a specific web page that you think may be of use. It takes me ages to type a reply with my totally non-efficient one-finger typing Tongue and the person your trying to help can't even be bothered to say a quick thank you. Waste of time.
KathyW 11 1.8k 12 Norfolk Island
6 Sep 2010 10:22PM
Don't be too downhearted Justin... rudeness happens so often in all areas of life these days Sad
But at least Geoff found your reply very helpful, as did I because I always worry about whether my monitor is calibrated correctly... Thanks for taking the trouble Wink
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
6 Sep 2010 10:31PM
Thanks Kathy, pleased you found the info useful Smile
LensYews 6 1.3k 1 United Kingdom
7 Sep 2010 12:01AM
Useful to me as well Justin, thanks
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
7 Sep 2010 11:34AM

Quote:Useful to me as well Justin, thanks


Smile




Chris,

Sorry, I didn't explain very well. I'm not familiar with other monitor calibrators other than the EyeOne Display 2, but assuming the process is similar. At the start of the calibration process you're asked to specify a target luminance that you would like to calibrate your display to. This could be anything from perhaps 90 to 140 cd/m, I select a target luminance of 100. The following step asks you to physically alter your monitor's brightness setting (using the on-screen controls). It's usually set way too high straight from the factory, possibly as high as 80%. In order for the calibrator to achieve the correct target luminance (100) the brightness has to be reduced until the target luminance has been reached, it's the brightness control on the monitor itself which is reduced to 21%.
Hope that explains things.
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
7 Sep 2010 2:08PM

Quote:Is there any reason for choosing 100 cd/m? I don't even know what it means really.


100 cd/m generally gives a good screen to print match regarding shadow and highlight detail. It's not an exact figure though, some may prefer to use 90 cd/m and for others 110 cd/m may work slightly better. I find 100 cd/m works perfectly for my set-up and the shadow and highlight detail visible on screen matches the print perfectly.
7 Sep 2010 5:32PM

Quote:It's bloody rude especially when you've wasted time and effort posting a couple of replies and going to the trouble of tracking down a specific web page that you think may be of use. It takes me ages to type a reply with my totally non-efficient one-finger typing Tongue and the person your trying to help can't even be bothered to say a quick thank you. Waste of time.


My apologies if you think I've been rude by not responding your helpful posts. In the last couple of weeks I've been tied up with a considerable amount of work, plus helping my mum recover from a major operation.

Unlike some people I don't have time to frequent this forum on a day-day basis. Perhaps you oght to consider that before getting cross with people.

But thank you for taking the time in looking into this for me. As soon as I get a chance I'll have a closer look at the information.
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
7 Sep 2010 6:02PM

Quote:But thank you for taking the time in looking into this for me.


Your welcome.
JamesGarfield 5 915 4 United Kingdom
8 Sep 2010 8:28AM
Give the guy a break, checking when he last logged on and could have said thanks, throwing your teddies out because someone didn't thank you immediately for your advice, whatever next?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.