Monitor Calibration (Page 2): Couldn't agree more. I suppose all of us started out with the "budget" solution to find it wasn't cheaper at all. Most of us have moved on to legitimate...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Software calibration is a joke. For the cost of a ruined print and all that ink, a Spyper5 is cheap.

Couldn't agree more. I suppose all of us started out with the "budget" solution to find it wasn't cheaper at all. Most of us have moved on to legitimate color management solutions, others are still working with their budget solutions and keeping the ink and paper companies very happy.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

DStone wrote:

I've calibrated my monitor by trial and error with... (show quote)

I use a Spyder 5 to calibrate my seven year old 27" iMac. The iMac's out of the box color profile was very close to the standard and has continued to be close. That being said, I always use my Spyder before every editing session to confirm that the color profile is not starting to degrade and to allow for any changes in ambient room lighting; especially the brightness since the room lighting is on a dimmer switch and can vary from session to session. From the time I started following that procedure, I have always received prints from the lab that matched what I saw on the screen when I was editing.

In addition to the purchase of a monitor and printer calibrator, I would strongly advise you to consider replacing your monitor with one designed for photography.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Gene51 wrote:

Couldn't agree more. I suppose all of us started out with the "budget" solution to find it wasn't cheaper at all. Most of us have moved on to legitimate color management solutions, others are still working with their budget solutions and keeping the ink and paper companies very happy.

Absolutely. To calibrate the system end-to-end, you have to actually measure the visible output of the monitor, and this requires a HW solution.

lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

DStone wrote:

To Gene51: The print adjustment is "brightness" in the Lightroom front module. To my eye, a +30 brightens the print about a third of a stop. Most descriptions call it a tool of last resort. That's why I suspect it's a bad thing. Thanks for your detailed reply. A lot of food for thought there.

If you need to go to +30 on the 1430 (which is what I use), I suspect that your monitor's brightness is too high. I always end up with zero or even -5.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

rfmaude41 wrote:

And I use the Spyder system with no problems. I also leave it "plugged in", as once per minute it samples the ambient light and adjusts the monitor brightness to match it to the room light.

Which Spyder system do you have?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

DStone wrote:

....Close enough that I can adjust from a test print and be very happy with print #2.... So, the question is: Do I need to buy a calibration system?

If you could eliminate having to make print #2 a lot of the time, the calibration system would pay for itself in pretty short order, in savings of wasted paper, ink and wear and tear on your printer. Just how fast it pays for itself depends upon how much printing you do.... and how good you get at doing the calibration.

Calibration isn't a one time thing, either. It needs to be done periodically... every month or two. Monitor brightness and color rendition gradually change as the monitor ages and re-calibration is needed.

I use the Datacolor Spyder. It's one of the more advanced models of those, able to calibrate CRT, LCD, TVs, digital projectors and more. It can even be used to make custom paper/ink profiles.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Lots of great suggestions posted here. Get something. Set it up. Push the button and, magic. In two minutes your monitor will look better then it ever has. If you are using multiple monitors any gizmo can pretty much make them match.

DStone wrote:

I've calibrated my monitor by trial and error with... (show quote)

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

STOP.......
You have worked it out for your printer. You are happy with the results.
If you send out your prints.....? chances are they will look different and you will have to adapt to 'their' needs. Calibration simply means what you see on screen equals what you print....by whatever additional means.
If you can adjust your 'test print'.....why buy something that you don't need.

2Much Loc: WA

Gene51 wrote:

...If you want to keep your options open and not have to replace your profiling tool because it won't profile a monitor you may purchase in the future, I'd suggest, at the minimum, getting an Xrite i1 Display Pro. It is the least expensive tool that will create a profile for a display that has a programmable LUT - such as the Dell 2413 and others. I use a pair of these and was not able to get a good profile with my Spyder, so I had to get the Xrite tool...

I've been considering the Xrite based on my research. I have a good display, but neither the monitor or my video card have a programmable LUT so I presume the Xrite profile would be stored in software? Do hardware LUTs simply reduce workload on your processor, or provide other advantages?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

G Brown wrote:

...If you send out your prints.....? chances are they will look different and you will have to adapt to 'their' needs. Calibration simply means what you see on screen equals what you print...

No. Calibration does not mean that. Calibration means adjusting the output of your display in terms of color and brightness to a STANDARD. If you do that, load the appropriate profile for your outside printer or your printer/paper, and adjust accordingly (soft proof), then you can expect that prints or other displays that are also calibrated will be very close to what you see on your display (taking into account the difference between projected light from your display and reflected light from a print).

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

amfoto1 wrote:

If you could eliminate having to make print #2 a l... (show quote)

But it can't profile a display with a programmable LUT. Otherwise, it's pretty good.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

2Much wrote:

I've been considering the Xrite based on my research. I have a good display, but neither the monitor or my video card have a programmable LUT so I presume the Xrite profile would be stored in software? Do hardware LUTs simply reduce workload on your processor, or provide other advantages?

Your video card does have a LUT (whether in destructive or non destructive memory), and the correction can be loaded at start-up or stored. An example of a programmable non-destructive LUT is an FPGA, whereas DRAM or VRAM (destructive) can be used as a LUT with the values loaded at start up. The necessary mapping of RGB values to display is extremely compute-intensive, so LUTs are used.

2Much Loc: WA

TriX wrote:

Your video card does have a LUT (whether in destructive or non destructive memory), and the correction can be loaded at start-up or stored. An example of a programmable non-destructive LUT is an FPGA, whereas DRAM or VRAM (destructive) can be used as a LUT with the values loaded at start up. The necessary mapping of RGB values to display is extremely compute-intensive, so LUTs are used.

Thanks!!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

TriX wrote:

Your video card does have a LUT (whether in destructive or non destructive memory), and the correction can be loaded at start-up or stored. An example of a programmable non-destructive LUT is an FPGA, whereas DRAM or VRAM (destructive) can be used as a LUT with the values loaded at start up. The necessary mapping of RGB values to display is extremely compute-intensive, so LUTs are used.

Beat me to it. Thanks!

DStone Loc: Outside Winston-Salem, NC

Thanks to all for the thoughtful feedback. What a great set of responses! End result -- a monitor upgrade and a calibration device are on the way. The comment I enjoyed the most was "does the image look the same with left and right eyes" (actually, no, due to some eye surgery a while back. The right eye is about a half-stop brighter.)

FYI -- The monitor upgrade was needed anyway. You sold me on using a calibration device with the "to an industry standard" logic.It never occurred to me that others may not see my images as I intended. (Duh)

Thanks again.