Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
any reason 2 wait to buy new monitor? tech is pretty consistent right?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="infocusinc" data-source="post: 1392309" data-attributes="member: 193687"><p>It always comes down to eyeballs SOMEWHERE but the choice to set your screen to set of standards time and time again is the point of doing hardware/software calibration. You simply cant do that with a visual calibration tool, because you see things different every time.</p><p></p><p>That's the role of a hardware/software solution, to add a layer of consistency to the process and to allow you to fine tune your setting.</p><p></p><p>Let look at using a "canned" profile. If you have made any changes to the monitor - video card LUT setting from the ones used to create the canned profile, you are hosed. Profile is now meaningless. Why? because the monitor is no longer calibrated.</p><p></p><p>Ok, you say, so lets calibrate the monitor using visual system included in the Mac OS (Adobe used to supply one as well, dropped it year ago)</p><p></p><p>1. Is the room the same brightness level as last time you ran the program?</p><p>2. How much coffee have you had?</p><p>3. Did you get enough sleep last night?</p><p>4. Have you been looking at your green desktop image for the last 2 hours?</p><p>5. You get the picture, the variables are endless. </p><p></p><p>So what happen? Every time you run the program you get slightly different results. And now the photos you edited on a visual calibration 4 months ago look different today. Why? Because you have no ACCURATE and repeatable standard for your monitor. It's one more variable in the image chain.</p><p></p><p>This may be overkill for you. This is SOP for someone engaged in photography for commerce. You don't get to work in a closed loop like simple monitor/printer setup. You need to send files to others for reproduction or display. Without some sort of standards and a reliable method calibrate to them in a repeatable fashion, everyone ends up looking at files on a monitor that is adjusted to who knows what. We did that in the very early days of digital commercial photography and it was a complete mess. Its still a mess in some circles.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And you may need to work in different white points as well, so you ill need different calibrations and profiles and a way to easily switch between them. And do so in a repeatable fashion.</p><p></p><p>I have a setting on my NEC for prepress, 5000k, gamma 2.0, intensity 120cd/m2. It works great for files going to quality offset houses. These files are in Colormatch colorspace</p><p></p><p>I also have a setting for those who prefer A98 files, 6500k, gamma 2.2, 140cd/m2, and Adobe rgb.</p><p></p><p>Web images get 7500k, gamma 2.2 160cd/m2 and sRGB. Web is a crapshoot since so many monitors in the field are all over the place calibration wise.</p><p></p><p>Now if I were trying to do this with a visual based system, can you imaging the mess i would be creating?</p><p> </p><p>Oh, and if you are so inclined, you can also profile the output of your printer by doing the same thing, running color patches and measuring them to set the printer to a standard as well.</p><p></p><p>I do this for my Epson printers and it works a treat. </p><p></p><p>This may be complete overkill for you application. Maybe for the OP as well. But if you want professional results, you need to start with as many repeatable standards and as few variables as possible.</p><p></p><p>Sure in the end you will edit via eyeballs to some extent, even though you can also set color and density in most image editing software using color patches in a test image and setting the color by the numbers just like profiling your monitor.</p><p></p><p>Long story short, its all about repeatability and standards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="infocusinc, post: 1392309, member: 193687"] It always comes down to eyeballs SOMEWHERE but the choice to set your screen to set of standards time and time again is the point of doing hardware/software calibration. You simply cant do that with a visual calibration tool, because you see things different every time. That's the role of a hardware/software solution, to add a layer of consistency to the process and to allow you to fine tune your setting. Let look at using a "canned" profile. If you have made any changes to the monitor - video card LUT setting from the ones used to create the canned profile, you are hosed. Profile is now meaningless. Why? because the monitor is no longer calibrated. Ok, you say, so lets calibrate the monitor using visual system included in the Mac OS (Adobe used to supply one as well, dropped it year ago) 1. Is the room the same brightness level as last time you ran the program? 2. How much coffee have you had? 3. Did you get enough sleep last night? 4. Have you been looking at your green desktop image for the last 2 hours? 5. You get the picture, the variables are endless. So what happen? Every time you run the program you get slightly different results. And now the photos you edited on a visual calibration 4 months ago look different today. Why? Because you have no ACCURATE and repeatable standard for your monitor. It's one more variable in the image chain. This may be overkill for you. This is SOP for someone engaged in photography for commerce. You don't get to work in a closed loop like simple monitor/printer setup. You need to send files to others for reproduction or display. Without some sort of standards and a reliable method calibrate to them in a repeatable fashion, everyone ends up looking at files on a monitor that is adjusted to who knows what. We did that in the very early days of digital commercial photography and it was a complete mess. Its still a mess in some circles. And you may need to work in different white points as well, so you ill need different calibrations and profiles and a way to easily switch between them. And do so in a repeatable fashion. I have a setting on my NEC for prepress, 5000k, gamma 2.0, intensity 120cd/m2. It works great for files going to quality offset houses. These files are in Colormatch colorspace I also have a setting for those who prefer A98 files, 6500k, gamma 2.2, 140cd/m2, and Adobe rgb. Web images get 7500k, gamma 2.2 160cd/m2 and sRGB. Web is a crapshoot since so many monitors in the field are all over the place calibration wise. Now if I were trying to do this with a visual based system, can you imaging the mess i would be creating? Oh, and if you are so inclined, you can also profile the output of your printer by doing the same thing, running color patches and measuring them to set the printer to a standard as well. I do this for my Epson printers and it works a treat. This may be complete overkill for you application. Maybe for the OP as well. But if you want professional results, you need to start with as many repeatable standards and as few variables as possible. Sure in the end you will edit via eyeballs to some extent, even though you can also set color and density in most image editing software using color patches in a test image and setting the color by the numbers just like profiling your monitor. Long story short, its all about repeatability and standards. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
any reason 2 wait to buy new monitor? tech is pretty consistent right?
Top