Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#1. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 0
elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Sat 04-Apr-15 09:19 AM | edited Sat 04-Apr-15 09:19 AM by elec164Some time ago I went from a Viewsonic 19" to a Dell U2410 which is advertised as factory calibrated, and I was able to calibrate it with the Spyder 3 with improved results.Pete
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#2. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 1
Jim Mohundro Registered since 22nd Jul 2008Sat 04-Apr-15 12:51 PMThanks for sharing the experience. I've been afraid since I read that earlier blog that whatever device or process was built in to a self-calibrating or pre-calibrated monitor "froze" the monitor's calibration for all time or would defult to the factory-set calibration whatever I attempted with my Spyder.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#3. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 2
elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Sat 04-Apr-15 01:32 PMYour welcome,,, hope it helped.
It's been quite sometime since I did the initial calibration of the Dell,,,, but if I remember correctly,,, there was a few snags. If I remember correctly,,, when setting the white point and cd/m2 , I had to adjust each channels gamma separately to achieve calibration. Again it was sometime ago,,, so the memory might be a bit off. But I seem to remember being a bit perplexed at first,,, but was able to quickly work it out.Pete
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
#4. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 0
Pre-calibrated is meaningless, if you take it at first blush. All monitors drift as their parts age, even LED illumination much less florescence. So even if it was really on target when you got it -- it won't stay.
Self-calibrating could be possible in theory, sensors built in that adjusted on the fly. I've never read that any really do that.
And in either case -- calibration requires you to make choices - Do you want to calibrate to D50 or D65 or something else, do you want maximum contrast or a specific amount (if you have two monitors you probably want the one with the most contrast to be turned down a bit to match the other). So even if they "stuck" and they kept it exactly as delivered -- would it match what you need.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
-
#5. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 4
Jim Mohundro Registered since 22nd Jul 2008Sat 04-Apr-15 03:28 PMI've not had the calibrating expertise to make choices or even be aware that there were choices to be made, but the entry-level Spyder seems to be consistent in its effects on the display each time and whatever choice it's making has resulted in both prints and a web display acceptable to me as an amateur. I recalibrate every two months and I know many calibrate more often.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#6. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 4
PBlais Nikonian since 19th Jan 2014Sat 04-Apr-15 04:07 PMI'm with Linwood. Factory / self calibration isn't really possible except on the very most expensive monitors ($2k). Monitors vary over time and should be re-calibrated at least every month and all the time for ambient light. Spyder and XRite can do that on the better tools they sell but I will say the lowest level calibration tools are SO much better than nothing. They don't do ambient light in you workspace. That does change how your monitor looks to YOU! You are the person sliding the sliders and going by what you see!
The less than great monitors won't actually calibrate exactly and or won't be consistent across the whole screen. Across the whole screen costs the most. LCD's are not very good. Ideally if you are working with a calibrated printer you can see it and print it exactly as you see it. That is what we all want.
Probably the worse news is your good monitor can display more colors than you can ever hope to print. Really bright greens get trashed as well as others. You need to be able to load a printer profile so you can soft proof on the screen. This shows you the out of gamut colors when you ultimately print and you adjust them yourself before you print so the printer does not have it's way with you.
It really is a workflow of calibration rather then just a good monitor. It starts with the camera profile, then the monitor, then the soft proof from the printer profile. You really don't do a camera profile all the time though XRite color checker passport can do that too.
You do want an IPS monitor and that alone gets you a leg up over an LCD. If you can't afford an high end EZIO monitor then you have to make the choices presented. I can use my xrite calibration on my three monitors. Two of them are just cheap monitors. None of them display the same BUT one of them does print pretty darn true with a load of a soft proof profile from my lab.
To make your own printer profiles costs a lot. Most any lab does do that and can send you the profile based on the paper you print on. With a decent calibrated monitor you'll learn if you need to tweak some brightness. Brightness is the usual problem you find.
My lab will do a test print for me and then I can adjust from there and going forward I know they are always calibrated and if I am too things work well.
I would suggest an IPS and wide gamut monitor and at that level you'll be happy if you calibrate! Wide gamut can handle most all the Adobe RGB color space. It does mean you had better soft proof! When in doubt print on canvas - it's VERY forgiving!
Lightroom handles the soft proof display but of course you need to see it properly. In soft proof the clipping display becomes the out of gamut display instead. It's sort of assumed you handled the clipping before all this.Visit my Nikonians gallery.
See my portfolio.-
#7. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 6
Jim Mohundro Registered since 22nd Jul 2008Wed 15-Apr-15 03:03 AMObviously, I've a good deal to learn that I've not thought of before as I've made modest-sized prints acceptable solely to me, but have not attempted images that would subject to professional review and standards.
I've spent a fair amount of hours just reading basic suggestions about my monitor purchasing choices. It seems clear to me that my budget will allow me to make only quite small incremental steps in acquiring more advanced skills. I could wait till I was near $1,000 to approach professional grade IPS monitors, but I feel a bit of a need to work my way up cautiously and I suspect, and hope, that I'll see some at least slightly visible results over time as I educate myself. Right now my monitor budget cannot greatly exceed $350, and that for a 23- or 24-inch entry-level IPS monitor, so I'll clearly fall dramatically short of even the margin of professional grade hardware, but, I hope, noticeably above my venerable 19-inch Viewsonic. While an entry-level EIZO is far enough over my budget constraint to attract me, I hope to find an entry-level NEC or Asus in the $250-350 range.
I was unable to resist the foreign-exchange-enabled price of a Spyder 4 Elite on a brief trip to Canada last weekend. Now I know I'll have to begin researching soft-proofing, white and black points, and gamma, for a starter.
I know that a wide-gamut monitor is not in my financial ballpark, but I hope I can learn enough at a lower level to help me decide just how far I'll ultmately be willing to go.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#8. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 0
Egbert
www.allmondo.com
https://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/ppuser/401509/cat/500/
-
#9. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 8
lajolla Registered since 03rd Nov 2005Wed 15-Apr-15 10:54 AMJust another opinion - I long ago gave up the costs and time incurred in printing my own digital images. If you are fortunate enough to live near a professional lab - they will have far more optimal printing options available for you - and you will not need to worry about printer ink supply, or printer calibration/driver problems, or frequent monitor calibrations. I can send in my digital image files via Internet to any number of great labs here in Southern California, even when I am on the other side of the Earth, and get digital image proofs sent back to me before I actually order a large print.-
#10. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?" | In response to Reply # 9
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Wed 15-Apr-15 12:00 PM>...they will
>have far more optimal printing options available for you - and
>you will not need to worry about ... frequent monitor
>calibrations.
But doesn't that mean you have to let them do color correction and trust their interpretation of your image?
I also gave up on doing my own printing (I have a color laser for office work, which is vastly, vastly less trouble than ink jet). So I agree with the sentiment, but I still try to color manage the lab for the few prints I do.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
-
#11. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?--Question Answered but New Query" | In response to Reply # 0
I hope I may fairly, and only slightly, hijack my own thread to pusue a monitor question that puzzles me.
One mystery has arisen as I pursue acquisition of a monitor upgrade for Lightroom post processing and that is the screen "proportions" as they relate, at the simplest level to what I perceive on the monitor. I'm shooting NEFs full-frame so the approximate proportion should be a "35mm film-like" 1.5:1 or 3:2. A friend who is a far more experienced digital photographer (although sheer years of film experience should give me pride of longevity in that medium) says that I should favor a 1920 x 1080 monitor over a 1920 x 1200 monitor of the same nominal diagonal, e.g., 24 inches, because not only is the former proportion closer to my full-frame 3:2, the horizontal "landscape" size of the Lightroom image in mid-panel is effectively "stretched" by the 1920 x 1080 format to be actually wider physically (hence easier to view and manipulate in PP) than it would be in the 1920 x 1200 format, all else equal. Now I've found a website (abbreviated to "prismo.ch" on my iPad) that seems to confirm this, i.e., that the overall width is greater on the 1920 x 1080 display while the vertical dimension is greater on the 1920 x 1200 display, but the latter proposition is easier for me to understand (obviously, 1200 is greater than 1080).
I have no brick and mortar store to confirm these propositions on actual displays, but I'm not quite ready to accept the idea that, for viewing landscape-oriented images, at least, on a 24-inch monitor, the 1920 x 1200 monitor is the superior choice.
Any Nikonians who would confirm or refute the effects of the choices of dimensional physics I've described here?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#12. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?--Question Answered but New Query" | In response to Reply # 11
elec164 Nikonian since 15th Jan 2009Thu 16-Apr-15 10:09 AM | edited Thu 16-Apr-15 10:12 AM by elec164>says that I should favor a 1920 x 1080 monitor
>over a 1920 x 1200 monitor of the same nominal diagonal, e.g.,
>24 inches, because not only is the former proportion closer to
>my full-frame 3:2
Actually the latter is closer and a better fit to full frame 35mm of 1.5:1. 1920x1080 (16: 9) has a ratio of 1.778:1 vs 1920x1200 (16:10) with 1.6:1.
>Now I've found a website (abbreviated to "prismo.ch"
>on my iPad) that seems to confirm this, i.e., that the overall
>width is greater on the 1920 x 1080 display while the vertical
>dimension is greater on the 1920 x 1200 display, but the
>latter proposition is easier for me to understand (obviously,
>1200 is greater than 1080).
Personally I feel it's much ado about nothing. For a 24" monitor,,,, the difference in width between 16: 9 and 16:10 is only about half an inch (with the 16: 9 being wider). And in height,,, the 16:10 is 1 inch bigger. (That's if I worked that all out properly!!!) :9
For what it's worth,,,, both my Macbook Pro screen,,,, and my Dell PC desktop U2410 are 16:10 aspect ratio,,, and I never gave it a thought!! Bottom line,,, the resolution of most cameras now a days is greater than any screen out there,,, to view the whole image on screen it needs to be scaled. When I make global edits and for cropping,,, I will often view the image via Fit. When I make specific edits,,,, I will often view the screen at different zoom ratios as needed. So to me,,, the fact that the screen ratio doesn't match the DSLR ratio never entered my mind.Pete
Visit my Nikonians gallery. -
#13. "RE: Self-calibrating or Pre-calibrated Monitor?--Question Answered but New Query" | In response to Reply # 11
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 16-Apr-15 11:14 AM>One mystery has arisen as I pursue acquisition of a monitor
>upgrade for Lightroom post processing and that is the screen
>"proportions" as they relate, at the simplest level
>to what I perceive on the monitor.
If you were using this for primarily display, e.g. presentations in full screen mode, that may be more relevant.
When doing most photography post processing and review, bear in mind your screen is cluttered with editor controls and secondary displays. in lightroom, for example, you will often have a vertical panel taking up maybe 1/6th of the screen, on each side, leaving a more narrow section in the middle. The top and bottom panels on Lightroom can be easily reduced in size but less so the ones on the side, particularly the side with the develop controls. This means if you get a very wide monitor, the actual image display space is going to be less wide and more tall during most use. With Photoshop you have a bit more flexibility in tool panel positions. Other editors may be different still, but most I have seen tend to litter the sides of the screens more than the bottom/top, and so to get a more natural 3:2 image you need a much wider screen than 3:2.
And of course that only helps if you shoot horizontal all the time.
But in no case do I worry whether the monitor matches a specific image aspect ratio. The general advice is always set your monitor resolution to native (never let the monitor scale!), and let the photo editing/display program worry about the rest. Tweak the real estate in the photo editor by moving panels around or hiding them as needed.
And while all statements taken to the extreme may fail, in general you can never have too much resolution, or too large of a monitor.
That said, I also offer the suggestion that the best post processing experience is now by far having two monitors - most software handled it nicely, letting you use one for (for example) a grid view, one for full screen images; one for a cluttered editing view, one for a clean preview. You get the idea. But (to harken back to the original topic) two monitors make it even more important to be able to calibrate them to look the same.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
G