Calibrating (?) LCD screens?

C

ch1

Guest
I'm less that even a PS neophyte and do only the most basic operations with images. For example, on B&W I do "play" with the contrast/highlights feature but, other than using the band aid to hide the lab's gouges, that's about it.

I work with PS on my Dell laptop at home under "reasonable" ambient light. I use those "energy saving" flourescents that give off a "tungsten like" glow.

I've noticed that when I "adjust" a pic there and then upload it - it seems fine. However, when I then view it here in my office under regular flourescent light - the images appear darker.

The computer set up in the office is a desktop connected to a LCD monitor.

I curious if the difference is the ambient lighting at the locations or the use of LCD screens or what?

Also interested in thoughts about whether there are some "adjustments" I should make to the LCD montor display via PS before making any changes to the image?

Any thoughts welcome....
 
Adobe gamma will do a reasonable job you will find it under the control panel. It has a step by step wizard. for optimum performance the room lighting should be off and the walls around the monitotr a neutral color. I know this is extreme but just stating the optimum. Yes lighting does affect and CRT's and LCD's do display differently. For years most color fanatics would only use a CRT as the LCD color was not true. Now. Most are migrating to the upper tier LCD's but a cheap CRT will beat a cheap LCD hands down.
 
I do not wish to sound harsh but PLEASE toss Adobe Gamma Loader into the nearest trash can.

You will forever be trying to get color and B&W shots to look 'right', both on your screen and in the prints you have made.

Get a descent color spectrometer and calibrate your screens. A very nice one is here:

http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Sh...&toolid=1086&gclid=CK6W_57CqoQCFRpoNAod822viQ

DO NOT buy it there, however, they are WAY higher than the street price at reputable dealers like Adorama and B&H. It is less than 200 bucks at either of those places.

The Gretag Macbeth Eye One is another good choice.

Using one of these calibration tools will make your life SO much easier. You will finally be able to see on your screen exactly what a good lab should return to you as a print.

The Monaco will calibrate/profile both CRT and LCD screens, as well as the LCD's on laptops. So will the Eye One.

The ColorVision Spyder does not have a very good reputation amongst people whose opinion I respect in the color management industry, so I would stay away from that one.

The difference between a calibrated system and an uncalibrated system is night and day.

Tom
 
T_om said:
I do not wish to sound harsh but PLEASE toss Adobe Gamma Loader into the nearest trash can.

You will forever be trying to get color and B&W shots to look 'right', both on your screen and in the prints you have made.

Get a descent color spectrometer and calibrate your screens. A very nice one is here:

http://www.chromix.com/ColorGear/Sh...&toolid=1086&gclid=CK6W_57CqoQCFRpoNAod822viQ

DO NOT buy it there, however, they are WAY higher than the street price at reputable dealers like Adorama and B&H. It is less than 200 bucks at either of those places.
Click to expand...
Actually I just wanted to say please DO buy from chromix.com. Colour management is their business and you will get far better support. They will price match if you ask so you'll then get the benefit of lower prices and a company which intimately knows about the product you have purchased. The owner, Steve Upton, is a colour management wizard and has written some pretty impressive colour management software in his time (e.g. Colorthink).

Usual disclaimer. No connections, I'm just someone who is impressed with their outfit.
 
copake_ham said:
I'm less that even a PS neophyte and do only the most basic operations with images. For example, on B&W I do "play" with the contrast/highlights feature but, other than using the band aid to hide the lab's gouges, that's about it.

I work with PS on my Dell laptop at home under "reasonable" ambient light. I use those "energy saving" flourescents that give off a "tungsten like" glow.

I've noticed that when I "adjust" a pic there and then upload it - it seems fine. However, when I then view it here in my office under regular flourescent light - the images appear darker.

The computer set up in the office is a desktop connected to a LCD monitor.

I curious if the difference is the ambient lighting at the locations or the use of LCD screens or what?

Also interested in thoughts about whether there are some "adjustments" I should make to the LCD montor display via PS before making any changes to the image?

Any thoughts welcome....
Click to expand...

George, welcome to the underworld of colour management. It's a minefield. Assuming you end up working within an ICC workflow and you have a properly profiled monitor (preferably using a dedicated hardware device) you are still going to have trouble with print matching if your usual viewing environment for a print is under flourescent lighting.

All print profiles provided by labs are usually for an industry standard D50 lighting. Occasionally you get D65. What you need is to get a printer profile done for your lab prints (or own printer/paper/ink combination) in which the profile has been generated for a flourescent lighting condition (usually called Illuminant F2). This will be a custom job as generic profiles provided by companies will almost ceratinly not be for flourescent lighting. Tungsten lighting (Illuminant A) is another possibilty for profiles so you need to decide yourself what your primary viewing conditions are.

Tony
 
Tom and Tony: What about the Pantone system? Or are the Monaco and Gretag choices the best?
 
Trius said:
Tom and Tony: What about the Pantone system? Or are the Monaco and Gretag choices the best?
Click to expand...
The Pantone system is more directed at industry. Generally, hardware by X-rite or Gretagmacbeth and software from the same two and Monaco (now owned by x-rite I think) will provide everything you need.

Unless you are hardcore or a true colour enthusiast (I fall into the latter category) then I would suggest getting one decent device for calibrating your monitor (Tom's suggestion of the X-rite Optix is an execellent one) and then simply buy output (printer) profiles if and when you need them. They can be had very cheaply, usually about $20-$30 each. When you compare the price of a few custom profiles to a decent spectrophotometer and ICC output profiling software (the software alone can be in the thousands!) then it's a no brainer.

Understanding the ICC workflow though and things like colour spaces, colour gamut and rendering intents is important to managing your expectations. A good starter book for those interested is Bruce Fraser's "Real World Color Management".

Colour management is a pet interest of mine so if you want to ask more questions then feel free!

Tony
 
Sorry, I even posted. I was just trying to answer your question in the most economical sence. You did not ask what expensive pice of hardware was need .
 
Byuphoto said:
Sorry, I even posted. I was just trying to answer your question in the most economical sence. You did not ask what expensive pice of hardware was need .
Click to expand...

Oh heck, I'm as overwhelmed as you, if not more so!

But this is great info. It's kind of like taking a master class - even if I am just in kindergarten!

T_om's comments are most interesting because he also advises using a pro printer rather than DIY and I'm beginning to think he has a good point. But that makes the color burden on me (i.e. the shooter) even more important. Don't want many, if any, re-dos!

Please keep discussion going folks - I'm learning a heck of a lot!
 
I'm mostly with Tom on a lot of this, although I've gotten by sans calibration gear (not recommending this way of working, BTW, just telling you how I've managed it).

Two things here, though (and Tom will likely back me up on this): cheap LCDs will put you through hell. I picked up a used, 21-inch La Cie Electron Blue CRT as my larger second monitor (I use a 17" Apple Studio CRT for my Photoshop palettes) fairly cheap, and it's miles ahead of anything short of a contemporary (and expensive) Apple or La Cie LCD. Most LCDs, IMO, just don't work for even casual imaging work, and can't really be properly calibrated for love or money. Big CRTs are a PITA to physically set up (after carrying the La Cie up three flights to its current home, I'm just happy my back didn't protest too much), but they are generally better and easier to work with. Adobe Gamma isn't perfect for setting up, but, lacking the bucks for good calibration gear, it's a good start. (Note: also check monitor calibration within your chosen OS...do not consider "default" to be okey-dokey.)

The other thing to watch out for concerns printers. An Epson 4800 will keep to tighter tolerances than, say, an Epson 2400, and a 2400 will have tighter specs than just about anything below it. (repeat this scenario with your favorite and/or current brand; mine's HP for the time being.) This means that, even if you have your calibration specs and profiles tight as a drum, you will still be at the mercy of your printer's tolerances. A pro printer has to be looked after carefully (head cleaning, etc.); a cheaper printer, even moreso. Haven't run any prints though in a few weeks? Test, clean, re-test. Same for your monitor(s): anything can – and will – drift. "Digital" isn't just another word for infallible. :(


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Anyone who is serious about producing a decent digital print consistently should really consider a hardware monitor profiling tool as a necessity. In the grand scale of things they are not ridiculously expensive ($200) and that is honestly all you need if you then work with ICC profiles from your lab or your printer. That's it - a $200 investement to get rid of all your messing around trying to match colours between screen and print. $200 is nothing when you consider the waste you would generate otherwise in ink and paper or on lab reprints.

CRTs are still generally the king and remarkably inexpensive when compared to the equivalent flat panel that is actually capable of being used for good colour work (i.e. the top-end Eizo panels). If you're using cheap flat panels or laptop screens then don't expect decent results. Getting a second hand CRT from somewhere (many people are just dumping them these days) would be a good suggestion if you have the space for it.

Barrett's discussion about printer tolerances and maintenance should be listened to. In my opinion printing at home is a complete pain and I avoid it whenever possible. I do it only to give me the roughest proofs. One day things print OK, the next day I'll get banding even though a nozzle check is fine. Other days I get head clogs and these are a pain to clear (and a serious waste of expensive ink on larger printer models) especially if the printer has not been used in a while. Then you have to worry about whether an ink cartridge change or a new batch of paper, or some other random and difficult to diagnose factor, will introduce a colour shift or not. Even the larger pro models have issues although their tolerances are tighter. Still you can get a heck of a lot of prints for the cost of a pro model printer and the ink it drinks, by which time your printer will be obsolete and you'd need another one.

Now, given that here in the UK I can now get a 12"x16" digital lab print on Fuji Crystal Archive Paper from a Fuji Frontier or Durst Lambda/Epsilon printer for only £1 (US $1.70 or so), and your average 4"x6" costs about 5-10p, I really don't see the point of home printing. I can upload files to the lab and have the returned prints in my hand the following day. I'm sure in the US lab print costs are even cheaper which makes it even more of a no-brainer.
 
Thanks for bringing up the alternative of a CRT.

I do have a nice flat screen CRT at the house up in Copake. As was said, it is a physical monster so it's "confined" at this point to a spare bedroom.

But if I go Tom's route and use pro printing it sounds like it would be wise to finalize the file on the CRT (calibrated, of course) rather than rely on the LCD monitor on the laptop (even though the laptop LCD is a higher-end wide screen).

I also think it's time to sign up for the New School's course in PS during the Summer session!
 
George,

In the past, (and as mentioned above) CRT's were the hands down winner in color calibration. Now almost all commercial color shops have gone LCD. LCD's, in spite of all us CRT fans, are the future.

Quality CRT's are almost gone anyway. Have you tried to buy a nice 22" Mitsubishi MultiSync CRT lately? They just aren't available any more. And another thing to keep in mind about CRT's. They only have an effective lifetime of about 3 to 5 years. After that, most will not be able to be calibrated.

A hardware color calibration device such as the Monaco Optix XR I mentioned above will give you very good results on your laptop, and on most other LCD screens. Especially a newer model. The Dell 20.1" LCD comes VERY highly recommended as an accurate color capable monitor at a reasonable price. Will the laptop be good enough for commercial work? No. Would the Dell? Yes.

Sign up with a good color lab, download their profiles, and calibrate your screen(s) and the rest is just taking good pictures rather than fighting with color casts and printing problems. :)

Bay Photo, for just one example, is a great pro lab. A 4x6 is 34 CENTS. An 8x10 is $1.89. This is on Kodak Professional paper. They have UPS 2-Day delivery to your door for $3.50 (that is not a mis-print). Hell, you can hardly DRIVE anywhere to get prints done for $3.50 in gas any more, let alone having someone bring them to your door. This is pretty inexpensive printing any way you slice it.

Tom

PS: Sorry to have offended anyone with the Adobe Gamma rant, but it really is a poor way to get where you ought to be for accurate color.
 
"Bay Photo, for just one example, is a great pro lab. A 4x6 is 34 CENTS. An 8x10 is $1.89. This is on Kodak Professional paper. They have UPS 2-Day delivery to your door for $3.50 (that is not a mis-print). Hell, you can hardly DRIVE anywhere to get prints done for $3.50 in gas any more, let alone having someone bring them to your door. This is pretty inexpensive printing any way you slice it."

I agree with Tom that Bay Photo is cheap AND good. I needed to make several dozen B&W wallets for a couple's portrait and didn't want to mess with it. So I sent this as my first test to Bay Photo. Assoundingly FAST turnaround at a very good price. I would need to use them repeatedly in order to figure out their downloaded ordering tool though. I had to rely on their customer support line to step me through this first order. I'll use them again in the future for similar work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom