brusby
Well-known
I don't understand the difficulty grasping the principle of establishing a common baseline or point of reference -- a concept which is fundamental to so many disciplines and endeavors.
Monitor Calibration
- Thread starter Rayt
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 78
- Views 7K
Bob Michaels
nobody special
The "color checker" or monitor calibration is only necessary if you wish others to view the contrast, tonality, and density of your images when presented digitally as your originally intended. That is completely your choice.
I found a color managed workflow, including a calibrated monitor, to be just as important when working in b&w as in color. Even when working in a grayscale workspace such as gray gamma 2.2 instead of a color workspace such as sRGB or AdobeRGB.
x-ray
Veteran
He either is messing with us or he doesn’t want to learn.
You know the old expression, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. That applies here.
There’s plenty of info up her so if he wants to learn he will and if not he’ll keep on his old route.
My cousin is just like him. She’s a retired physician that complains it takes a box of paper to get a decent print. I suggest calibration and I’d do it for her but she refuses and then complains it takes a box of paper to make a good print.
She’s a small woman and she’s almost 80. She asked me what equipment to buy for photographing birds and I suggested a Canon APSC camera and smaller lenses. Oh no, full frame Canon, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4. Now it’s too big and heave so she sold it.
I have 54 years of experience and she follows the advice of her husbands friends that aren’t photographers. The good side of people like her is they sell barely used gear cheap and then repeat their mistakes over and over.
I’m over advice with Erik. It makes no difference if he takes it or not and by not advising I don’t waste the time and endure the frustration.
Excuse my rant. Too many years of dealing with this kind.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
There also seems to be a misunderstanding that if one deals only in black and white there is no need for a "color checker".
First, black and white ARE colors. Second and probably more important, that totally misses the point that one of the primary functions a "color checker" performs is setting the black point and white point. If those are not set properly all other tones and particularly those immediately adjacent to the black and white points would be displayed WRONG. So, dark grays might be displayed as pure black or the converse might be true. And delicate light highlights might be crammed into pure white. Or snow that actually has glistening highlights might end up looking gray and lifeless.
I would expect someone new to photography and new to printing not to know this. But I can't understand how someone who has been doing this many years would not be aware of it.
First, black and white ARE colors. Second and probably more important, that totally misses the point that one of the primary functions a "color checker" performs is setting the black point and white point. If those are not set properly all other tones and particularly those immediately adjacent to the black and white points would be displayed WRONG. So, dark grays might be displayed as pure black or the converse might be true. And delicate light highlights might be crammed into pure white. Or snow that actually has glistening highlights might end up looking gray and lifeless.
I would expect someone new to photography and new to printing not to know this. But I can't understand how someone who has been doing this many years would not be aware of it.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have 56 years of experience in photography, so we can shake hands. I am a photographer with a degree in photography and art painting from the Gerrit Rietveld Academy in Amsterdam. I finished my studies there in 1978. I graduated with distinction in both disciplines. But I never liked digital photography and other digital artistic disciplines, digital musical instruments and digital cameras. Isn't that allowed? I certainly like computers for writing and other communication.
Erik.
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Because - as I said over in the printing thread where Erik was behaving exactly the same way - some people get set on doing things one way and refuse to even acknowledge that they may be doing things incorrectly. The example I gave was a guy I knew who was still setting up audio systems by "chaining" speakers using only one channel from the mixer... because that's how he did it in the 1960s. Never mind the fact that all the equipment (and music!) he was using at this point (2011) was obviously designed/made for stereo playback; I was young, he was old. He had been doing this his whole life, I'd been doing it for a year. I knew nothing, he knew everything. And you couldn't reason with him.
Although, that said, this isn't a new problem. LCD technology has come a long way and the shifts as they age are more subtle, and I've seen a lot of dodgy OLEDs with hideous colour shifts, but I distinctly remember having to watch colour TV with a sickly green hue because the tube in the family CRT was on the way out.
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Eric, generally speaking, do other RFF members B&Ws look too light and too contrasty to you?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
You background is impressive, but photographers are judged by the images they make. If you don't want your prints to look dark and low contrast on the internet, you need to gain new knowledge and skills. Of course, if you are making an aesthetic decision to have your prints look dark and low contrast on the internet, that is entirely your perogative as an artist. Are your prints themselves dark and low contrast?
Last edited:
Erik van Straten
Veteran
No, I wouldn't say that. It differs from photographer to photographer. The work of Vince Lupo is great. But I would like to see that the internet is more stable. Now it is as if in the morning the tones are good and in the evening everything is too bright, or the reverse. I think that is a problem of the internet and that problem will not be solved with a colorchecker.
Differences of tonality are btw normal in photography. Take three different books by Cartier-Bresson with matching pictures. They will be VERY different in tonality, color, toning and contrast.
Erik.
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
So Erik you’ve been a professional for 56 years, Interesting. I started my professional career in 1968 while earning a double degree in microbiology and chemistry. Got my masters of photography in 1985.
I worked as a staff photographer and cinematographer for the largest ad agency in the south and left to work for another large agency where I headed up the photo, cine and video department. I opened my own studio in 1985 and shot catalogs, ads and annual reports for Philips Electronics, ever heard of them, Exxon, Phillips petroleum, John Deere, Union Carbide, Arco Petroleum, Proctor and Gamble, SmithKline Beecham, Bristol Myers, London Fog, Cub Cadet, Gerber and the list goes on.
I’d like to know more about your professional experience.
Edit: I didn’t even mention the galleries I show in and the museum exhibitions and corporate purchases.
I’d like to know about yours too. I’m sure you’re quite accomplished.
I worked as a staff photographer and cinematographer for the largest ad agency in the south and left to work for another large agency where I headed up the photo, cine and video department. I opened my own studio in 1985 and shot catalogs, ads and annual reports for Philips Electronics, ever heard of them, Exxon, Phillips petroleum, John Deere, Union Carbide, Arco Petroleum, Proctor and Gamble, SmithKline Beecham, Bristol Myers, London Fog, Cub Cadet, Gerber and the list goes on.
I’d like to know more about your professional experience.
Edit: I didn’t even mention the galleries I show in and the museum exhibitions and corporate purchases.
I’d like to know about yours too. I’m sure you’re quite accomplished.
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A calibrated/profiled monitor is just as useful for B&W and helps a lot when scanning prints and readying them to be posted digitally. It allows you to properly prepare the scans and ensure that they'll look right on other people's systems. Most of todays web browsers honor and use the embedded color profiles in any JPEG they render.
With photos scanned and posted to flickr.com, you want to be sure that the photos have an sRGB color profile in them even if they are B&W photos. It helps everyone see them the way you wanted them to be seen.
If there are no instructions in the box with whatever colorimeter you obtained, just go to the manufacturer's website and download the instructions for use. I don't know of any colorimeters that are sold without some kind of instruction manual and supplementary software to make use of them ... if the one you have didn't come with that stuff, it's usually downloadable for free from the manufacturer.
I see from other messages that you've been doing photography professionally for 56 some odd years. We're roughly contemporary then, I started doing photography when I was 8yo (60 years ago) and took my first assignments when I was 11 or 12. 🙂
G
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, we are then the same age, 68. I had my first camera at the age of 5, but I never did anything with it but destroy it. It was a 120 box camera from around 1930. Funny that I now shoot daily with another camera from the 1930s, namely a black Leica lll from 1937 with a nickel, coated Summar with a perfect front lens.
I almost daily make gelatin silver prints with a Focomat llc on Ilford MGFB, a complete analog workflow.
I have many Leicas, btw.
gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll
Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This is interesting & may motivate me to get into it. The comment about matte screens is interesting. I'm using a 21.5" iMac, which is pretty shiny; while my 15" Macbook Pro is more matte. When I get around to it, I'd like to display the same photo on both, side by side, to see how the gloss vs. matte affects the image. I'm not currently printing, though; is it worth it for viewing on screen, if not printing?
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I found this article on monitor gamma educational:
www.eizo.com
Understanding Monitor Gamma & Gamma Correction | EIZO
Wanting to learn more about Monitor Gamma? Check out what a monitor's gamma is and how to do Gamma Correction.
brusby
Well-known
Hard to tell until you do it. You might be lucky and have a monitor that came from the factory very close to correct. Odds are strongly against it, but it's possible, in which case buying and employing a calibration device would be pretty much a waste of time and expense 'cause you're not going to see much of a change.
On the other hand, and the more likely scenario, your monitor is out of spec, so calibration would produce noticeable differences in your viewing system, in which case benefits derived could easily be worth the modest cost and time involved.
Regarding just viewing versus printing, it's more important to get the viewing system right. After all, you've got to be able to see the your images property in order to prepare them for printing (I'm assuming you mean printing digitally using your computer monitor and a modern digital printer). And how your images appear to others will depend on how they appear to you when you're making your adjustments or edits.
p.s., for those who make traditional darkroom prints no calibration is necessary because the computer monitor typically plays no part in old school printing. But if those traditional prints or negatives are scanned into a computer, it is important that the computer monitor be properly calibrated in order to evaluate the quality of the scans and to allow the user to make any necessary adjustments to them.
Conventional prints have much less dynamic range than normal scenes. As a result, straight copies of darkroom prints usually result in flat, low contrast images. So trying to make copies of traditional prints in a way that retains the feel of the originals usually requires a boost in contrast. Again a correctly calibrated monitor is absolutely necessary for good, repeatable results.
Last edited:
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
Next project: calibrate your TV screen if not done previously.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
For me, using a fully color-managed workflow and embedding profiles properly helps make sure what that what I see on my Mac mini display (where I render my photos) looks as similar as possible to what I see viewed on my iPad Pro, iPhone, and television displays, along with matching what my printer puts out. As well as on anyone else's computer with a modern browser.
My Apple Thunderbolt Display 27" is pretty similar to what you have in your iMac 21", or in my iPad Pro 11" and 12.5". On my MacBook Pro's semi-matte screen in days past, I noticed the surface scatter in a brightly lit room with white walls: It had the effect of reducing the depth of the blacks unless it was in a dark inspection box with no side lighting.
I took some care when designing my office and its lighting so as to prevent reflections and specular highlights from happening on my monitor and device displays, so the differences are now inconsequential.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hah! Now that's a challenge and depends what kinds of adjustment capabilities your television has. I'll have to look at mine... 🙂
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's a good article. I like the gamma test swatch chart.I found this article on monitor gamma educational:
Understanding Monitor Gamma & Gamma Correction | EIZO
Wanting to learn more about Monitor Gamma? Check out what a monitor's gamma is and how to do Gamma Correction.
It's curious to me that the article does not mention the fact that the name "gamma" comes from the mathematics used to model display brightness and color correction across all colors of the spectrum, of which the gamma function is an integral part. But then, I'm a mathematician by training so I notice such things. 😉
If I recall correctly, the reason that Apple systems were standardized on a 1.8 gamma is that Apple was trying to reach the nascent desktop publishing world in the 1980s-1990s and the printing engines of that era used close to that gamma value. The native gamma of the phosphor tube displays of that era was close to 2.2, and it took more expensive hardware in the display controllers and displays to reduce the gamma in the display to that level. What Apple did was split the difference, to minimize total cost, and allow enough adjustability to set the gamma and blackpoint to compatible settings.
Current hardware both has far more adjustability and is much lower cost to achieve whatever gamma you want to use, so migrating systems towards a "native" 2.2 gamma is a natural move. However, I do find that it is still easier to get a printer and my rendering work corrected to the best match if I set my display to 1.8 gamma. It's a small customization of the Xrite Display Pro calibration algorithm nowadays and doesn't take much effort, but then properly calibrated and profiled it doesn't make much difference any more.
G
Similar threads
