Monitor Calibration - Realistic Question

03/13/2007 06:44:13 PM · #1

Say I do a manual calibration, on my CRT, setting the white point brightness by moving the gun, checking the gamma level, and calibrating the phosphors.

Then, say I use some electronic calibration hardware. Push a button and done.

Does the electronic calibration provide any SIGNIFICANT benefit or exactness to a print as compared to the screen, within the natural variation of common printing places such as DPCPrints? By natural variation, I refer to the emission light of the monitor versus the reflective light of a print (i.e. ambient light differences)

It seems to me that if one takes the patience to do it manually, the results from the print will be very close. Then, is the hardware calibration just a matter of ease?

I ask only because I calibrate manually (using Adobe Gamma, et al) and the colors from my thermal dye sublimation printer are spot on or nearly so to what I see on the screen....as long as the ambient light is ok.

Thanks,
Paul

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Color Managed Workflow from camera to final print

03/13/2007 07:10:22 PM · #2

connie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

03/13/2007 07:14:54 PM · #3

I just bought a laptop with Windows Vista and it won't save when I calibrate my monitor. Every time I restart my laptop it goes back to the computer defalt settings. Anyone else dealing with this?

I like my old computer better!

kenskid

Nikon D700

03/13/2007 07:30:40 PM · #4

I don't have Vista but it is likely reverting back to the "default" calibration. You have to find a way to set your new settings as default.

LIkely you will name your new setting and save it some kind of way and then find I to set that named file as your default.

Originally posted by connie:

03/13/2007 08:32:39 PM · #5

Thanks! That is quite a document. I have applied much of that already, I'll have to go back a check a few other things out.

It seems though that if a monitor is not shielded from direct ambient light sources, no degree of monitor calibration will help since the eye won't be able to distinguish a continuity between monitor and background.

The most critical component of calibration seems to be the brightness of the monitor. How then does hardware calibration benefit over the eye? I'm just sure if I will see a reasonable difference.

Opinions? Prior experiences anyone?

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Color Managed Workflow from camera to final print

kenskid

Nikon D700

03/13/2007 08:37:00 PM · #6

Go to one of the current challenge photos up for voting. Scroll down ad look at that "bar" going across the bottom. That bar should have distinct squares all the way across. If you see that at either end, the squares are "running together" where you can't tell where one end and the other begins, then your "brightness/contrast calibration is off.

See if you can fix it by eyeballing it and fiddling with your monitor and let me know how it goes!

Kenskid

Originally posted by PGerst:

03/13/2007 09:09:17 PM · #7

I know what thats for, and I do see every shade. My monitor IS calibrated. My question was specific to the difference in the hardware versus software calibration.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Go to one of the current challenge photos up for voting. Scroll down ad look at that "bar" going across the bottom....
See if you can fix it by eyeballing it and fiddling with your monitor and let me know how it goes!

Kenskid

kenskid

Nikon D700

03/13/2007 09:26:54 PM · #8

I would guess there is NO difference between the two if you can eyeball it to correct calibration. If what you see on your screen is printing out on your printer then you're ok.

Originally posted by PGerst:

I know what thats for, and I do see every shade. My monitor IS calibrated. My question was specific to the difference in the hardware versus software calibration.

Originally posted by kenskid:
Go to one of the current challenge photos up for voting. Scroll down ad look at that "bar" going across the bottom....
See if you can fix it by eyeballing it and fiddling with your monitor and let me know how it goes!

Kenskid

nicklevy

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/13/2007 09:39:34 PM · #9

Your monitor maybe in fact calibrated but not profiled and there is a difference. When working on a picture in RGB mode using the default profile you calibrated your monitor in the colors are probably accurate and so are the colors in your web browser, but if you want to soft proof you image in photoshop to ensure the accuracy of a print, then maybe photoshop will fool you into thinking the colors are correct, wich they are not because the conversion is done from a profile that doesn't represent your monitor real gamut but instead a generic gamut IN WICH you calibrated your monitor.

Second point, by doing a manual calibration with adobe gamma, you generally start with a generic profile, usually sRGB or ADOBE RGB, that doesn't represent the actual gamut of your monitor and the gamut of that base profile may actually be smaller than your monitor's gamut. That way you'd be throwing away a lot of color that your monitor can display and that you will never use because the base profile in wich you calibrated your monitor is too small.

The only way to ensure accurate viewing AND proofing of your images, using all the colors that you have available given your equipment is to hardware measure your monitor using a device like the pantone huey for exemple and letting the software do both the calibration and the profiling for your monitors based on these reading.

03/13/2007 09:57:38 PM · #10

Thanks. What you described is what I had thought the technical difference would be. How about the actual when it comes to the print? Are the variations from one print shop to another different that the variability is greater than that of pure accurate calibration?

I do proof all the time. In fact, when I'm planning to print out to the dye-sub printer, I'll work IN the colorspace of the printer. The resulting print is essentially what I see on the screen, except for minor differences for the ambient light reflectance off the print (versus emission).

Originally posted by nicklevy: