Monitor calibration, pictures looking bad.

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

06/17/2010 01:28:05 PM · #1

Right, i have calibrated my monitor hundreds of times, but on other monitors that are fine, they looks brighter and less contrasted?
And i keep getting comments saying its a bit bright, or lacks colour or "punch" im sure you'd see it in some of my photos, ill put an example.
But im not sure if its wrong or not, i can't check in my house i only have this computer with a HD monitor and an old laptop that barley works.
How can i check if there good, for this site, my website and prints?

example.
to me this looks vibrant, colourful, and rich blacks, and perfect brightness/exposure

Message edited by author 2010-06-17 13:30:06.

06/17/2010 01:31:47 PM · #2

How are you calibrating your monitor?

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

06/17/2010 01:33:28 PM · #3

Originally posted by Simms:

How are you calibrating your monitor?

Just using the free programs, some i found on here and others ive serched for :/

kenskid

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

06/17/2010 01:56:17 PM · #4

IMO it is very hard to do it by "eye".

I used a Spyder.

Originally posted by hojop25:

Originally posted by Simms:
How are you calibrating your monitor?

Just using the free programs, some i found on here and others ive serched for :/

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

06/17/2010 01:59:46 PM · #5

On my monitor (uncalibrated Toshiba 17" laptop) the example you posted looks a bit 'muddy'.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2010 02:11:40 PM · #6

Can of worms.

The short of it, drawn from my own experience: most people don't calibrate their monitors or they use low-cost soft- or hardware calibrators to do the job imperfectly. As a result, a consistent representation of any image, as you see it, cannot be achieved universally. The best you can do, is to load that image on as many monitors and also via different browsers as you can access, and compare, compare, compare. In this way, you will, at least arrive at a rough sort of sense of how different people view your work on the web.

For purposes of printing, you should keep in mind that in order to reproduce the image you see on your lab's monitors, both the originating and the proofing monitors need to be calibrated and profiled to a t. Only professional hardware calibrators are capable of this. These devices cost several thousand dollars. But unless you use a professional monitor as well (such as this), even the best equipment cannot deliver.

Example: I use quite a decent computer (an iMac with very punchy graphics)), which my lab cannot calibrate satisfactorily. In order for the proofer to get a practical sense of the intended aesthetics, I need to take my computer in with me and guide him verbally, on a wing and a prayer, through the process and follow up with individual test prints. Needless to day, this is a tedious and costly approach. Another approach would be to invest in a good printer and experiment with calibration, printer profiles and the resultis yourself, until you have found a set-up that closely approximates your intent.

Message edited by author 2010-06-17 14:23:49.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2010 05:24:27 PM · #7

Originally posted by zeuszen:

Nonsense - low/mid-range hardware calibrators can pretty much nail colour calibration on the head.

Example - I calibrate with a Spyder 3 Elite - it calibrates the two completely different monitors I use perfectly - switching calibration on/off shows what a difference it makes when active.
2nd Example - I download a profile for softproofing my wedding albums from my supplier and (taking luminance into account) my colours are bang on - not almost - but perfect.

Hardware calibrators are more than ample for most users on here.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

06/17/2010 06:09:01 PM · #8

Originally posted by Simms:

...Nonsense - low/mid-range hardware calibrators can pretty much nail colour calibration on the head...Hardware calibrators are more than ample for most users on here.

I use a reputable, professional lab servicing commercial and fine art photographers in the Northwest. The lab uses current MacPros with 30" ACD monitors. In an effort to reduce costs, they considered switching their stations to the markedly cheaper iMacs. Prior to making the purchase, an attempt was made to calibrate several iMac monitors with their calibration device, which is a i1Xtreme at the store. They could not achieve results good enough to adept to their and their clients' standards. Needless to say, the purchase did not take place.

The lab has even offered me to use their kit on my monitor, if only it would make the slightest sense. Can my lab produce any decent prints from my files, given the mutual equipment? Yes; however, I am discriminating with some of my images, since these simply do not work as an image unless painstakingly rendered. Of course, those are often the same images I offer as limited editions. I need to print them 100% consistently and with great care, which is reflected by cost, and eventually, by price.

If I could get the job done well and confidently for a few hundred dollars, believe me, I'd be on it in a minute.

smardaz

06/17/2010 06:44:56 PM · #9

Simms on this. But as you say

zeuszen, you are very discriminating, most people would not haul their pc's into the shop to get it just right. Perhaps there are 2 correct answers to this, depending on which path you want to take.

Message edited by author 2010-06-17 18:45:46.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/17/2010 07:18:47 PM · #10

Originally posted by smardaz:

I watched a very well respected photographer from this site edit shots on a mid level laptop attached to a flat screen tv and the prints came out great. Perhaps I am just an untrained eye, but I would have to side with Simms on this. But as you say zeuszen, you are very discriminating, most people would not haul their pc's into the shop to get it just right. Perhaps there are 2 correct answers to this, depending on which path you want to take.

Not only that but zeuszen and Simms are different types of photographers. One is a fine art photographer and the other is a wedding/portrait photographer. The two are going to have different needs when it comes to the output of their work. So like you said, there is more than one correct answer depending on what you do and how well you want to do it.

Message edited by author 2010-06-17 19:20:33.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/17/2010 10:17:19 PM · #11

Originally posted by smardaz:

Same here. A stock iMac cannot be calibrated accurately, but using a 3rd party utility to reduce the brightness below its lowest setting can make it possible. I use a $1000 i1 calibrator, and it's accurate enough that I was able to tell that a service bureau's proofs were incorrect.

06/18/2010 03:38:20 AM · #12

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by smardaz:
I watched a very well respected photographer from this site edit shots on a mid level laptop attached to a flat screen tv and the prints came out great. Perhaps I am just an untrained eye, but I would have to side with Simms on this.

Same here. A stock iMac cannot be calibrated accurately, but using a 3rd party utility to reduce the brightness below its lowest setting can make it possible. I use a $1000 i1 calibrator, and it's accurate enough that I was able to tell that a service bureau's proofs were incorrect.

In case anyone is interested, the newest update for the Spyder 3 software (V4) now includes the ability to adjust the brightness through software. way overdue but works great.

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

06/18/2010 10:50:42 AM · #13

right guys does this look better???

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/18/2010 11:14:37 AM · #14

Originally posted by hojop25:

right guys does this look better???

I think the highlights are better on the second one but the black point seems off. Maybe add a levels or curves layer to this version, select the black eyedropper and pick the darkest area.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

06/18/2010 11:26:49 AM · #15

Originally posted by Simms:

In case anyone is interested, the newest update for the Spyder 3 software (V4) now includes the ability to adjust the brightness through software. way overdue but works great.

Nothing for Spyder3Pro though. Would have loved to have the brightness set by the software just to compare it to what I have my settings at presently.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

06/18/2010 12:17:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by hojop25:

right guys does this look better???

Certainly a touch more contrasty and saturated. looks better than the first one.

Scapeshots

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/18/2010 12:23:39 PM · #17

So, is it correct to assume that you are supposed to set the printer color profile to that of the Spyder as well (if you use that). I have a Canon PIXMA Pro 9000 MK I and i cant seem to get the colors to come out the same as on the monitor. I know the monitor is calibrated correctly because when i get canvas prints from a lab the colors are spot on. How are you supposed to calibrate the printer correctly? Thanks!

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

06/18/2010 02:16:51 PM · #18

i did the black levels like you said, has it changed? i know the saturation has, is it better would you say?

Message edited by author 2010-06-18 14:17:12.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/18/2010 02:43:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by wizardry:

No. The printer profile is the one for the paper/ink combination being used. The best are custom profiles as each printer is slightly different. The ones from the manufacturer (of the paper for the printer you are using) are the best choice if you don't have a custom one done.

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

06/18/2010 04:44:14 PM · #20

can you tell me if its better? thanks people.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/18/2010 05:03:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by hojop25:

can you tell me if its better? thanks people.

Sorry, the thread got side tracked.

I think that the saturation is now a bit much but the overall contrast has improved. I think just reducing the saturation and maybe just brightening the shadows a smidge (not much).