Calibrating the monitor of an iMAC
Mark...@cox.net
to assist in making photos. I have used the Spyder3 software and
colorimeter in the process. The problem is that the prints all come
out noticeably darker than the image on the screen. The Spyder people
say this is Apple's fault. The brightness control (really the
backlighting control) on the display will not sufficiently reduce the
brightness to get an accurate calibration. The only work around I see
is to reduce the brightness in Photoshop below what looked good on
the
screen and hope the printer responds by yielding a print of the
correct brightness. But this adjustment is completely ad hoc and is
just the kind of fiddling I hoped to avoid using the calibration
routines.
Two questions: 1) Does anybody have a better way to use Spyder3 to
compensate for this problem? 2) If not, what alternative calibration
system might be used that will avoid (or at least mitigate) this
problem? I read good things about the Macbeth systems, but will they
run into the same problem?
Thanks for the help.
D-Mac
Your problem is in the monitor set-up. Apple (for some odd reason) use a
gamma of 1.8 for their screens when every other computer on the planet
uses 2.2. Try setting your Gamma to 2.2 (The screen will darken) and
then calibrate it again.
Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the gamma
right before you start.
Unless you paid $2000 plus for the monitor alone, it is not a backlit
monitor and you have no control over that function.
D-Mac.info
nospam
<alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
> Your problem is in the monitor set-up. Apple (for some odd reason) use a
> gamma of 1.8 for their screens when every other computer on the planet
> uses 2.2. Try setting your Gamma to 2.2 (The screen will darken) and
> then calibrate it again.
they *used* to use 1.8, which started long ago so that the screen
matched the old laserwriter printers. they now use 2.2, but it really
makes no difference as whatever setting it's at is incorporated into
the display profile.
> Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
> starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the gamma
> right before you start.
nonsense.
> Unless you paid $2000 plus for the monitor alone, it is not a backlit
> monitor and you have no control over that function.
all lcd displays are backlit.
D-Mac
You are so full of bullshit, nospam, I thing you ought have a bowl scan
for the pox.
Vance
I'm not sure you have a monitor calibration problem. For a color
management scheme, you need to have everything in the production chain
calibrated in some fashion and that includes the printer. Since you
aren't saying anything about the colors being off it sounds like it's
simply a matter of prints being darker than the screen, which they
will be. You're looking at two different mediums and the brightness
range possible from a print is not anywhere near what you can see on
either a CRT, or an LCD. For personal printing you can create a
profile for the printer which will make it more in line with what you
see from the CRT by printing lighter, which it sounds like you're
already doing. This may be an ad hoc solution, but it shouldn't be ad
hoc for every photo.
There are references on the net about a color managed workflow and
they will give you all the information that you need. If you really
want your printed images to look as close to what you see on your
screen as they can, be prepared to put some work into it. As
wonderful as digital is, quality still requires work.
Vance
isw
Apple chose 1.8 specifically because it's representative of a printed
page (WSYWIG); the riddle is to figure out why M$ decided to use 2.2 (I
have my own suspicions).
> Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
> starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the gamma
> right before you start.
Apple's included calibration app includes a pane to select gamma; it's
at the end of the process -- as it should be. Before you pick a gamma,
you need to correct the monitor's color tracking over the widest
possible range. After that, picking any particular gamma is easy.
Isaac
isw
D-Mac <alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
Which parts are wrong, please -- I'd really like to know.
Isaac
Justin C
I'm not familiar with the spyder. The art dept at work used to use a
Pantone Huey and ended up dumping it because it screwed with what he'd
go used to, compensating naturally for the change in the light.
Have you calibrated your printer?
If the shot you take is correctly exposed as per a light meter, and it
looks right on the screen, then it's your printer that's making a mess
of it.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Ray Fischer
So would I. Sure, some B&W LCD displays are not backlit but all of
the ones that serve as TVs and computer monitors are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
<Mark...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eeff20e1-b358-407c...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>I have an iMAC about a year old. I am trying to calibrate the monitor
> to assist in making photos. I have used the Spyder3 software and
> colorimeter in the process. The problem is that the prints all come
> out noticeably darker than the image on the screen. The Spyder people
> say this is Apple's fault. The brightness control (really the
> backlighting control) on the display will not sufficiently reduce the
> brightness to get an accurate calibration. The only work around I see
> is to reduce the brightness in Photoshop below what looked good on
> the
> screen and hope the printer responds by yielding a print of the
> correct brightness. But this adjustment is completely ad hoc and is
> just the kind of fiddling I hoped to avoid using the calibration
> routines.
When I was a member of a camera club, this sort of problem often cropped up,
and this was long before digital printing, and most of the problems came
from
how the final print was going to be viewed. Most of used viewed our work
under tungsten light perhaps 3 bulbs above us, but all the prints were going
to
be judged at the local library under fluorescent light, some there preferred
taking their print in to the great outdoors and view it under natural light.
There were also some of us doing prints from transparencies so the question
there
was deos it look like the projected slide.
back to the present I've noticed that we also have the options for the
printer to
manage the colour, and there are options for setting the type of paper
which defines how much ink is placed on the paper.
I've often wanted to get a 'perfect print' and be able to test this sort of
thing
by trying different papers and inks.
i.e does an Espson printer really need epson ink and epson paper to do the
job....
I've yet to answer these things and probably never will have them answered,
but with so many having different characteristics from the ink to the
printer to
screen, and then the human eye, I actually had someone over who said they
couldn't
read the on-line instructions because the text was black on red and they
were colour blind
I'm just wondering just how important such calibration is unless you're a
pro.
or doing a scientific study/experiment.
George Kerby
On 3/22/09 4:46 PM, in article gq6bje$mvk$1...@news.albasani.net, "D-Mac"
<alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
> Mark...@cox.net wrote:
>> I have an iMAC about a year old. I am trying to calibrate the monitor
>> to assist in making photos. I have used the Spyder3 software and
>> colorimeter in the process. The problem is that the prints all come
>> out noticeably darker than the image on the screen. The Spyder people
>> say this is Apple's fault. The brightness control (really the
>> backlighting control) on the display will not sufficiently reduce the
>> brightness to get an accurate calibration. The only work around I see
>> is to reduce the brightness in Photoshop below what looked good on
>> the
>> screen and hope the printer responds by yielding a print of the
>> correct brightness. But this adjustment is completely ad hoc and is
>> just the kind of fiddling I hoped to avoid using the calibration
>> routines.
>> Two questions: 1) Does anybody have a better way to use Spyder3 to
>> compensate for this problem? 2) If not, what alternative calibration
>> system might be used that will avoid (or at least mitigate) this
>> problem? I read good things about the Macbeth systems, but will they
>> run into the same problem?
>> Thanks for the help.
>
>
> D-Mac.info
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As usual, a spigot of shitty information.
Macs haven't used 1.8 since the laserwriter days.
Go away.
George Kerby
On 3/22/09 8:14 PM, in article gq6nq4$737$2...@news.albasani.net, "D-Mac"
<alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
Pot = Kettle
isw
Justin C <justi...@purestblue.com> wrote:
Far better than looking at it on the screen (even IF you've done a
calibration) is to use the measuring tools in an app such as Photoshop:
do areas that you know should be white (and black) measure that way?
Because if they do, the rest of the picture is probably OK too.
Then, if the printer prints the "white" areas as any other color, the
printer has a problem.
Isaac
D-Mac
For you who walk around with eyes closed.
"The XL20's LED-based backlighting system is another in a long line of
technology firsts". Read the whole story here:
http://www.samsung.com/au/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=5064&gltype=
Just because a cheap monitor has a light behind the screen to let you
see an image in the dark does not mean it is a "Backlit" monitor.
If idiots who think they know it all bothered to do some research before
dribbling off at the mouth, they might gain a grain of knowledge. It's
hard to imagine your pea brain having enough space to do that Ray, but
at least try occasionally would you?
If you got your head out of your ass for a while and washed your face,
you'd realise you ain't that cool dude with sunnies you thought you were.
D-Mac.info
nospam
<alien...@y7mail.com> wrote:
> "The XL20's LED-based backlighting system is another in a long line of
> technology firsts". Read the whole story here:
>
> http://www.samsung.com/au/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=5064&gltype=
that refers to *led* backlighting as opposed to cold cathode
fluorescent tubes.
> Just because a cheap monitor has a light behind the screen to let you
> see an image in the dark does not mean it is a "Backlit" monitor.
then what does it mean? front lit?
> If idiots who think they know it all bothered to do some research before
> dribbling off at the mouth, they might gain a grain of knowledge. It's
> hard to imagine your pea brain having enough space to do that Ray, but
> at least try occasionally would you?
so not only do you not understand what backlit means, you spew insults
too.
nospam
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> back to the present I've noticed that we also have the options for the
> printer to
> manage the colour, and there are options for setting the type of paper
> which defines how much ink is placed on the paper.
> I've often wanted to get a 'perfect print' and be able to test this sort of
> thing
> by trying different papers and inks.
> i.e does an Espson printer really need epson ink and epson paper to do the
> job....
using alternate inks can sometimes be better and it can also be worse.
some inks are more likely to clog the printer, for instance. if you
get quality inks, that probably won't happen, but the colours can be
different since the replacement inks won't be identical to what epson
ships. thus, you will need a new printer profile.
> I've yet to answer these things and probably never will have them answered,
> but with so many having different characteristics from the ink to the
> printer to
> screen, and then the human eye, I actually had someone over who said they
> couldn't
> read the on-line instructions because the text was black on red and they
> were colour blind
> I'm just wondering just how important such calibration is unless you're a
> pro.
> or doing a scientific study/experiment.
it's very useful and it's not hard to do (or have done).
Bob Larter
Yes it does, you cretin. That's what 'backlighting' *means*!
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist Chaplain
news:230320091436030391%nos...@nospam.invalid...
welcome to the real Douglas St James MacDonald
totally unable to admit when he is wrong and now that you have pointed out
his shortcoming to him in a public forum, expect to be dragged into any
thread where Douggie starts spitting bile and vitriol, so that just about
all of them.
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Mark...@cox.net
> In article <gq8317$mkf$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
>
Thanks for the spirited discussion on this topic. I learned things.
The 20" iMAC is probably not the best instrument on which to do color
prints. But that's what I have. I finally remembered that the
Spyder3PRINT software has a provision a the end for adjusting the
printer profiles you make. These adjustments are still ad hoc, but
will probably be sufficient to get reasonable prints made. The lesson
is that professional quality work requires professional quality
equipment. Mark Schupack
PixelPix
There is nothing wrong with an iMac..... I am running 2 x 24 inch
iMacs and 1 x 20 inch here and have no problems with WYSIWYG (what you
see is what you get) prints. The big thing is that the "whole system"
needs to be calibrated, "including" the printer.
Cheers
Rusty
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "PixelPix" <ma...@pixelpix.com.au> ?????? ??? ??????
news:8d52dda2-79b0-4c01...@r5g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
<end quote>
Are you sure about that? I don't have a Mac, but my PC runs fine WYSIWYG,
out of the box, without me having to change anything, anywhere. I have a
core2duo, 2GB, win XP greek legit with a Samsung syncmaster206bw 20" TFT and
a Canon Pixma iP 4300. I'm using original Canon inks, and for paper
everything I can get my hands on:Epson, Canon, Agfa, Schoeller (german),
sihl (german from lidl www.lidl.co.uk ), and all comes as I see it on
myscreen, and (almost) what I saw in my camera's small LCD,( nytech
www.nytech.de ). Maybe, because the Mac is de facto high end, it needs
calibrating?
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
isw
"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
All monitors "need" calibration if you have an interest in fairly
precise color rendering. The question is whether the setup you have was
calibrated at the factory or not (if the monitor did not ship with the
PC, then it is not calibrated; if it did, it still may not be). The
issue is that calibration *affects* the monitor, but is accomplished *on
the video card*, so every pair has to be "mated".
You might be interested in what you'd find if you checked your monitor's
calibration. Macs come with a pretty decent tool for doing that; I have
no idea how to go about it on a PC.
Isaac