Monitor calibration

Oh, mine are not there yet, I agree. That's what I need to work on and I think it's me, not the monitor.

Steps taken: tripod always if possible, remote shutter release. The Parkinson's is affecting my work, no doubt about it. Now that I can see it, I'm going to do some experimenting.

The Parkinson's is affecting my work, no doubt about it.

Click to expand...

Most likely. I'm on some meds that are costing me about two or three f/stops in hand-holding ability. It's new and it's well beyond vastly annoying. Anyway, for the close-ups you might try the flash at the highest shutter speed the camera will support. Then shoot the same subject without it. You'll be able to compare what camera motion is doing to your pictures.

Hi Rachel,

This image does not necessarily show camera shake, I think it may be depth of field, focus issues - the tip of the stem looks fairly sharp, maybe a slight breeze on the leaf.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ah. I recently shot a rose just like that, but on purpose.

That's the Rachel factor...knowing when I've got the square in the right place. I'm shooting a rose tonight and even though roses have been done to death and beyond, I like what I'm getting.

It's all about persistance and listening. I don't always agree with feedback, but every comment I've received has made me think. If only I'd discovered the laptop issue earlier. And if only I'd listened to you, Ray, about the remote shutter even if I couldn't see what everyone else was seeing....

Me and Frank Sinatra....

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Many/most laptops (don't know about yours) are hard to get right, even with an expensive spectrometer. Don't waste too much money on profiling it.

Click to expand...

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor. My experience has been contrary to traditional wisdom. Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

Jon Mark said:

Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

Click to expand...

Stability!

Asher

Jon Mark said:

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor.

Click to expand...

LCDs differ in their capabilities. I've calibrated my Desktop LCD and my Laptop LCD. Both are calibrated as accurate as possible with the EyeOne Photo (spectrometer type), but the Laptop's LCD reds seriously 'suck', because it lacks in Gamut, and is more sensitive to viewing angle. IOW, I cannot judge color accurately/reliably, despite optimal calibration.

I'm not saying your Laptop's LCD is no good, but I also cannot say that the HP one is. I can say that it is a guessing game which ones are usable, and most are not.

Bart

Does Apple have an advantage here? Are the Apple laptops made with higher quality LCD's?

After reading this thread, I googled "Apple Color Myth" just for kicks, and I read how Apple is being sued for claiming "millions of colors" when their laptop panels are just as bad for omitting sections of the spectrum... ???

Here's my point of view, a geshtalt force that guides me.

On my 17" Mac Laptop, I do not make color alterations for any file for printing. I do find the screen is great for evaluating most images, but as Bart points out, it's not ideal. I do quick adjustments in color for a jpg to be posted in sRGB. However, I'd never want to invest time in serious photoshop work in my 17" MacBook Pro as I know this should be done on a better quality Eizo monitor.

If one keeps edits on the laptop to simple cropping, rotations and tonality (levels and curves) changes one is pretty safe. For color, grey cards, WhiBal or another standard is required, necessary, needed, compulsory to have some assurance of color independant of the monitor.

No monitor can show you what is present in the file! what matters is you don't screw it up by essentially looking through a ccolored piece of glass to you precious piucture! Women know this! If you buy a dress, you take it outside to see it in the daylight. Why? Because you don't trust you color judgement when the color of the light is wrong. Same with looking at your picture via the window of any monitor. You will do better with a professional monitor, but nothing will give you a free pass.

Ulltimately, one can even print from any LCD monitor and make all adjustments based on the final print only!

All in all, like any relationship, one cannot expect good results without investing the effort! Just think one is buying an expensive dress for some fine lady!

Asher

Jon Mark said:

I was told this too, but decided to calibrate my "glossy" Macbook Pro LCD backlit screen with ColorEyes Display Pro. It did the job and color reproduction is spot on with my LCD monitor. My experience has been contrary to traditional wisdom. Technology changes and while profiling older laptop screens in the past may have been problematic, recent experience (Rob Galbraith) has shown that one can calibrate laptop screens (at least on a Mac). I don't see why a HP screen would be any different.

Click to expand...

Jon, if that's the MacBook Pro with the brand-new LED-backlit display, that is perhaps a horse of a different color. <horrible pun>. I'd expect it to perform well after calibration from what I've read about it. The only thing I know nothing about is if it has a wider colour gamut or not. In fact, I'm holding off on laptop upgrade hoping that this screen goes mainstream, or at least finds it's way to the PC market sometime.

For the rest of us with no LED-backlit display on our laptops, I still contend strongly that a decent laptop monitor isn't all that bad when calibrated, and totally worthless if not. But understandably not good enough for many experienced photographers / photo-editors.

Regards,
All

I really like this discussion since monitor calibration is very intimidating to the beginner. The debate is do I buy it or can I get by -- at least that was the case for me. In retrospect, monitor calibration was the best "investment" that I have done since I was perpetually frustrated by colors/hues which were off.

Granted a laptop monitor can't compare to an EIZO or similar product which was designed for color accuracy -- often then cost as much if not more than a macbook pro... However, I still think profiling/calibrating provides a way to make sure the edits that you make to an image is in the right direction. It sure as heck beats guessing since I guessed wrong for over a year!

Bart's comments and input are very much appreciated as he's got much more experience than I. I don't think Rachel will go wrong by investing in a colorimeter to profile her laptop screen. As she improves, it can be used to profile her other equipment (future EIZO monitor?) as she expands her skills.

Just my 2 cents...

Jon, could you expand (perhaps via reflection on your thoughts previous to taking the colorimeter plunge) on what exactly you found intimidating? Did you envision the process as some complicated procedures that would baffle all but the great photographic and computer-literate minds that meet here? Could you also expand a bit on how you feel about it now, and how long from "out of the box" to your first calibration took?

It might help others reading / participating / and/or lurking here to take the plunge!

Regards,
Greg

If you can program your VCR your probably have 100 times more knowledge than required to use one of the color profiling pucks, anyone you chose, it doesn't matter a lot.

If you can understand a Viagra, Bounty Paper Towels or the Maytag Lonely Repairman adverts, you are ready to do profiling without pain!

Do you know how to play Bingo? That's far to much brain work. You don't need it. Drink at least 1 glass of wine, better 2 then you will have left the attention needed to do a perfect job. Why, simple! There's really nothing to do except put the device on your monitor and click!

Asher

I have no idea how to program a VCR. I do understand the other 3 though. <ahem>

Re my first colorimeter (clueless, had no idea what one even looked like at the time), I'd guess 20 mins from out of the box to.....voila. Done. And back then I believe 15 minutes or more was sitting there wondering if the stupid thing was ever going to finish. (thankfully much faster now). (note that that previous sentence is regarding my first colorimeter and operating software, not Viagra)

-Greg

Greg Rogers said:

Jon, could you expand (perhaps via reflection on your thoughts previous to taking the colorimeter plunge) on what exactly you found intimidating? Did you envision the process as some complicated procedures that would baffle all but the great photographic and computer-literate minds that meet here? Could you also expand a bit on how you feel about it now, and how long from "out of the box" to your first calibration took?

It might help others reading / participating / and/or lurking here to take the plunge!

Regards,
Greg

Click to expand...

Greg,

In researching colorimeters a year ago, I read Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Color Management." Talk about biting off more than I could chew! Reading about device profiles, ICC profiles, colorspace profiles and others very much overwhelmed me. I didn't know where these were located and how to select/use them. So I waited...read more...digested more...and the next thing knew, a year had passed. I stopped printing since I was never satisfied with the colors and hues.

Fed up, I took the plunge after I met someone who recommended ColorEyes Display Pro. I was told the software put the profiles where they needed to go. Googled ColorEyes Display Pro and found some very positive reviews online -- especially of the software interface.

Conviced a buddy to calibrate his system too. The process took 15-20min. Selecting things like target white point, gamma, white luminance, and color temp were explained in relatively simple language so I could understand what I was selecting and why. Initial impressions right after calibration was that our monitors were less bright.

Looked at my old pictures and they were ALL off -- that's not the color I intended and thought "oh $h1t" what did I just do. So I profiled again and no change. So I took an original image and post processed to my usual work flow. Printed on my i9900 and my jaw dropped. That night we went through over 20 8x10's and at least 50 5x7's. We changed inks on the photo printer multiple times...

In the end, I was happy with the result, and was more irritated that I waited so long to decide to make the decision.

Asher is right, anyone can do it and its not complicated at all. The terminology confused me the most. Everyone has their preferences of devices -- based on reputation, cost, interface, etc. I chose ColorEyes and it worked for me. Others have been happy with spider and others; sometimes passionately -- almost akin to the Canon and Nikon debates...

I think the mistake is for those that wait or put it off. Consistent feedback over the last 4 months is people's comments in regards to the color. Each time I hear that, it reinforces my decision that profiling the monitor was the right choice. Even my wife who almost fell over when she found out how much I spent agrees that the pictures are more appealing to her since the colors are nicer...

Hope others find this helpful.

Great post Jon. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your experience. Little doubt this will help some folks as they stumble across this thread.

My regret years back was the time wasted with various other methods which involve guesswork and too much reliance on the human eye.

Regards,
-Greg