Monitor Calibration

[Geoff F]

Last week my old 17 ins crt computer monitor died so I thought that I might as well get a decent photo quality larger replacement. Ended up with a 20 ins Iiyama Pro Lite H511S which has a sRGB true colour option, which seems to be giving good photo colour; and I don't loose any screen edges whilst viewing.

What I really wanted to know is how many of you calibrate your monitors. A photo specialist site that I use, always reckon that only a total idiot would try to print from an uncalibrated set. I never bothered with my old monitor, except to visually check with a basic RGB test card and set colours manually. That seemed to work and my new monitor also appears to print correctly, but I did reduce brightness by 10%.

So what do the rest of you do?

ps. On the photo site, a lot of questions start with 'Since calibrating my monitor the print colour doesn't match . . .'

[thes3raph1m]

i use a greyscale calibration a simple eye test... i can see all the greys and all the blacks and all the whites as seperate, just about anyway....

thats about it...

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Last week my old 17 ins crt computer monitor died so I thought that I might as well get a decent photo quality larger replacement. Ended up with a 20 ins Iiyama Pro Lite H511S which has a sRGB true colour option, which seems to be giving good photo colour; and I don't loose any screen edges whilst viewing.

What I really wanted to know is how many of you calibrate your monitors. A photo specialist site that I use, always reckon that only a total idiot would try to print from an uncalibrated set. I never bothered with my old monitor, except to visually check with a basic RGB test card and set colours manually. That seemed to work and my new monitor also appears to print correctly, but I did reduce brightness by 10%.

So what do the rest of you do?

ps. On the photo site, a lot of questions start with 'Since calibrating my monitor the print colour doesn't match . . .'

I'm one of the total idiots.
My printers about had it's day, I hardly use it. I tend to get them printed from an on line printing service when I need them.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Last week my old 17 ins crt computer monitor died so I thought that I might as well get a decent photo quality larger replacement. Ended up with a 20 ins Iiyama Pro Lite H511S which has a sRGB true colour option, which seems to be giving good photo colour; and I don't loose any screen edges whilst viewing.

What I really wanted to know is how many of you calibrate your monitors. A photo specialist site that I use, always reckon that only a total idiot would try to print from an uncalibrated set. I never bothered with my old monitor, except to visually check with a basic RGB test card and set colours manually. That seemed to work and my new monitor also appears to print correctly, but I did reduce brightness by 10%.

So what do the rest of you do?

ps. On the photo site, a lot of questions start with 'Since calibrating my monitor the print colour doesn't match . . .'

I use a gretag macbeth spyder and accompanying software - this is a device that sticks on the front of your screen plugs into a usb port and reads colours off a chart on the screen then automatically re profiles the monitor.

mine is an expensive unit but you can get spyder type attachments for under a 100 notes - eyeone are the other main player in this market apart from gretag though i'm sure there are others.

once you have one of these you need to use it about once every fortnight to month.

As regards print colours once you have a calibrated monitor you can buy printer profiles online to match your printer, paper and ink.

by the way all this is only really necessary for pros, semi pros and those producing lots of prints - its a big faff about for amateurs and may not be worth the hassle. If you use a printing service like graham mentions they will have calibrated monitors etc and in some cases will retweak an image to get an acceptable shot.

[galanthus]

I use a colorvision spyder2pro. It's very good and I use it regularly. I got it after starting a thread on calibration kits, here's the link so you can see what the replies were. By the way, I went with the epson R1800 to go with it later

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...inter-pls.html

[RichBrew]

I check the calibration on my iMac 20 once a month to keep things consistent. I do this using the ColorVision Spyder 2. Unless you know what you're doing, adjusting RGB settings manually with no reference point can often make things worse. Using software keeps things to a tolerance. Print colours are never going to match those on a computer display, as a print relies on reflected light, while a screen is back-lit.

RichBrew

[RockHopper]

We got the Hueypro for our screen and it has made a big difference.

Have to say tho that we dont have a great monitor and the main problem with it is that any laptop to pc transfers look a little dark.

So if anyone can recommend a really good monitor.......

[John D]

I have read a great deal on monitor calibration and certainly considered getting some of the calibration equipment which is available. However to date I have just made do with various 'visual methods' that are available. (There are several web sites and tutorials available.) I regularly check my monitor using such software such as Adobe Gamma, Quick Gamma and Quick Monitor etc. Quick Gamma in my opinion does a reasonable job.

By using these methods I have obtained a fairly good match between monitor and printer. However my main objective is to get a print that compares as much as possible to the 'image taken by the camera'. Surely this is the main aim. Just like in recording sound it is about getting as near a 'copy of the original ' as possible. It is therefore, probably more important to ensure the monitor is showing an image comparable with that taken.
In order to check if my print is representitive of what the camera has seen I check this out by photographing such things as brickwork on the house, a flower in bloom, grass, and a muti colour image etc. I then print the images ASAP and make a visual comparison. It is important that this is done when there is no change in external light and as soon as possible after taking the shot.
So far I have been satisfied with the prints obtained.
There are a lot of additional variables to be taken into account such as ink used, paper used, printer settings and condition of the printer etc. I use 'third party' inks and paper as I get comparable consistancy and similar quality at lower cost than using Epson inks and paper. I do a lot of printing up to A4 and have been very satisfied with the results.
I also find that the inks I use and have used for several years and used for prints that have been in light for several years have not shown signs of fading. I check this against filed 'master hard copies'.
Compared with prints from negatives as in the 'old days' I don't think fading can be any worse. Certainly not from my experience in being involved over many years.
John D

[Bub-les]

Thank you John for that post. Silly me hadn't thought of that way of checking a printer. I'm going to try it out as I don't seem to be able to get a print that I'm happy with.
Thanks again.
Barbara

[Geoff F]

My current computer was salvaged from a builder's skip and I found that the monitor colour was way out. For the past week I borrowed a monitor and that was equally faulty but I managed to do a reasonable job of correction using a basic freebie test card and comparing camera images to monitor image and prints. This led me to think that there are probably a lot of incorrectly adjusted monitors in use.

Once, I tried another free basic calibration programme but found it produced worse results than adjusting by eye. A long time ago I was a printer and think that I still have a reasonable 'colour eye'. I have considered purchasing a better system but getting a new monitor has set my new bigger lens plans back by a couple of months so that will have to come first.

Incorrect printer settings are certainly to blame for a great many bad print problems. I have tried third party ink but found that although it produced consistant results they weren't quite as good as the real thing; although there are probably wide variations between different alternative ink suppliers. There is certainly a lot of variation between different paper manufacturers which will produce widely differing results. I find that the results from anything less than the top grades is always disappointing. Cheap paper tends to fade quickly, the worst of them won't last a year unless they are behind glass and out of sunlight.

Mostly, I print using the Windows ICM colour control setting which I find to give slightly more acurate colours than the printer auto settings which tend to be a touch over saturated for my tastes. I wanted to produce A3 prints so I'm using a Canon Pixema 9000 and Canon Photo Paper Pro super glossy paper. Also use Ilford Classic Pearl when I want a softer finish. Some of the special paper profiles work and I usually use this setting for Ilford paper otherwise I set for the general type of paper being used. Wrong paper type or too low a printer resolution definitely produce inferior prints.

One thing that I did find with my new monitor is that the sRGB setting does produce truer colours than the standard control. So, as long as I am getting good and consistant results with prints, I will keep saving for that new lens and think about a calibration system later.

Hope there might be a few tips here for Bub-les to experiment with.