«

Hi.

I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the choices
for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
(samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
one calibrated)?
Any other advice/help is appreciated.

Roger
(Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
message news:...
> Hi.
>
> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the choices
> for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
> one calibrated)?
> Any other advice/help is appreciated.

Hi Roger,

The Samsung 204B is a gorgeous monitor, and after getting it set up, and
getting used to it a bit, I think you'll find it much more agreeable. You
may be reacting to the brightness of the display, rather than to the
contrast as such. Try toning down the brightness of the display, to 100
candela or so, and see if it's more like you were used to with the CRT.
Also make sure the color temp is set to 65K or less. If your video card
does not support digital output, you might consider getting one that does -
this is not a big investment as digital video cards start in the under 50
range.

Gamma affects overall brightness, and a higher gamma value trades away
contrast in the shadows for contrast in the highlights, but does not change
the overall contrast as such. Depending on your editing software, it may
make no difference at all in the appearance of the image. Programs like
Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro will compensate for your display, and give the
same image appearance for all gamma values.

Anyway, try cranking down the brightness.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the
> choices for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
> one calibrated)?
> Any other advice/help is appreciated.
>
> Roger
> (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
> the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)

For someone as serious about photography as you, I'm a little surprised you
were a little more picky about your monitor. I assumed you were already
using a colorometer, but if not, that really should be your first move. A
Spyder 2 will make the best of what you've got in a jiffy, and you'll be
able to calibrate any second monitor you get with it also. I have used two
monitors in the past that were very dissimilar, yet it handled them both
extremely well. I've got a perfectly (or close enough) calibrated Viewsonic
20.1" monitor (VP 201S) but I don't think they sell that one any more. With
most LCDs, you have to be careful about brightness--even after
calibration--because not all LCDs adjust accurate for (or with full control
ever) brightness/contrast.

I've been tempted by the Lacie 321 also. It seems to have no equal in it's
price range. But regarding the Apple, I've read nothing but compmlaints (at
least from those chiefly concerned with accuracy, rather than simply being
wowed by it's size). Ya, it's huge and pretty, but wildly uneven for
critical color-matching. I've heard similar complaints about the 30" Dell.
It's pretty, but inaccurate. The Lacie seems pretty well unbeatable until
you get into many $Ks more than the Lacie's already steep price. If I buy
another large LCD, it will likely be either the Lacie, or this much cheaper
Viewsonic (if I can still find one).

Before you do anything else, I'd get the Spyder 2 and see where that takes
you. At this point, I can differentiate every level of this:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/45959621 and actually better, using
other more finely graduated charts. If you're not able to see both the
first and last squares separately form the adjacent ones, you'll have to get
to work. Even then, you may be too bright...

I've been getting literally perfect matching between screen and print ever
since moving to the Spyder 2, and using proper profiles for printer, paper,
and screen.

Mark²


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
>> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
>> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the
>> choices for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
>> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
>> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
>> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
>> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
>> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
>> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
>> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
>> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
>> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
>> one calibrated)?
>> Any other advice/help is appreciated.
>>
>> Roger
>> (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
>> the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)
>
> For someone as serious about photography as you, I'm a little
> surprised you were a little more picky about your monitor. I
> assumed you were already using a colorometer, but if not, that really
> should be your first move. A Spyder 2 will make the best of what
> you've got in a jiffy, and you'll be able to calibrate any second
> monitor you get with it also. I have used two monitors in the past
> that were very dissimilar, yet it handled them both extremely well. I've
> got a perfectly (or close enough) calibrated Viewsonic 20.1" monitor (VP
> 201S) but I don't think they sell that one any
> more. With most LCDs, you have to be careful about brightness--even
> after calibration--because not all LCDs adjust accurate for (or with
> full control ever) brightness/contrast.
>
> I've been tempted by the Lacie 321 also. It seems to have no equal
> in it's price range. But regarding the Apple, I've read nothing but
> compmlaints (at least from those chiefly concerned with accuracy,
> rather than simply being wowed by it's size). Ya, it's huge and
> pretty, but wildly uneven for critical color-matching. I've heard
> similar complaints about the 30" Dell. It's pretty, but inaccurate. The
> Lacie seems pretty well unbeatable until you get into many $Ks
> more than the Lacie's already steep price. If I buy another large
> LCD, it will likely be either the Lacie, or this much cheaper
> Viewsonic (if I can still find one).
> Before you do anything else, I'd get the Spyder 2 and see where that
> takes you. At this point, I can differentiate every level of this:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/45959621 and actually better,
> using other more finely graduated charts. If you're not able to see
> both the first and last squares separately form the adjacent ones,
> you'll have to get to work. Even then, you may be too bright...
>
> I've been getting literally perfect matching between screen and print
> ever since moving to the Spyder 2, and using proper profiles for
> printer, paper, and screen.
>
> Mark²

By the way... I didn't mean to imply that your monitor was bad... It may
be fine- -I'm not familiar with that one and have no specific opinion. It
just sounded like it wasn't given much thought.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

In article <>, change username to rnclark
<> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the choices
> for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
> one calibrated)?
> Any other advice/help is appreciated.
>
> Roger
> (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
> the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)

Welcome back, looking forward to see a few of those pix.

Sorry I can't help on the main question, the built-in monitor on my
iMac, with Spyder calibration, is right on, so I've never had those
problems.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
message news:...
: Hi.
:
: I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
: an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
: computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the choices
: for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
: (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
: but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
: images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
: still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
: I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
: apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
: So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
: 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
: system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
: one calibrated)?
: Any other advice/help is appreciated.
:
: Roger
: (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
: the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)

Hi Roger...
My wife has a Samsung 204B and she no longer has any eye strain problems.
Whenever I use her PC to print to her dye-sub printer (an Olympus sRGB
printer), I always see more detain on her screen than the printer produces.
I think Mike is right in this... Take the time to get used to it.

My personal preference for a video card is the 2D Radeon work station card
hefty hit at $500+ but after paying out $5k for a camera, what's another few
hundred matter?

I myself use an old Viewsonic G90f+ (which is as old as the hills) for
working detailed images. I have a spare, new one in a box under my desk for
when it finally dies. I also have an Apple cinema which to be quite frank is
a little disappointing.

If I had to choose again, I would not have bought it. Instead, I'd have
opted for a screen with a very high (1000/1+ perhaps) contrast ratio,
regardless of who made it. I'd also take along a test image to see if it
really could display the detail I get from the CRT screens.

Now, all the cinema screen does is hold PS tools and menus so I have a clear
screen on the CRT. A waste I know. I would have liked it the other way
around but everything to do with image editing on a PC is a compromise of
some sort.
--
From Douglas...
Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia.

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:

> Anyone run a dual monitor
> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
> one calibrated)?
> Any other advice/help is appreciated.

I've run a Philips Brilliance 202P4 CRT and an HP2335 LCD in spanned mode.
I calibrated them both with a Spyder2. I don't think I'd want to calibrate
only one. Because Windows XP doesn't support 2 different monitor profiles
directly, on boot-up I'd see the CRT without the calibration loaded into
the Video card's LUT for that monitor. I had to use the Spyder software to
load the profile into the LUT for the CRT. Once loaded, both displays
matched great but I'd hate to have to use them in the unmatched state. The
colour difference would be pretty disconcerting.

Mark² wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
>> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
>> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the
>> choices for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
>> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
>> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
>> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
>> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
>> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
>> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
>> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
>> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
>> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only need
>> one calibrated)?
>> Any other advice/help is appreciated.
>>
>> Roger
>> (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
>> the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)
>
> For someone as serious about photography as you, I'm a little surprised you
> were a little more picky about your monitor. I assumed you were already
> using a colorometer, but if not, that really should be your first move. A
> Spyder 2 will make the best of what you've got in a jiffy, and you'll be
> able to calibrate any second monitor you get with it also.

Gee, Mark, I did say I was using a spyder 2. I also said I was planning
on getting a monitor more useful for photography. With the holidays
and planning for the Africa trip, I simply ran out of time upgrading
hardware so I would have the disk space and processing power for
the new images. I've returned with about 60 gbytes of images
from a stunning trip: >85 individual lions (I lost count), 13 cheetahs,
1 leopard, dozens of birds and other animals. Many mosaics to assemble,
even mosaics of cheetahs and other animals (3 to 4 frames to cover an animal).
Also, 3 frames to cover a bird with depth of field from tail to beak,
which will make for some interesting processing.
I'm still trying to choose the best of about 8,000 images.

I previously ran a spyder 2 calibrated sony CRT, but perhaps its the
10-hour jet lag (been home less than 24 hours) but I can't remember
my settings for the sony + spyder setup.

Following Mike Russel's advice, I reduced the brightness and the calibration
now looks better. In each case, I could see all steps in your brightness scale,
as I could my own scales, but images on my web site with any browser looked
way too contrasty. After reducing the brightness and recalibrating, things
look better (I may tweak some more). I used gamma 1.8 native in the spyder 2
setup. I tried a 6500 K color temperature but could not get a calibration
to reach that color temperature; but "native" worked ok (not stellar).
For example: this image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...e_taryall.html
still has blocked up reds on my LCD (see the enlarged flower below the main
image); reds that I could easily discern on my sony crt, and which print fine
on cibachrome and fuji crystal archive papers. This concerns me.
Maybe contrast is not the issue; perhaps its color gamut of the monitor?
Are LCDs that much different than CRTs in color gamut (lower)?

But it does make me wonder, with all the uncalibrated monitors out there,
how people perceive images on web sites. The factory settings for my
monitor were awful.

Roger

> I have used two
> monitors in the past that were very dissimilar, yet it handled them both
> extremely well. I've got a perfectly (or close enough) calibrated Viewsonic
> 20.1" monitor (VP 201S) but I don't think they sell that one any more. With
> most LCDs, you have to be careful about brightness--even after
> calibration--because not all LCDs adjust accurate for (or with full control
> ever) brightness/contrast.
>
> I've been tempted by the Lacie 321 also. It seems to have no equal in it's
> price range. But regarding the Apple, I've read nothing but compmlaints (at
> least from those chiefly concerned with accuracy, rather than simply being
> wowed by it's size). Ya, it's huge and pretty, but wildly uneven for
> critical color-matching. I've heard similar complaints about the 30" Dell.
> It's pretty, but inaccurate. The Lacie seems pretty well unbeatable until
> you get into many $Ks more than the Lacie's already steep price. If I buy
> another large LCD, it will likely be either the Lacie, or this much cheaper
> Viewsonic (if I can still find one).
>
> Before you do anything else, I'd get the Spyder 2 and see where that takes
> you. At this point, I can differentiate every level of this:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/45959621 and actually better, using
> other more finely graduated charts. If you're not able to see both the
> first and last squares separately form the adjacent ones, you'll have to get
> to work. Even then, you may be too bright...
>
> I've been getting literally perfect matching between screen and print ever
> since moving to the Spyder 2, and using proper profiles for printer, paper,
> and screen.
>
> Mark²
>
>

Often, as posted above, the brightness of LCD panels compared to CRT and
reflective prints is the main problem calibrating for WYSIWYG printing.
Color matching per se is not as difficult. Also the ambient lighting in
which you view your monitor and your print can be significant factors
influencing your judgment.
The simplest solution is to calibrate your monitor in your preferred way and
print a test print (use your own suitable image or one of the many available
for download). Then turn down the contrast and brightness of your monitor
until there is reasonable match to the print. This may require a few trials.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I bought a new computer and I am making the jump from a Sony CRT to
>>> an LCD display for photo editing. I bought an alienware
>>> computer (duo core 2) and have 1.75 terabytes of disk. But the
>>> choices for LCD were low so I just opted for the default monitor
>>> (samsung 204B 19 inch). I've calibrated it with spyder 2
>>> but it is still very contrasty and I do not like the look of
>>> images. I then recalibrated with a gamma of 1.8 but images
>>> still seem too contrasty (this is a window system).
>>> I plan on buying a second monitor. such as a Lacie 321 or
>>> apple cinema for photos, but until then I will use the samsung.
>>> So, for those who calibrate LCD monitors, do you use a gamma of
>>> 1.8, 2.2 or something else? Anyone run a dual monitor
>>> system with two different brands of monitors (I really will only
>>> need one calibrated)?
>>> Any other advice/help is appreciated.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>> (Just returned from Africa and have lots of images to process--I had
>>> the new computer all ready except monitor calibration.)
>>
>> For someone as serious about photography as you, I'm a little
>> surprised you were a little more picky about your monitor. I
>> assumed you were already using a colorometer, but if not, that
>> really should be your first move. A Spyder 2 will make the best of
>> what you've got in a jiffy, and you'll be able to calibrate any
>> second monitor you get with it also.
>
> Gee, Mark, I did say I was using a spyder 2. I also said I was
> planning on getting a monitor more useful for photography.

?!?!
I'm sick with the flu this week... Fever must have gone to my eyes!!
What the heck?

<cool stuff about Africa and images snipped>

> I previously ran a spyder 2 calibrated sony CRT, but perhaps its the
> 10-hour jet lag (been home less than 24 hours) but I can't remember
> my settings for the sony + spyder setup.
>
> Following Mike Russel's advice, I reduced the brightness and the
> calibration now looks better. In each case, I could see all steps in
> your brightness scale, as I could my own scales, but images on my web
> site with any browser looked way too contrasty. After reducing the
> brightness and recalibrating,
> things look better (I may tweak some more). I used gamma 1.8 native
> in the spyder 2 setup.

LCDs are notoriously WAY too bright at default settings. I assume they do
that so they'll stand out to untrained eyes in the stores(?).

> I tried a 6500 K color temperature but could
> not get a calibration to reach that color temperature; but "native" worked
> ok (not stellar).
> For example: this image:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...e_taryall.html
> still has blocked up reds on my LCD (see the enlarged flower below
> the main image); reds that I could easily discern on my sony crt, and
> which print fine on cibachrome and fuji crystal archive papers. This
> concerns me.

When I run the Spyder on my LCD, I actually end up cranking the blues WAY up
via the monitor controls, for example, followed by the monitor profile
compensating on start-up. Kinda strange, but it works. I assume that the
blues were simply far too weak at default settings, so the Spyder needed me
to over-compensate to get within an output range it could work with. -Not
sure exactly how that works, but it does work.

But ya...in general, color gamut is why Lacie can charge so much for their
321...

BTW--I'm getting a non-blocky rendition from that flower close-up...

> Maybe contrast is not the issue; perhaps its color gamut of the
> monitor?

That's likely at least part of it. Does that monitor allow you to make
custom adjustments for each color in its set-up menu (on-screen)? If not,
you'll be unable to do what I described above (and that was only at the
prompting of cues from the Spyder regimen).

> Are LCDs that much different than CRTs in color gamut (lower)?
>
> But it does make me wonder, with all the uncalibrated monitors out
> there, how people perceive images on web sites. The factory settings for
> my
> monitor were awful.

That is so sadly and SEVERELY true--about the public viewing photos under
horrible settings. I remember my horror to see how crappy some of my
"carefully calibrated" images appeared on-line using
friends/co-worker's/family's computers. That's why critique on-line is
always iffy--since who the heck knows what sort of monitor they're looking
at. It's not really their fault (ignorance), but it's a real problem to
those of us who care. With the amazing popularity of digital cameras these
days, I wish there'd be more emphasis on pushing the general public to think
about accuracy, but judging by the ridiculous focus on 10MP sensors about
the size of a square mm ...I'm not holding out much hope.

-Mark

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson