color calibration question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    I understand that uncalibrated CRT monitors has approximately the sRGB
    profile, that's why digital cameras all have sRGB profile as default.

    What happens after the monitor is calibrated using those spyder calibration
    device and the color profile loaded into windows? Does it now have a perfect
    sRGB profile (which has a gamma of 2.2), or does it now have gamma of 1.0
    (perfectly linear)?

    I'm hoping it's the first case because that means all digital photos would
    look correct on the monitor. If it's the 2nd case, that means all digital
    photos would need to be converted to the gamma=1.0 color space before it
    looks good on the monitor.
    peter, Apr 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    Bubbabob Guest

    "peter" <> wrote:

    > I understand that uncalibrated CRT monitors has approximately the sRGB
    > profile, that's why digital cameras all have sRGB profile as default.
    >
    > What happens after the monitor is calibrated using those spyder
    > calibration device and the color profile loaded into windows? Does it
    > now have a perfect sRGB profile (which has a gamma of 2.2), or does it
    > now have gamma of 1.0 (perfectly linear)?
    >
    > I'm hoping it's the first case because that means all digital photos
    > would look correct on the monitor. If it's the 2nd case, that means
    > all digital photos would need to be converted to the gamma=1.0 color
    > space before it looks good on the monitor.
    >
    >
    >


    2.2

    sRGB is a working colorspace, not a monitor colorspace. It was designed
    not to exceed the worst case gamut of about 40 different cheap monitors.
    A good monitor, properly calibrated should have a considerably larger
    gamut than sRGB. I recommend shooting and working in Adobe RGB 98 and
    only converting to sRGB for web work (browsers are all designed for sRGB
    gamuts) or if your printer expects an sRGB colorspace before the
    printer's profile is applied. I profile my printers and design the
    profiles to expect the larger gamut of Adobe RGB 98 as an input but most
    factory printer profiles probably don't.
    Bubbabob, Apr 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    Roy Guest

    "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:pJI6e.11310$H_5.9871@trnddc01...
    >I understand that uncalibrated CRT monitors has approximately the sRGB
    >profile, that's why digital cameras all have sRGB profile as default.
    >
    > What happens after the monitor is calibrated using those spyder
    > calibration device and the color profile loaded into windows? Does it now
    > have a perfect sRGB profile (which has a gamma of 2.2), or does it now
    > have gamma of 1.0 (perfectly linear)?
    >
    > I'm hoping it's the first case because that means all digital photos would
    > look correct on the monitor. If it's the 2nd case, that means all digital
    > photos would need to be converted to the gamma=1.0 color space before it
    > looks good on the monitor.
    >



    Uncalibrated Monitors do not approximate to the sRGB Profile. Just have a
    good look next time you are in one of the discount warehouses, you should be
    able to see that the monitor colours all look different. It is unfortunate
    that the colour system, ( it is not a profile), used by monitors is called
    RGB, hence the confusion.

    Not all Cameras convert their output to sRGB, the better ones now include
    Adobe RGB as an option.

    sRGB, Adobe RGB, Pro-photo RGB, etc are all Working Space Profiles. They
    define the numerical values associated with particular colurs and shades of
    colours, and are used by Graphics Programs to do the calculations required.
    sRGB has a narrower range of colour (Gamut) than Adobe, and Pro-photo has a
    greater range.

    A Monitor Profile is used by the Program to convert the numbers in the
    Working Space Profile, so that the colours seem on the screen are accurate.
    The idea is that, an image should look exactly the same no matter which
    Calibrated Monitor it is being displayed on.

    Printer Profiles are used by the Program to convert the numerical values, so
    that the colours on the Print will be accurate. The idea is, again, that an
    image should look the same, no matter which Calibrated Printer is used to
    make the Print.

    There are, of course, variations between the Ideal and Real Life.

    Printer Profiles are for a Specific Printer, using Specific Inks and
    Specific Paper.

    Epson do supply profiles for their Printers, using Epson Inks and Epson
    Papers, and so do other Printer companies. Kodak, Tetenal, Olmec, etc,
    will supply Profiles for certain of their Papers, in Specific Epson & Canon,
    etc, Printers using the Original Ink sets. These types of profiles are often
    called "Canned" profiles, and are fairly accurate most of the time.

    Colour Management is quite a difficult subject, and understanding is not
    helped, by a lot of the half-baked advice you may receive from non experts.
    "My camera works in sRGB, so I set my Printer to sRGB" is a common one.

    Roy G
    Roy, Apr 12, 2005
    #3
  4. peter

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

    [..]
    > sRGB is a working colorspace, not a monitor colorspace. It was designed
    > not to exceed the worst case gamut of about 40 different cheap monitors. A
    > good monitor, properly calibrated should have a considerably larger gamut
    > than sRGB. I recommend shooting and working in Adobe RGB 98 and only
    > converting to sRGB for web work (browsers are all designed for sRGB
    > gamuts)


    Just a nit with your parenthetical:

    Many web browsers respect an embedded ICC profile, and many also respect
    a ColorInfo rule in CSS (which lets you specify profile and intent). If
    there's no profile and no CSS rule, some browsers will use sRGB and some
    will use the monitor profile. sRGB is the safest, but additionally
    embedding the profile and marking it up in the CSS is the safest of all.

    Some info: <http://www.ekdahl.org/kurs/colormanage.htm>
    Paul Mitchum, Apr 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> writes:

    > "peter" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I understand that uncalibrated CRT monitors has approximately the sRGB
    >> profile, that's why digital cameras all have sRGB profile as default.
    >>
    >> What happens after the monitor is calibrated using those spyder
    >> calibration device and the color profile loaded into windows? Does it
    >> now have a perfect sRGB profile (which has a gamma of 2.2), or does it
    >> now have gamma of 1.0 (perfectly linear)?
    >>
    >> I'm hoping it's the first case because that means all digital photos
    >> would look correct on the monitor. If it's the 2nd case, that means
    >> all digital photos would need to be converted to the gamma=1.0 color
    >> space before it looks good on the monitor.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > 2.2
    >
    > sRGB is a working colorspace, not a monitor colorspace. It was designed
    > not to exceed the worst case gamut of about 40 different cheap monitors.
    > A good monitor, properly calibrated should have a considerably larger
    > gamut than sRGB. I recommend shooting and working in Adobe RGB 98 and
    > only converting to sRGB for web work (browsers are all designed for sRGB
    > gamuts) or if your printer expects an sRGB colorspace before the
    > printer's profile is applied. I profile my printers and design the
    > profiles to expect the larger gamut of Adobe RGB 98 as an input but most
    > factory printer profiles probably don't.


    However, most online photo-printing places I've looked at want you to
    deliver to them in sRGB.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2005
    #5
  6. "Roy" <> writes:

    > "peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:pJI6e.11310$H_5.9871@trnddc01...
    >>I understand that uncalibrated CRT monitors has approximately the sRGB
    >>profile, that's why digital cameras all have sRGB profile as default.
    >>
    >> What happens after the monitor is calibrated using those spyder
    >> calibration device and the color profile loaded into windows? Does it now
    >> have a perfect sRGB profile (which has a gamma of 2.2), or does it now
    >> have gamma of 1.0 (perfectly linear)?
    >>
    >> I'm hoping it's the first case because that means all digital photos would
    >> look correct on the monitor. If it's the 2nd case, that means all digital
    >> photos would need to be converted to the gamma=1.0 color space before it
    >> looks good on the monitor.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Uncalibrated Monitors do not approximate to the sRGB Profile. Just have a
    > good look next time you are in one of the discount warehouses, you should be
    > able to see that the monitor colours all look different. It is unfortunate
    > that the colour system, ( it is not a profile), used by monitors is called
    > RGB, hence the confusion.


    No, actually, sRGB *was* defined to approximate uncalibrated
    monitors. That's why it's the recommended profile to convert images
    for web display to, for example.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2005
    #6
  7. peter

    Bubbabob Guest

    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:

    > Many web browsers respect an embedded ICC profile, and many also respect
    > a ColorInfo rule in CSS (which lets you specify profile and intent)


    Name two; or even one that isn't Mac only.
    Bubbabob, Apr 13, 2005
    #7
  8. peter

    Guest

    : > Uncalibrated Monitors do not approximate to the sRGB Profile. Just have a
    : > good look next time you are in one of the discount warehouses, you should be
    : > able to see that the monitor colours all look different. It is unfortunate
    : > that the colour system, ( it is not a profile), used by monitors is called
    : > RGB, hence the confusion.

    : No, actually, sRGB *was* defined to approximate uncalibrated
    : monitors. That's why it's the recommended profile to convert images
    : for web display to, for example.
    : --
    IIRC, it was defined using D65 as the whitepoint. Probably 98% of the
    monitors out there are currently set to their default white point of 9300K since
    "brighter" displays sell better.

    -Cory

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Apr 13, 2005
    #8
  9. peter

    Roy Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:d3j0l9$r1e$...
    >: > Uncalibrated Monitors do not approximate to the sRGB Profile. Just
    >have a
    > : > good look next time you are in one of the discount warehouses, you
    > should be
    > : > able to see that the monitor colours all look different. It is
    > unfortunate
    > : > that the colour system, ( it is not a profile), used by monitors is
    > called
    > : > RGB, hence the confusion.
    >
    > : No, actually, sRGB *was* defined to approximate uncalibrated
    > : monitors. That's why it's the recommended profile to convert images
    > : for web display to, for example.
    > : --
    > IIRC, it was defined using D65 as the whitepoint. Probably 98% of the
    > monitors out there are currently set to their default white point of 9300K
    > since
    > "brighter" displays sell better.
    >
    > -Cory
    >
    > *************************************************************************
    > * Cory Papenfuss *
    > * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    > *************************************************************************
    >


    Hi there.

    Please lets not get too much into semantics, over this. As someone said
    earlier, sRGB was designed with low end monitors in mind. But an
    Uncalibrated monitor, still needs to be Calibrated, even if the Working
    Space is going to be sRGB.

    Because all Elephants are grey, does not mean that all grey things are
    Elephants.

    The OP seemed to under the impression that the Profile resulting from
    Calibration would be a "perfect" sRGB Profile, when as we all know it will
    be an "Output" type of Profile, and will be used to make Convertions from
    whatever Working Space is chosen. I was a little concerned that he would
    then fall into the trap of using his Calibrated Monitor Profile as a Working
    Space. Hence my rather wordy, and not technically exact, explanation.

    Roy G
    Roy, Apr 13, 2005
    #9
  10. peter

    David Chien Guest

    For consumers, simply use sRGB all the way through. Most LCD panels
    sold today have a sRGB mode. sRGB mostly comes out of digicams and
    printers. and once you've set everything to work in sRGB, you'll be
    surprised! -- instant color matching w/o spending a cent. (Okay, not
    100% accurate, but pretty darn close.)

    I found this to work the best for me after trying those $$ Spyders and
    other color matching/calibration programs.

    Why?

    1) You'll NEVER EVER get a 100% matching between monitor and print. One
    is transmissive, the other is reflective. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
    to make the match exactly -- it's like trying to make a light bulb
    (monitor) match the print (printer). Just can't be done because the
    print can't glow and shine light like the light bulb.

    2) Even if you spend $$$$$ on the color calibration programs and tools,
    #1 still is in effect. You will still find yourself annoyed to death
    that the print doesn't look exactly like the monitor until you realize #1.

    3) Everyone views prints under differing lighting conditions - this
    alone will result in color mismatch between what you see on the print
    vs. the monitor. You'll have to change out all of your light bulbs for
    color standard bulbs if you want to see everything in a consistant way.
    (and even here, depends on your choice of reference color temperature
    - 5000k 5500k 6000k etc)

    As a result of #1 through #3 AND the fact that the human eye's color
    response varies minute-by-minute and day-to-day, you'll realize that
    unless you're spot checking every print sample in multiple locations
    with a color spectrometer to make sure every print is matching intended
    colors exactly (or calibrating printers before), you'll notice that one
    day, a print may look superb, but the next day, it's not so great.

    Add to that the fact that inkjet photo prints (what most home users use)
    significantly shift in color and density over the course of a week or
    two after the print was made = people pulling hair like crazy. "But the
    print looked great the moment it was printed!" they say! only to
    discover that by week's end, it's totally different. (due to the
    water-based inks drying over time, etc.)

    ---

    The quick & easy way is to simply rely upon the sRGB standard most
    makers have agreed upon. They've already calibrated their devices to
    that, and like me, you can get pretty close (90% or so) to the true
    colors by simply sticking with a sRGB pipeline.

    Those that want more can always color manage, calibrate, etc. + change
    their light bulbs, use color checkers, etc., but that's usually a very
    time consumer and costly step to take knowing that no matter what,
    prints won't look exactly the same as the monitor image.
    David Chien, Apr 13, 2005
    #10
  11. peter

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

    > 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    > > Many web browsers respect an embedded ICC profile, and many also respect
    > > a ColorInfo rule in CSS (which lets you specify profile and intent)

    >
    > Name two; or even one that isn't Mac only.


    Microsoft Internet Explorer (the ColorInfo rule is an IE extension to
    CSS).

    Besides: Why is it that being Mac-only is a disqualifier? Don't you want
    your pictures to look good on Macs, especially when it's so easy to do?
    Safari, for instance, will use the screen profile for displaying images
    without a profile, but it will respect ColorInfo in CSS.

    The rule of thumb: Convert to sRGB (if you're not there already) and use
    a ColorInfo CSS rule. Not so difficult, and covers all the bases that
    can be covered.
    Paul Mitchum, Apr 13, 2005
    #11
  12. peter

    Roy Guest

    "David Chien" <> wrote in message
    news:d3k1s7$5b3$...
    > For consumers, simply use sRGB all the way through. Most LCD panels sold
    > today have a sRGB mode. sRGB mostly comes out of digicams and printers.
    > and once you've set everything to work in sRGB, you'll be surprised! --
    > instant color matching w/o spending a cent. (Okay, not 100% accurate, but
    > pretty darn close.)
    >
    > I found this to work the best for me after trying those $$ Spyders and
    > other color matching/calibration programs.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > 1) You'll NEVER EVER get a 100% matching between monitor and print. One
    > is transmissive, the other is reflective. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to
    > make the match exactly -- it's like trying to make a light bulb (monitor)
    > match the print (printer). Just can't be done because the print can't
    > glow and shine light like the light bulb.
    >
    > 2) Even if you spend $$$$$ on the color calibration programs and tools, #1
    > still is in effect. You will still find yourself annoyed to death that
    > the print doesn't look exactly like the monitor until you realize #1.
    >
    > 3) Everyone views prints under differing lighting conditions - this alone
    > will result in color mismatch between what you see on the print vs. the
    > monitor. You'll have to change out all of your light bulbs for color
    > standard bulbs if you want to see everything in a consistant way. (and
    > even here, depends on your choice of reference color temperature - 5000k
    > 5500k 6000k etc)
    >
    > As a result of #1 through #3 AND the fact that the human eye's color
    > response varies minute-by-minute and day-to-day, you'll realize that
    > unless you're spot checking every print sample in multiple locations with
    > a color spectrometer to make sure every print is matching intended colors
    > exactly (or calibrating printers before), you'll notice that one day, a
    > print may look superb, but the next day, it's not so great.
    >
    > Add to that the fact that inkjet photo prints (what most home users use)
    > significantly shift in color and density over the course of a week or two
    > after the print was made = people pulling hair like crazy. "But the print
    > looked great the moment it was printed!" they say! only to discover that
    > by week's end, it's totally different. (due to the water-based inks
    > drying over time, etc.)
    >
    > ---
    >
    > The quick & easy way is to simply rely upon the sRGB standard most makers
    > have agreed upon. They've already calibrated their devices to that, and
    > like me, you can get pretty close (90% or so) to the true colors by simply
    > sticking with a sRGB pipeline.
    >
    > Those that want more can always color manage, calibrate, etc. + change
    > their light bulbs, use color checkers, etc., but that's usually a very
    > time consumer and costly step to take knowing that no matter what, prints
    > won't look exactly the same as the monitor image.


    As said in my first posting there is a difference between the Ideal and the
    Real World.

    And as I predicted right at the end of that posting, you will get told to
    set everything to sRGB.

    There are some elements of truth in what is being said, but just because you
    can not acheive perfection with Colour Management, does not mean that you
    should just give up and settle for the mediocre. I happen to think that
    Colour Management is beneficial, and also think that my prints demonstrate
    it, even though they are not perfect. I have been doing photography too
    long to expect perfection.

    Judge for yourself in the Computer Warehouses whether all the, "sRGB mode",
    Monitors are showing the same colours, then try to guess which one, if any,
    is showing the correct colours.

    They still need to be Calibrated.

    Roy G
    Roy, Apr 14, 2005
    #12
  13. peter

    David Chien Guest

    > Judge for yourself in the Computer Warehouses whether all the, "sRGB mode",
    > Monitors are showing the same colours, then try to guess which one, if any,
    > is showing the correct colours.
    >
    > They still need to be Calibrated.


    PC magazines in Japan all have detailed gamut charts for all of the
    monitors they review. Some of the most accurate ones have been made by
    Eizo and Apple in the past. Here, in fact, if you simply buy a Mac,
    you'll get their panels matching the sRGB gamut nearly perfectly.
    Anyways, you simply review the charts and you can easily pick a panel
    that'll color match sRGB nearly perfectly.

    No calibration needed.
    David Chien, Apr 14, 2005
    #13
  14. peter

    Roy Guest

    "David Chien" <> wrote in message
    news:d3mc18$b0d$...
    >> Judge for yourself in the Computer Warehouses whether all the, "sRGB
    >> mode", Monitors are showing the same colours, then try to guess which
    >> one, if any, is showing the correct colours.
    >>
    >> They still need to be Calibrated.

    >
    > PC magazines in Japan all have detailed gamut charts for all of the
    > monitors they review. Some of the most accurate ones have been made by
    > Eizo and Apple in the past. Here, in fact, if you simply buy a Mac,
    > you'll get their panels matching the sRGB gamut nearly perfectly. Anyways,
    > you simply review the charts and you can easily pick a panel that'll color
    > match sRGB nearly perfectly.
    >
    > No calibration needed.


    Well, if I was thinking of paying the sort of money that Eizo or Mac charge
    for their displays, I would expect them to have been calibrated before
    leaving the factory.

    As I said, have a look at the colours on the Monitors, which are on display
    in the warehouse type outlets, and see the differences for yourself. If
    they were all showing similar colour, I would concede you had won the
    argument, but they don't.

    Roy G
    Roy, Apr 15, 2005
    #14
  15. peter

    David Chien Guest

    > As I said, have a look at the colours on the Monitors, which are on display
    > in the warehouse type outlets, and see the differences for yourself. If
    > they were all showing similar colour, I would concede you had won the
    > argument, but they don't.


    Of course!

    Why don't they look the same?
    1. They all haven't been set to sRGB mode.
    2. They all don't have the same brightness. As a result, brighter
    monitors will look =nicer= and darker monitors will look =muddy=.
    3. Warehouse-type outlets never bother with anything except plugging
    it in - no calibration, etc.
    4. Most of the 'cheap' non-top tier brand monitors - what calibration?!?

    But stick with a decent monitor like Viewsonic or Samsung, and you'll
    likely get close to the sRGB gamut w/o spending the $$$ of the EIZO or
    Apple displays. The PC magazine charts reflect this fact as well.

    ---

    Anyways, aside from the above, even if the monitor is 80% there or
    100% accurate, you still have to eyeball the display and make the best
    judgement re: your prints and what they'll look like -- remember, even
    if the monitor is 100% accurate to the sRGB gamut, the difference
    between transmissive and reflective means even if you're print matches
    the sRGB gamut 100%, they still won't look the same. (Think light bulb
    vs. picture of light bulb.)
    David Chien, Apr 15, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <d3ouhg$kk1$>, says...
    > > As I said, have a look at the colours on the Monitors, which are on display
    > > in the warehouse type outlets, and see the differences for yourself. If
    > > they were all showing similar colour, I would concede you had won the
    > > argument, but they don't.

    >
    > Of course!
    >
    > Why don't they look the same?
    > 1. They all haven't been set to sRGB mode.
    > 2. They all don't have the same brightness. As a result, brighter
    > monitors will look =nicer= and darker monitors will look =muddy=.
    > 3. Warehouse-type outlets never bother with anything except plugging
    > it in - no calibration, etc.
    > 4. Most of the 'cheap' non-top tier brand monitors - what calibration?!?
    >
    > But stick with a decent monitor like Viewsonic or Samsung, and you'll
    > likely get close to the sRGB gamut w/o spending the $$$ of the EIZO or
    > Apple displays. The PC magazine charts reflect this fact as well.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Anyways, aside from the above, even if the monitor is 80% there or
    > 100% accurate, you still have to eyeball the display and make the best
    > judgement re: your prints and what they'll look like -- remember, even
    > if the monitor is 100% accurate to the sRGB gamut, the difference
    > between transmissive and reflective means even if you're print matches
    > the sRGB gamut 100%, they still won't look the same. (Think light bulb
    > vs. picture of light bulb.)
    >

    Displaying the sRGB gamut is not the same thing as displaying sRGB
    accurately. The gamut simply describes the range of colours a monitor
    is capable of displaying, not whether it maps input RGB values to the
    correct colour.
    In my experience, setting a monitor to sRGB mode is better than nothing,
    but not much better!
    Graeme Cogger, Apr 15, 2005
    #16
  17. peter

    Bubbabob Guest

    David Chien <> wrote:

    >> As I said, have a look at the colours on the Monitors, which are on
    >> display in the warehouse type outlets, and see the differences for
    >> yourself. If they were all showing similar colour, I would concede
    >> you had won the argument, but they don't.

    >
    > Of course!
    >
    > Why don't they look the same?
    > 1. They all haven't been set to sRGB mode.


    Monitors don't set to working colorspace modes.

    > 2. They all don't have the same brightness. As a result, brighter
    > monitors will look =nicer= and darker monitors will look =muddy=.
    > 3. Warehouse-type outlets never bother with anything except
    > plugging
    > it in - no calibration, etc.


    Nor do manufacturers. You can buy a $20,000 Barco studio monitor and
    right out of the box it will require calibration. At the most, they're
    set with a voltmeter at the factory but no one ever actually applies a
    calibrator to the screen and does an actual setup. In addition, they're
    almost always shgipped set to 9300K which is a long long way from the
    D6500 standard.

    > 4. Most of the 'cheap' non-top tier brand monitors - what
    > calibration?!?


    All of the most expensive ones, as well.

    >
    > But stick with a decent monitor like Viewsonic or Samsung, and
    > you'll
    > likely get close to the sRGB gamut w/o spending the $$$ of the EIZO or
    > Apple displays.


    As I said above, gamut isn't settable on a monitor. It's a function of
    phosphor chemistry, among other things. Besides, you want your monitor's
    gamut to exceed sRGB by as much as possible in each axis. sRGB is a worst
    case gamut derived from a batch of the worst monitors on the market more
    than a decade ago.

    > Anyways, aside from the above, even if the monitor is 80% there or
    > 100% accurate, you still have to eyeball the display and make the best
    > judgement re: your prints and what they'll look like -- remember, even
    > if the monitor is 100% accurate to the sRGB gamut, the difference
    > between transmissive and reflective means even if you're print matches
    > the sRGB gamut 100%, they still won't look the same. (Think light
    > bulb vs. picture of light bulb.)
    >


    I don't 'eyeball' my display. I use hardware and software to develop an
    ICM profile to correct non-linearities in cathode emission and drive
    voltage. There are no color surprises at all when my prints come out of
    the printer. Dynamics are the only difference.
    Bubbabob, Apr 16, 2005
    #17
  18. peter

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    David Chien <> wrote:

    > > Judge for yourself in the Computer Warehouses whether all the, "sRGB
    > > mode", Monitors are showing the same colours, then try to guess which
    > > one, if any, is showing the correct colours.
    > >
    > > They still need to be Calibrated.

    >
    > PC magazines in Japan all have detailed gamut charts for all of the
    > monitors they review. Some of the most accurate ones have been made by
    > Eizo and Apple in the past. Here, in fact, if you simply buy a Mac,
    > you'll get their panels matching the sRGB gamut nearly perfectly.


    Apple's generic Color LCD profile has a significantly smaller gamut than
    sRGB. So none of their LCD monitors (they don't make CRTs anymore) will
    magically 'be' sRGB.

    Here's their Color LCD profile compared to sRGB. The outer wireframe is
    sRGB: <http://www.mile23.com/misc/colorlcd_srgb.jpg>

    I just calibrated my iBook screen earlier this evening, and it's pretty
    close to the generic profile, too.

    > Anyways, you simply review the charts and you can easily pick a panel
    > that'll color match sRGB nearly perfectly.
    >
    > No calibration needed.


    You can find a monitor with a wide gamut, but it's bad advice to tell
    someone to not calibrate their monitor for color graphics works.

    It's easy and quick and painless, and printouts of your snapshots will
    stand a much better chance of looking like they do on screen.
    Paul Mitchum, Apr 16, 2005
    #18
  19. peter

    Bubbabob Guest

    0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:


    >
    > Apple's generic Color LCD profile has a significantly smaller gamut than
    > sRGB. So none of their LCD monitors (they don't make CRTs anymore) will
    > magically 'be' sRGB.
    >


    Pretty much putting MAC out of the professional graphics and photography
    business for anyone that has color quality concerns.
    Bubbabob, Apr 16, 2005
    #19
  20. peter

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

    > 0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
    >
    > > Apple's generic Color LCD profile has a significantly smaller gamut than
    > > sRGB. So none of their LCD monitors (they don't make CRTs anymore) will
    > > magically 'be' sRGB.

    >
    > Pretty much putting MAC out of the professional graphics and photography
    > business for anyone that has color quality concerns.


    Hehe. That's funny.
    Paul Mitchum, Apr 17, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arawak
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    760
    ProfGene
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. PrincePete01

    are there any inexpensive color calibration options?

    PrincePete01, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    770
    PrincePete01
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. Crownfield

    Re: Photo printing - Color Calibration

    Crownfield, Sep 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    MBlaster
    Sep 13, 2003
  4. Stanislav Meduna

    Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question

    Stanislav Meduna, Dec 19, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    872
    Mike Russell
    Dec 22, 2005
  5. Haydon
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    486
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    May 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page