Color profiles and correct usage

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jo_y, May 24, 2012.

  1. Jo_y

    Jo_y Guest

    Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.

    I own a:
    -Epson stylus dx4000
    -Mac os 10.6
    -Preview (to print images)
    -Gimp, fewer Photoshop

    I used to use:
    Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    compared to the firmware profile)
    Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    to display images within a image processor)
    image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors

    my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    the values are absolute less saturated

    Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    or not.
    Jo_y, May 24, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jo_y

    Rob Guest

    On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
    > Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    > one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    > Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    > now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
    >
    > I own a:
    > -Epson stylus dx4000
    > -Mac os 10.6
    > -Preview (to print images)
    > -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
    >
    > I used to use:
    > Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    > compared to the firmware profile)
    > Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    > to display images within a image processor)
    > image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
    >
    > my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    > a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    > a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    > the values are absolute less saturated
    >
    > Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    > At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    > absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    > or not.




    Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.

    each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
    download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
    compare the difference.

    Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
    like to read.

    called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win & MAC (PDF) thats the same for
    CS5.
    Rob, May 24, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jo_y

    Me Guest

    On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
    > On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
    >> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    >> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    >> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    >> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
    >>
    >> I own a:
    >> -Epson stylus dx4000
    >> -Mac os 10.6
    >> -Preview (to print images)
    >> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
    >>
    >> I used to use:
    >> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    >> compared to the firmware profile)
    >> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    >> to display images within a image processor)
    >> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
    >>
    >> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    >> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    >> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    >> the values are absolute less saturated
    >>
    >> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    >> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    >> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    >> or not.

    >
    >
    >
    > Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
    >
    > each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
    > download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
    > compare the difference.
    >
    > Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
    > like to read.
    >
    > called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win & MAC (PDF) thats the same for
    > CS5.
    >

    Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
    sceen:print matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
    colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
    Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
    here:
    http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
    The mis-match mentioned by the OP is probably because of a poorly
    calibrated display, as using the printer driver to manage colour,
    (rather than a colour managed process using ICC profiles) usually gives
    a pretty decent result with Epson printers/papers. Another possibility
    is incorrect paper or printer driver settings.
    Part of the coloiur managed process is to allow soft-proofing, viewing
    the image on screen with the ICC profile for the printer/paper
    combination loaded, and making minor pre-print adjustments from there,
    But you need to get the monitor calibration nailed for there to be any
    real point in doing this.
    Me, May 24, 2012
    #3
  4. Jo_y

    Rob Guest

    On 24/05/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
    > Rob<> wrote:
    >> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
    >>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    >>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    >>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    >>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
    >>>
    >>> I own a:
    >>> -Epson stylus dx4000
    >>> -Mac os 10.6
    >>> -Preview (to print images)
    >>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
    >>>
    >>> I used to use:
    >>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    >>> compared to the firmware profile)
    >>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    >>> to display images within a image processor)
    >>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
    >>>
    >>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    >>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    >>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    >>> the values are absolute less saturated
    >>>
    >>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    >>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    >>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    >>> or not.

    >>
    >> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
    >>
    >> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
    >> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
    >> compare the difference.
    >>
    >> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
    >> like to read.
    >>
    >> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
    >> CS5.

    >
    > In addition to all that, saturated orange is nearly impossible to
    > print. A good profile will be acurate, but it can't help the printer
    > to print out of gamut colours.
    >
    > Andrew.


    Orange and green are easy to print on the Epson 7900 :)
    Rob, May 24, 2012
    #4
  5. Jo_y

    Me Guest

    On 25/05/2012 6:28 p.m., isw wrote:
    > In article<jpl35q$ajj$>, Me<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
    >>> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
    >>>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    >>>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    >>>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    >>>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
    >>>>
    >>>> I own a:
    >>>> -Epson stylus dx4000
    >>>> -Mac os 10.6
    >>>> -Preview (to print images)
    >>>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
    >>>>
    >>>> I used to use:
    >>>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    >>>> compared to the firmware profile)
    >>>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    >>>> to display images within a image processor)
    >>>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
    >>>>
    >>>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    >>>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    >>>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    >>>> the values are absolute less saturated
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    >>>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    >>>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    >>>> or not.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
    >>> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
    >>> compare the difference.
    >>>
    >>> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
    >>> like to read.
    >>>
    >>> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
    >>> CS5.
    >>>

    >> Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
    >> sceen:print matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
    >> colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
    >> Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
    >> here:
    >> http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

    >
    > My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
    > you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
    > there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
    > should, for a properly adjusted display.
    >
    > So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
    > calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
    > method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
    > be.
    >
    > Isaac


    For general use, software calibration is fine. However, where you need
    accurate colour match between output devices, it's useless.
    An example is using the software gamma charts, where sharpness setting
    on the display has a massive effect on perceived sharpness. So you can
    use a sharpening chart to set that - as on the lagom site - but that's
    useless because (conversely) the gamma setting will affect the perceived
    sharpness on that chart. On this basis, which should you set first "by
    eye". The answer is neither - you need to use hardware calibration, or
    you are running around in circles. You could think that by looking at
    the lagom images for sharpness and gamma that you've got both right, but
    chances are you've got both wrong. You won't get it right, because the
    gamma setting in the software usually has only one slider to adjust a
    curve, and takes no account of likely non-linear response of the
    display, so you're basically stuffed if setting gamma for different
    luminance levels - then throw in R,G, & B, and it's a big pile of worms.
    It's almost completely futile using a colour managed printing process
    with a screen display that isn't properly hardware calibrated. At best
    you could load ICC profiles in to PS, check gamut warnings etc, but if
    you don't get a perfect screen:print match, then you're none the wiser
    as to whether the printer is the cause, the ICC profile is wrong (not
    totally unlikely), or the monitor is wrong.
    This (I hope) isn't a mac vs windows discussion. Macs and windows are
    about the same for colour management, and typical mac hardware is not
    anything special - nor bad - for graphics.
    Me, May 25, 2012
    #5
  6. Jo_y

    Me Guest

    On 25/05/2012 7:27 p.m., Me wrote:
    > On 25/05/2012 6:28 p.m., isw wrote:
    >> In article<jpl35q$ajj$>, Me<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
    >>>> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
    >>>>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
    >>>>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
    >>>>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
    >>>>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I own a:
    >>>>> -Epson stylus dx4000
    >>>>> -Mac os 10.6
    >>>>> -Preview (to print images)
    >>>>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I used to use:
    >>>>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
    >>>>> compared to the firmware profile)
    >>>>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
    >>>>> to display images within a image processor)
    >>>>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
    >>>>>
    >>>>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
    >>>>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
    >>>>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
    >>>>> the values are absolute less saturated
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
    >>>>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
    >>>>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
    >>>>> or not.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
    >>>>
    >>>> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
    >>>> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
    >>>> compare the difference.
    >>>>
    >>>> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you
    >>>> may
    >>>> like to read.
    >>>>
    >>>> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
    >>>> CS5.
    >>>>
    >>> Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
    >>> sceen:print matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
    >>> colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
    >>> Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
    >>> here:
    >>> http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

    >>
    >> My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
    >> you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
    >> there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
    >> should, for a properly adjusted display.
    >>
    >> So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
    >> calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
    >> method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
    >> be.
    >>
    >> Isaac

    >
    > For general use, software calibration is fine. However, where you need
    > accurate colour match between output devices, it's useless.
    > An example is using the software gamma charts, where sharpness setting
    > on the display has a massive effect on perceived <correction> - "gamma". So you can
    > use a sharpening chart to set that - as on the lagom site - but that's
    > useless because (conversely) the gamma setting will affect the perceived
    > sharpness on that chart. On this basis, which should you set first "by
    > eye". The answer is neither - you need to use hardware calibration, or
    > you are running around in circles. You could think that by looking at
    > the lagom images for sharpness and gamma that you've got both right, but
    > chances are you've got both wrong. You won't get it right, because the
    > gamma setting in the software usually has only one slider to adjust a
    > curve, and takes no account of likely non-linear response of the
    > display, so you're basically stuffed if setting gamma for different
    > luminance levels - then throw in R,G, & B, and it's a big pile of worms.
    > It's almost completely futile using a colour managed printing process
    > with a screen display that isn't properly hardware calibrated. At best
    > you could load ICC profiles in to PS, check gamut warnings etc, but if
    > you don't get a perfect screen:print match, then you're none the wiser
    > as to whether the printer is the cause, the ICC profile is wrong (not
    > totally unlikely), or the monitor is wrong.
    > This (I hope) isn't a mac vs windows discussion. Macs and windows are
    > about the same for colour management, and typical mac hardware is not
    > anything special - nor bad - for graphics.
    Me, May 25, 2012
    #6
  7. Jo_y

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-00CC64.23284324052012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
    > > sceen:print matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
    > > colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
    > > Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
    > > here:
    > > http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

    >
    > My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
    > you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
    > there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
    > should, for a properly adjusted display.
    >
    > So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
    > calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
    > method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
    > be.


    because it's done by eye, not hardware. the eye is not accurate enough.
    nospam, May 25, 2012
    #7
  8. Jo_y

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-773AD4.09292225052012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > > So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
    > > > calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
    > > > method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
    > > > be.

    > >
    > > because it's done by eye, not hardware. the eye is not accurate enough.

    >
    > So then why does my display look just like that site says it should? How
    > far off is an "eyeball" calibration, compared to an instrumented one?


    it can potentially be quite a bit, but on the other hand, you could be
    lucky and hit it close enough. your eye is not accurate and easily
    fooled.

    <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-
    the-green/>

    run the software calibrator and move your head and see how much it
    varies. change the ambient lighting too. a hardware puck is immune to
    that.

    > (IOW, how much better will it be if I lay out a couple hundred bucks for
    > a calibrator -- 2%, or 20%?)


    they're under $100 and you might even be able to rent one for even less.
    nospam, May 25, 2012
    #8
  9. Jo_y

    Me Guest

    On 26/05/2012 4:37 a.m., isw wrote:

    > It's not, but the Mac is all I know about. Have you ever used the Apple
    > "eyball" calibration (recently; it was a lot less capable in the
    > "Classic" days)? Because it sure doesn't seem to me to adjust gamma with
    > "one slider", as you claim. Each of the calibration points (maybe six or
    > seven; it's been a while) provides both brightness and color information.
    >

    No, I haven't used it for a while. But you need to understand that we
    cannot trust our eyes.
    Here are some examples from the web:
    Chromatic adaptation:
    http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/chromatic-adaptation/
    Visual spatial clues throw out luminance perception:
    http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/checker-shadow/#
    Similar image to above, but luminance perception also throws out colour
    perception:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg

    These "tricks" are probably showing human evolutionary adaptation to
    colour perception, colour perception apparently being important to us
    for some reason (judging whether food is good and fresh etc?) as natural
    light varies so much during the day.

    So if you're trying to set a monitor "by eye", then you've got no
    reference point on that screen from which to make adjustments.

    If you've got a TV set with "scene modes", then if you change that scene
    mode from default to "movie" mode, the screen image is usually shown
    with noticeably much warmer white balance. But if you watch it for a
    few minutes, then it starts to look normal, and if you reset the TV to
    default, the standard white balance will seem to be too cool - at least
    for a short while until your eyes adjust again.

    When using a hardware calibration device (spyder etc) to calibrate a
    screen, it's typical when first doing the calibration to disbelieve the
    result that the calibration system is showing - as your eyes are used to
    how it was, and despite being much more colour accurate after
    calibration, it can look very wrong until your eyes adjust.

    That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match colours
    precisely across display devices - including between matching screen and
    print - then within reason, colour accuracy isn't as important as many
    people seem to think.
    Me, May 25, 2012
    #9
  10. Jo_y

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 26 May 2012 03:00:14 -0500, Andrew Haley
    <> wrote:
    : Me <> wrote:
    : > On 26/05/2012 4:37 a.m., isw wrote:
    :
    : > When using a hardware calibration device (spyder etc) to calibrate a
    : > screen, it's typical when first doing the calibration to disbelieve
    : > the result that the calibration system is showing - as your eyes are
    : > used to how it was, and despite being much more colour accurate
    : > after calibration, it can look very wrong until your eyes adjust.
    : >
    : > That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match
    : > colours precisely across display devices - including between
    : > matching screen and print - then within reason, colour accuracy
    : > isn't as important as many people seem to think.
    :
    : Well, it saves a lot of paper; all that printing of test images gets
    : tedious before very long. And also, if someone else is doing the
    : printing, there's a lot to be said for having a good idea of how the
    : print might come out. I suppose there are some photographers who
    : don't print, but even then I don't suppose they look at only one monitor.

    They don't, and my laptop displays colors in a way that's annoyingly different
    from my monitors at home and at work. So when I edit images on the train to or
    from work, I have to remind myself to stick to brightness and composition
    issues and not get too finicky about color values, which I'd just have to
    re-jigger later.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, May 26, 2012
    #10
  11. Jo_y

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:13:35 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : On 26/05/2012 4:37 a.m., isw wrote:
    :
    : > It's not, but the Mac is all I know about. Have you ever used the Apple
    : > "eyball" calibration (recently; it was a lot less capable in the
    : > "Classic" days)? Because it sure doesn't seem to me to adjust gamma with
    : > "one slider", as you claim. Each of the calibration points (maybe six or
    : > seven; it's been a while) provides both brightness and color information.
    : >
    : No, I haven't used it for a while. But you need to understand that we
    : cannot trust our eyes.
    : Here are some examples from the web:
    : Chromatic adaptation:
    : http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/chromatic-adaptation/
    : Visual spatial clues throw out luminance perception:
    : http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/checker-shadow/#
    : Similar image to above, but luminance perception also throws out colour
    : perception:
    : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg
    :
    : These "tricks" are probably showing human evolutionary adaptation to
    : colour perception, colour perception apparently being important to us
    : for some reason (judging whether food is good and fresh etc?) as natural
    : light varies so much during the day.
    :
    : So if you're trying to set a monitor "by eye", then you've got no
    : reference point on that screen from which to make adjustments.
    :
    : If you've got a TV set with "scene modes", then if you change that scene
    : mode from default to "movie" mode, the screen image is usually shown
    : with noticeably much warmer white balance. But if you watch it for a
    : few minutes, then it starts to look normal, and if you reset the TV to
    : default, the standard white balance will seem to be too cool - at least
    : for a short while until your eyes adjust again.
    :
    : When using a hardware calibration device (spyder etc) to calibrate a
    : screen, it's typical when first doing the calibration to disbelieve the
    : result that the calibration system is showing - as your eyes are used to
    : how it was, and despite being much more colour accurate after
    : calibration, it can look very wrong until your eyes adjust.
    :
    : That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match colours
    : precisely across display devices - including between matching screen and
    : print - then within reason, colour accuracy isn't as important as many
    : people seem to think.

    And anyone so committed to the ideal that he couldn't accept that reasoning
    would have to allow that the color profile used in making any print must be
    tuned to the ambient light in the room in which it is to be displayed. (Or the
    ambient light must be tuned to color profile of the print. Either way would
    work, as long as there's only one print in the room.)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, May 26, 2012
    #11
  12. Me <> wrote:

    > That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match colours
    > precisely across display devices - including between matching screen and
    > print - then within reason, colour accuracy isn't as important as many
    > people seem to think.


    For surfing the web and office applications you're right.
    If you're printing and want your prints to resemble your
    monitor view, you need them calibrated, or you'll have lots
    of fiddling before you.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 27, 2012
    #12
  13. isw <> wrote:

    > I run a two-monitor setup, with a Dell 2407 (which I got because
    > reviewers said it had better-than-average color quality) as the main
    > screen, and my MacBook along side to provide an "auxiliary" screen.
    > Although Apple displays have always been known for their better color
    > performance (one reason Apple monitors have historically cost more),
    > despite my best efforts I have not been able to get the laptop's screen
    > to calibrate properly, nor even to have color performance that's
    > remotely similar to the 2407's. A color image which straddles the two
    > screens can be a painful thing to see ...


    Have you profiled and calibrated (with a hardware device!) your
    monitors and made sure the LUTs have been loaded into the graphic
    cards and work?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 27, 2012
    #13
  14. Jo_y

    Me Guest

    On 29/05/2012 5:31 a.m., isw wrote:

    >
    > No; I've never been able to find out (quantitatively) why I should shell
    > out the money for that. The arguments I've heard seem an awful lot like
    > the ones that "golden-eared" audio folks use to convince me why vinyl
    > records are "superior" to CDs -- i.e. lots of arm-waving, but never any
    > numbers.
    >

    If you don't print, or do print but find that colour accuracy is good
    enough between print and screen for your needs, then don't bother.
    But your comparison above doesn't wash. If you do need to ensure colour
    consistency between output devices (including print) , then you do need
    to use a hardware calibrator.
    Various LCD monitors I've looked at, default "out of box" colour
    accuracy is typically quite poor, delta E average usually about 5 or so.
    Apple computers/monitors are no exception.
    There's no way to reduce that without using a hardware calibrator, as
    there's no way to see "on screen" if the colour is out as you have
    nothing to compare it to.

    A valid comparison to Hifi "preciousness" is perhaps where people think
    that it matters that they get their home cinema screens hardware
    calibrated, as in that case it doesn't matter much at all if the colour
    is out, and the important thing is to know how to adjust it yourself "by
    eye" so that it looks good to you.
    Me, May 29, 2012
    #14
  15. isw <> wrote:

    > (Mumble) years ago, when I was designing high-resolution film printers,
    > I worked very closely with a very capable photographic scientist (I did
    > the electronics and optics; he did the film analysis and calibration).


    > He always said that the ultimate test of a color reproduction system was
    > how well it could do gray scale images -- that if there was no
    > perceptible tint in the grays at any intensity from B to W, then the
    > color tracking was just fine.


    Truth is that our eyes are capable of detecting certain colour
    casts in supposedly gray colour. And making sure that your
    monitor delivers a gray gray when it should is as important today.

    > If that's true (and I think that it is), then you don't need a separate
    > reference.


    You cannot even detect if your white is reddish or blueish
    without an external reference. Is it 9000K, 6500K or 5000K?
    Or something else?

    If you lower the lightness somewhat you don't magically gain
    an absolute eye. So the brighter grays can also be blueish
    or reddish, matching to your white --- but off.

    => You need an external reference.
    Since you don't want a hardware colourimeter, you need a good
    reference unit (paper just doesn't cut it, especially with
    optical brighteners) and a matching light (i.e. normlight)
    and neutral surroundings (e.g. a normlight viewing stand).
    That costs more than the colourimeter ... (and it takes a lot of
    time every calibration).

    So how about the brightness? Do you use your camera as a lux
    meter? At factory settings, practically all flat screens are
    way to bright ... and thus light areas are washed out and dark
    areas are overly contrasty on such screens. Your camera is a
    reference.

    I already see 2 separate references ...


    > And a question about hardware color calibrators: If you measure the same
    > screen with several different makes of them, do they all tell you
    > precisely the same thing?


    Of course not. Not even the same instrument will measure the
    same patch twice without some measurement error. Your camera
    does have some noise, too, doesn't it? Measurement errors are
    just plain physics. Photon noise is plain reality, too.


    > If not, how do you know which one is correct?


    If all are maintained and calibrated themselves (and use the
    right matrices in case of colourimeters), their differences are
    small and you can average the results. In fact, often you'll
    measure important colours like "white" several times with the
    same instrument to reduce the measuring error.

    If one is way out, it's the wrong one.

    If the photospectrometer says one thing and the tristimulus puck
    says something else (and assuming the colour filters of the last
    one haven't faded (the joy of plastic filters in some of them)),
    the tristimulus one is using the wrong correction data (it's
    blue filter doesn't perfectly match any CRTs blue phosphor ---
    and with LCDs, there is a *huge* range of possible and used blues,
    unlike with CRTs. Add in 'wide gamut' screens. And repeat for
    red and green.).

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 30, 2012
    #15
  16. isw <> writes:

    > In fact it seems to be because the calibration procedure which works
    > fine on the Dell 2407, cannot be manipulated to deliver the result that
    > is necessary at several brightness steps on the MacBook's display --
    > IOW, I can't manage to get the test image to appear totally neutral no
    > matter what I do. I'm not sure what a hardware calibrator could do about
    > that.


    Inability to adjust manually doesn't prove much; our eyes are really not
    very good at the task, and there isn't software really adapted to make
    best use of them.

    Laptops rarely have the best screens, so perhaps it won't be as good as
    other things even if properly profiles; but a hardware unit that
    measures the output through various filters, while driving the inputs
    itself, does a MUCH better job than your eyes.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 2, 2012
    #16
  17. isw <> wrote:
    > Andrew Haley <> wrote:
    >> isw <> wrote:


    >> > And again, although I've heard people say the Apple calibration
    >> > procedure is "no good", I've never been able to get any of them to
    >> > elaborate on precisely which ways it fails (i.e. how do they know it's
    >> > no good?).


    >> Because your monitors look very different. If you'd used a hardware
    >> calibrator, assuming your monitors aren't totally broken, they
    >> wouldn't look very different. The black level might vary, but they'd
    >> be the same brightness and the colours would be a near visual match.


    > In fact it seems to be because the calibration procedure which works
    > fine on the Dell 2407, cannot be manipulated to deliver the result that
    > is necessary at several brightness steps on the MacBook's display --
    > IOW, I can't manage to get the test image to appear totally neutral no
    > matter what I do. I'm not sure what a hardware calibrator could do about
    > that.


    A profile allows the profile using software to turn the RGB
    triplets in the image into the correct RGB values for your screen.
    You cannot get the image to neutral because you have too few knobs
    to describe the complexity of your monitor. A hardware method
    will have 100 or more measurements and even more potential knobs,
    both on and off the grey axis, to do the right thing.

    You're basically trying to describe a circle with a triangle or
    a rectangle --- once you have 100 corners, it's much smoother.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 2, 2012
    #17
  18. isw <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> isw <> writes:
    >>
    >> > In fact it seems to be because the calibration procedure which works
    >> > fine on the Dell 2407, cannot be manipulated to deliver the result that
    >> > is necessary at several brightness steps on the MacBook's display --
    >> > IOW, I can't manage to get the test image to appear totally neutral no
    >> > matter what I do. I'm not sure what a hardware calibrator could do about
    >> > that.

    >>
    >> Inability to adjust manually doesn't prove much; our eyes are really not
    >> very good at the task, and there isn't software really adapted to make
    >> best use of them

    >
    > But I can do a demonstrably better job of it on the Dell display. So *by
    > comparison* I can't get the Mac display to look anywhere near as good. I
    > think that would rule out the hardware's ability to do it better. If you
    > need an "eleven" and the knob only goes to "ten", then you're just out
    > of luck. A machine might break the knob trying, but you still wouldn't
    > get what you need.


    I'm not entirely convinced; the flaws in the displays may be different
    and require different skills to correct, for example.

    >> Laptops rarely have the best screens, so perhaps it won't be as good as
    >> other things even if properly profiles; but a hardware unit that
    >> measures the output through various filters, while driving the inputs
    >> itself, does a MUCH better job than your eyes.

    >
    > At the risk of repeating myself, what I have been trying to find out for
    > a long time (several years) is *how much better is MUCH* and *in
    > precisely which ways* (Hue errors? Intensity errors? Gamma errors?, ...
    > errors?)? To date, nobody has even tried to provide an answer.


    Yeah, we've basically totally given up on trying to adjust displays
    manually. All my experience and everything I've read about it says
    that's a total dubs game, no winning condition available. Don't even
    try.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 3, 2012
    #18
  19. isw <> wrote:
    > Andrew Haley <> wrote:
    >> isw <> wrote:


    >> > display -- IOW, I can't manage to get the test image to appear
    >> > totally neutral no matter what I do. I'm not sure what a hardware
    >> > calibrator could do about that.


    >> Why do you say that? The hardware calibration procedure rewrites the
    >> CLUTs in the video card to neutralize the image at all brightness
    >> levels. That's the whole point of using it.


    > I can certainly imagine a display so constructed (poor choice of
    > backlight spectrum, poor choice of filter bandpasses) that no possible
    > set of CLUT values would be "correct". Then what?


    Then your manual trying would still be much worse than calibrating
    with hardware. Anyway, you should dispose of such a monitor.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 4, 2012
    #19
  20. isw <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> isw <> wrote:


    >> > I can certainly imagine a display so constructed (poor choice of
    >> > backlight spectrum, poor choice of filter bandpasses) that no possible
    >> > set of CLUT values would be "correct". Then what?


    >> Then your manual trying would still be much worse than calibrating
    >> with hardware. Anyway, you should dispose of such a monitor.


    > I was simply observing that there could be instances when "even" a
    > hardware calibrator could not produce a good result.


    You were simply looking for an excuse why hardware units will
    not be used by you.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 6, 2012
    #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. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    720
    Splibbilla
    Mar 21, 2005
  2. David Luery

    Canon G2 and Color Profiles

    David Luery, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    417
    Steve James
    Jan 6, 2004
  3. jim evans

    Correct White Balance Doesn't Mean Correct Color??

    jim evans, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    978
    Dave Martindale
    Dec 27, 2005
  4. Destin_FL

    correct CRT monitor color temperature - or Apple Cinema

    Destin_FL, Feb 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    948
    Scott Schuckert
    Feb 17, 2006
  5. isw

    Microtek, OS X, and Color Profiles

    isw, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    367
Loading...

Share This Page