Re: Tweaking monitor calibration

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nospam, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > isw <> wrote:
    > >I've been trying to get a good color calibration on my 2006 MacBook's
    > >screen; seems to me it was better when it was newer. I think the
    > >fluorescent tube may have aged and changed its color. Things way way too
    > >blue.
    > >
    > >Problem is, when the calibrator is invoked, it doesn't start from the
    > >previous settings, it starts from scratch, every time. If the color
    > >errors are subtle, repeated calibrations don't make it "better" they
    > >just wind up "different" -- and still wrong.

    >
    > I haven't got a clue what kind of software is available
    > for calibration of a MacBook, nor what kind of a
    > colorimeter you are using.


    there is no colorimeter, and if you don't have a clue about what's
    available for a mac, why are you even replying?

    > I use Argyll software under Linux. It allows
    > calibrating to different color temperatures, to
    > different brightness levels, and to different gamma
    > corrections. There are probably other variations that
    > I've forgotten are also possible to use, but those are
    > the ones that I have adjust.


    that's wonderful. the original poster has a mac, not a linux box.

    > If you want to use a web browser that is not color
    > managed to view images on the web, your monitor should
    > be calibrated to gamma 2.2, a temperature of 6500K, and
    > whatever brightness is appropriate for the ambient
    > light.


    mac browsers are colour managed (as is almost everything on a mac),
    including the now obsolete microsoft internet explorer from a decade
    ago.

    > If you want to view images for printing, a calibration
    > using gamma 2.4 or 2.5 and a temperature from 5000K to
    > 5800K is probably more appropriate, and the brightness
    > should be down to perhaps 90 cd/m2.


    gamma should be 2.2 and the white point should be d65 or ideally, the
    native white point for the lcd. lower than that is much to warm for
    normal purposes, including printing.

    > >What I'd like, is a way to tweak the current calibration, similar to how
    > >you can tweak a photo in GIMP or Photoshop -- just cut a bit of blue in
    > >the highlights, or whatever.
    > >
    > >Is there any way of doing that? Any tools that make it possible/easy?

    >
    > Read the manual for the software you use to calibrate
    > the monitor with. That shouldn't be hard to do. Color
    > temperature is what you want to change.


    what he was using is not separate software. it's *part of the system*.

    it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.
    nospam, Mar 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Better Info
    <> wrote:

    > >gamma should be 2.2 and the white point should be d65 or ideally, the
    > >native white point for the lcd. lower than that is much to warm for
    > >normal purposes, including printing.

    >
    > Mac platforms are at gamma 1.7, or used to be.


    nope. macs used to be 1.8 and now they're 2.2. most people calibrated
    to 2.2 before it was the default (not that it matters that much either
    way).
    nospam, Mar 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >> >I've been trying to get a good color calibration on my 2006 MacBook's
    > >> >screen; seems to me it was better when it was newer. I think the
    > >> >fluorescent tube may have aged and changed its color. Things way way too
    > >> >blue.
    > >> >
    > >> >Problem is, when the calibrator is invoked, it doesn't start from the
    > >> >previous settings, it starts from scratch, every time. If the color
    > >> >errors are subtle, repeated calibrations don't make it "better" they
    > >> >just wind up "different" -- and still wrong.
    > >>
    > >> I haven't got a clue what kind of software is available
    > >> for calibration of a MacBook, nor what kind of a
    > >> colorimeter you are using.

    > >
    > >there is no colorimeter, and if you don't have a clue about what's
    > >available for a mac, why are you even replying?

    >
    > Because I understand the problem. Which is knowing how
    > to properly calibrate the monitor.


    i also understand the problem, and unlike you, i am very familiar with
    how it's done on a mac and what's available.

    > If the OP has no colorimeter, which means no possiblity
    > of generating an accurate profile or having a
    > "calibrated" monitor, that needs to be made clear.


    it was very clear to someone who is familiar with macs.

    > >> If you want to use a web browser that is not color
    > >> managed to view images on the web, your monitor should
    > >> be calibrated to gamma 2.2, a temperature of 6500K, and
    > >> whatever brightness is appropriate for the ambient
    > >> light.

    > >
    > >mac browsers are colour managed (as is almost everything on a mac),
    > >including the now obsolete microsoft internet explorer from a decade
    > >ago.

    >
    > "as is almost everything" is the key.


    the key for what? on a mac, colour management is part of the operating
    system, not an afterthought.

    > Regardless, the OP does have to have an accurately
    > calibrated monitor in order to use color management.


    yes, that's true and it's not going to happen by eyeballing it, but he
    really just wants his images to not be too blue. i doubt he's doing
    colour critical work, or even cares about colour management at all.

    > >> If you want to view images for printing, a calibration
    > >> using gamma 2.4 or 2.5 and a temperature from 5000K to
    > >> 5800K is probably more appropriate, and the brightness
    > >> should be down to perhaps 90 cd/m2.

    > >
    > >gamma should be 2.2 and the white point should be d65 or ideally, the
    > >native white point for the lcd. lower than that is much to warm for
    > >normal purposes, including printing.

    >
    > Only if you want to look at images posted to the web.


    nope. that's the best setting for a display for both printing and
    looking at images.

    > >> >What I'd like, is a way to tweak the current calibration, similar to how
    > >> >you can tweak a photo in GIMP or Photoshop -- just cut a bit of blue in
    > >> >the highlights, or whatever.
    > >> >
    > >> >Is there any way of doing that? Any tools that make it possible/easy?
    > >>
    > >> Read the manual for the software you use to calibrate
    > >> the monitor with. That shouldn't be hard to do. Color
    > >> temperature is what you want to change.

    > >
    > >what he was using is not separate software. it's *part of the system*.

    >
    > It's software.


    everything is software. there you go trying to weasel out of it. what
    he used is part of the operating system itself. there's nothing to
    install and there is no manual specifically for it. there's not much to
    it either, it's fairly self explanatory, which if you had a clue about
    macs (your words), you would know.

    > >it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.

    >
    > I'd expect that to be true; but the OP did not clarify
    > that point,


    as i said, it was clear from his description, as anyone who has done it
    on a mac would know.

    > and therefore my response was generic to
    > either with or without the proper hardware and with a
    > obvious hint that the proper hardware absolutely is
    > necessary.


    you said you 'haven't got a clue what kind of software is available for
    calibration of a MacBook, nor what kind of a colorimeter you are
    using,' so there really isn't much help you can offer, is there?

    > Whatever, your post was not helpful, had absolutely no
    > value to anyone, and followups that are the same will
    > be ignored.


    neither was yours.
    nospam, Mar 21, 2011
    #3
  4. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >i also understand the problem, and unlike you, i am very familiar with
    > >how it's done on a mac and what's available.

    >
    > You don't seem to know the gamma on a Mac. But He Ho, what does tat
    > matter.


    i have been doing colour management for over a decade, i know what the
    gamma is on a mac and when it changed.

    > >yes, that's true and it's not going to happen by eyeballing it, but he
    > >really just wants his images to not be too blue. i doubt he's doing
    > >colour critical work, or even cares about colour management at all.

    >
    > Ho No! That's why he posted his query to this new group.


    he posted to comp.sys.mac.system (where i first saw it) and
    rec.photo.digital.

    > Your post is full of misleading bullshit.


    specifically, what is bullshit?
    nospam, Mar 22, 2011
    #4
  5. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-41660C.09241022032011@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > How old is your MacBook?

    >
    > It's a Core Duo -- about 2006. It was not anywhere near the first Mac I
    > did color calibration on, but it has always been the "fussiest".


    the problem with a macbook display (not so much on a macbook pro but it
    still happens) is that it's very dependent on viewing angle.
    nospam, Mar 22, 2011
    #5
  6. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-2C1232.09391422032011@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > > it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.

    >
    > Do you have any hard evidence of that? I looked and could find none.
    > Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
    > hardware calibrators provide.


    what folks are those? everything i've seen is that at best, it might be
    close, if you know what to look for when eyeballing it. worst case it's
    not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
    angle (i.e., most laptops).
    nospam, Mar 22, 2011
    #6
  7. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Wolfgang
    Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > So the Mac is colour managed, including all the browsers, just
    > not very well by default. Hmmm.


    actually quite well, but if the display profile is wrong, there's
    nothing anyone can do.
    nospam, Mar 22, 2011
    #7
  8. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    >> isw <> wrote:


    >> >Problem is, when the calibrator is invoked, it doesn't start from the
    >> >previous settings, it starts from scratch, every time. If the color
    >> >errors are subtle, repeated calibrations don't make it "better" they
    >> >just wind up "different" -- and still wrong.


    That's the reason you really want a hardware unit to calibrate
    your monitor. Your eyes just aren't delivering stable, repeatable
    results over different tries.

    >> I use Argyll software under Linux. [...]


    > that's wonderful. the original poster has a mac, not a linux box.


    Argyll is --- as a very quick google would have shown you ---
    available for Mac OS X.

    >> >What I'd like, is a way to tweak the current calibration, similar to how
    >> >you can tweak a photo in GIMP or Photoshop -- just cut a bit of blue in
    >> >the highlights, or whatever.


    >> >Is there any way of doing that? Any tools that make it possible/easy?


    Of course there will be ways --- after all, if you can generate an
    ICC to correct a measured difference between what e.g. a monitor
    delivers, given a certain settings, and what it should deliver,
    (and there is software and there are people who can) you can
    certainly generate an ICC that instead or in addition 'just cut
    a bit of blue in the highlights'.

    However, I doubt that there is ready made software to do that:
    most anyone interested in colour correction will own at least a
    cheap hardware colorimeter (or a dearer hardware spectrometer)
    and will have no itch to tweak, say, the highlights manually in
    the ICC --- if the hardware and the software work as designed, they
    are correct and need no tweaking, otherwise either the hardware is
    broken or the software is broken or just not correctly working with
    the hardware. In the latter cases, the software will be corrected.

    >> Read the manual for the software you use to calibrate
    >> the monitor with. That shouldn't be hard to do. Color
    >> temperature is what you want to change.


    > what he was using is not separate software. it's *part of the system*.


    And the system, or that part of the system, has no manual?

    > it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.


    So the Mac is colour managed, including all the browsers, just
    not very well by default. Hmmm.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 22, 2011
    #8
  9. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-6412A2.21211022032011@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > > > > it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.
    > > >
    > > > Do you have any hard evidence of that? I looked and could find none.
    > > > Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
    > > > hardware calibrators provide.

    > >
    > > what folks are those? everything i've seen is that at best, it might be
    > > close, if you know what to look for when eyeballing it.

    >
    > People who are not skilled at something, or don't understand how it's
    > supposed to work, should not be surprised if the performance they get
    > from it is less than optimum ...


    which is for all intents, just about everyone. most people don't
    understand colour management and are not going to get good results by
    calibrating by eye. those who are skilled at eyeballing it know the
    limitations of human vision. they'll get better results, but not as
    good as hardware.

    in any event, you didn't answer my question. what folks say eyeballing
    it is just as good? name some. i'm curious to see who they are and what
    they have to say.

    here's one who agrees with me:
    <http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Monitor_Calibration_FAQ#Is_using_hardware
    _better.3F_Why_use_it_instead_of_software_alone.3F>

    Is using hardware better? Why use it instead of software alone?

    When only software is used, you are left to guess at the phosphor
    colors the monitor displays. With a hardware instrument the red,
    green and blue phosphor colors, as well as the white points, are all
    accurately measured and this builds a much more accurate profile. It
    also takes into consideration the aging of your monitor.

    > > worst case it's
    > > not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
    > > angle (i.e., most laptops).

    >
    > I hope you're not claiming that a hardware calibrator can somehow make
    > the angle dependency go away.


    it does for the calibration procedure because the puck is placed
    directly on the screen, it does not move and is always at the same
    angle every time the calibration is done. you'll get consistent and
    accurate results.

    obviously, the angle dependency doesn't go away for the user, which
    makes eyeballing it and getting consistent results effectively
    impossible.
    nospam, Mar 23, 2011
    #9
  10. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-B0F2CE.10152023032011@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > in any event, you didn't answer my question. what folks say eyeballing
    > > it is just as good? name some. i'm curious to see who they are and what
    > > they have to say.

    >
    > I didn't keep a list -- it was the result of googling around for
    > information.


    ok, so no proof.

    > But since I *do* understand how Apple's method works, I do
    > expect to get pretty good results from it. As good as a hardware
    > calibrator? No,


    exactly.

    > but good enough that the difference would be not (or
    > nearly not) perceivable by eye. And there's not much reason to get any
    > better than that.


    nearly not?

    > > here's one who agrees with me:
    > > <http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Monitor_Calibration_FAQ#Is_using_hardware
    > > _better.3F_Why_use_it_instead_of_software_alone.3F>
    > >
    > > Is using hardware better? Why use it instead of software alone?
    > >
    > > When only software is used, you are left to guess at the phosphor
    > > colors the monitor displays. With a hardware instrument the red,
    > > green and blue phosphor colors, as well as the white points, are all
    > > accurately measured and this builds a much more accurate profile. It
    > > also takes into consideration the aging of your monitor.

    >
    > Based on my knowledge as a physicist and my experience designing
    > high-accuracy color film printers, I think his explanation is not
    > correct. Basically, the things he mentions -- phosphor colorimetry and aging --
    > are no more controllable by the calibrator than by eye -- they are what
    > they are, and the calibration process has to do the best it can with
    > what it has.


    a puck can accurately measure it, the eye can't.

    > And eyes can do it nearly as well as machinery -- *to the
    > extent that eyes can perceive the difference*. IOW, a more precise
    > calibration that produces no human-perceivable difference in the image
    > is simply not necessary.


    but it is perceivable, if for no other reason, consistent between
    calibration runs.

    > > > > worst case it's
    > > > > not close at all, especially on a display that varies with viewing
    > > > > angle (i.e., most laptops).
    > > >
    > > > I hope you're not claiming that a hardware calibrator can somehow make
    > > > the angle dependency go away.

    > >
    > > it does for the calibration procedure because the puck is placed
    > > directly on the screen, it does not move and is always at the same
    > > angle every time the calibration is done. you'll get consistent and
    > > accurate results.
    > >
    > > obviously, the angle dependency doesn't go away for the user, which
    > > makes eyeballing it and getting consistent results effectively
    > > impossible.

    >
    > But the dependency does *not* go away for your eyes, so the problem
    > cannot be calibrated away in any case.


    it's not that it is calibrated away, it's to get consistent results.

    > OTOH, if you necessarily must view a monitor obliquely, I expect an
    > eyeball calibration *at that angle* might be more useful than a head-on
    > one done with a puck ...


    only if your head is always at that angle. move it a little and things
    change. with a puck in a known consistent position, you get consistent
    results.
    nospam, Mar 23, 2011
    #10
  11. isw <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> Argyll is --- as a very quick google would have shown you ---
    >> available for Mac OS X.


    > Yes. I've know about it for a while. I can't see that it does any more
    > than what comes with the Mac already (except support for a hardware
    > calibrator, which I don't want to purchase).


    Can the Mac software profile a printer, a scanner, a camera?
    Argyll can (if given the right hardware to work with).
    Sure, you'll need a spectrometer with a lightsource or a target,
    try to eyeball that!

    If you want a eyeball only routine, Argyll is not the way to go.

    > Plus, it does not seem to
    > have a profile *editor*.


    Which, by definition, shouldn't be needed at all with
    hardware calibration.

    >> Of course there will be ways --- after all, if you can generate an
    >> ICC to correct a measured difference between what e.g. a monitor
    >> delivers, given a certain settings, and what it should deliver,
    >> (and there is software and there are people who can) you can
    >> certainly generate an ICC that instead or in addition 'just cut
    >> a bit of blue in the highlights'.


    > I think it's more complicated than that. A profile is "just" a text
    > file.


    But you don't want only a profile to load into your graphics
    adapter, you also want an .icc (or .icm), for correcting all that
    what a profile cannot correct. And for such things as to
    emulate the output of one medium on another medium.

    > I did a very minor edit to a profile -- changed the name that
    > shows in a list (it's an internal string) -- and the profile vanished
    > from the list entirely. I think there must be some error control stuff
    > in it; maybe a hash. So an editor would have to know how to deal with
    > that.


    Well, look up the exact format used. Stick to it.

    >> > it also doesn't work very well since there's no hardware puck.


    > Do you have any hard evidence of that?


    'twas nospam who said this, but: You complained that you couldn't
    repeat the calibration to such standards that your eyes were happy:

    | If the color
    | errors are subtle, repeated calibrations don't make it "better" they
    | just wind up "different" -- and still wrong.

    I take that as hard evidence that calibration without hardware
    doesn't work satisfactory for you. I.e. not very well.

    > I looked and could find none.
    > Folks *who understand it* say it gives results very close to what
    > hardware calibrators provide.


    Sure. Very close counts lots in horse shoes and hand
    grenades, but you are wanting to manually tweak profiles
    because it's just not good enough for you, and hard as you
    try, you can't get close enough. Proof? Your posts!

    >> So the Mac is colour managed, including all the browsers, just
    >> not very well by default. Hmmm.


    > Managed by default, yes. But there's no way a color display can be
    > handled "by default"; there has to be a way to deal with aging, if
    > nothing else.


    Repeat the calibration at times. Once a month, once a quarter,
    once a week --- depends on your standards, your needs and your
    monitors.

    > Plus, of course, Apple allows the use of third-party
    > monitors, which would need calibration.


    Same as with Apple's monitors.
    But it's very kind of Apple to allow that, really ...

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 24, 2011
    #11
  12. nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> So the Mac is colour managed, including all the browsers, just
    >> not very well by default. Hmmm.


    > actually quite well, but if the display profile is wrong, there's
    > nothing anyone can do.


    So how does the Mac get the display profile by default?
    Eyeballing it, right? That was the point.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 24, 2011
    #12
  13. isw <> wrote:

    > The problem with the MacBook's internal monitor is that I don't seem to
    > be able to get the final tint out of the darker gray levels, even with
    > the handle all the way to an edge.


    You probably need an icc to manage that, not just a profile.
    And maybe you need to give up some contrast --- it's hard to
    correct dark gray when you cannot really take away brightness
    anymore, and can only correct by adding more, say, red and green
    to counter blueish tint. Argyll has a parameter that allows you
    to fine-tune that problem area.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 24, 2011
    #13
  14. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-03-24 11:31:39 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >> So how does the Mac get the display profile by default?
    >> Eyeballing it, right? That was the point.


    > There is a default Mac display profile.


    Which isn't exactly adjusted to aging or individual differences.
    And what default profile will a, say, Mac mini select with a
    random monitor? Apple only seems to offer a 27" 'Cinema Display'
    and a refurbished 30" 'Cinema HD Display' (which is out of stock)
    for the Mac mini ...
    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/displays?mco=MTM3NDc3MjA&s=priceHL

    > All other custom calibration adjustments are made with eyeball using
    > the OS System preferences for the display. You can return to the
    > default by selecting it.


    > With the Mac as with any other display, if you do not trust your vision
    > get a decent calibration tool.


    Which the US Apple store does not offer at all, the German
    variation offers at least a Spyder 3 Pro (which can be had
    cheaper elsewere, of course (115 EUR inclusive shipping
    versus 149 EUR + shipping).

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 25, 2011
    #14
  15. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-03-25 11:18:08 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg said:


    >> Apple only seems to offer a 27" 'Cinema Display'
    >> and a refurbished 30" 'Cinema HD Display' (which is out of stock)
    >> for the Mac mini ...


    > Why would Apple sell third party displays?


    well, Apple doesn't have a great choice of monitors for a Mac mini,
    so obviously most buyers would use a third party monitor.
    That was the point.

    And thus you'd use a generic profile or eyeball it.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 27, 2011
    #15
  16. nospam

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > Spyder 3 Pro ranges in price here from $125-$160.
    > The Pantone huey Pro from $70-$100.
    > The ColorMunki from $400-$450.



    All "Apple polishing" aside, what do you (and/or anybody
    else) recommend, for a Windows PC?

    Is any such decent, hardware-based monitor calibration
    product available, at around $100.00 USD or lower?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #16
  17. nospam

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2011-03-30 19:28:23 -0700, John Turco <>
    > > said:
    > >
    > >> Savageduck wrote:

    > >
    > > <heavily edited for brevity>
    > >
    > >> Spyder 3 Pro ranges in price here from $125-$160.
    > >> The Pantone huey Pro from $70-$100.
    > >> The ColorMunki from $400-$450.

    > >
    > >
    > > All "Apple polishing" aside, what do you (and/or anybody
    > > else) recommend, for a Windows PC?
    > >
    > > Is any such decent, hardware-based monitor calibration
    > > product available, at around $100.00 USD or lower?

    >
    > Pantone huey Pro.
    > It is good for both Mac & Windows displays, CRT, or LCD (inc.
    > laptops). Mine including shipping was $79.87 from Amazon.



    However...online customer reviews of the Pantone Huey Pro,
    often mention how flimsy it can be.

    I want something that will endure, long past its warranty
    period.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Apr 28, 2011
    #17
  18. nospam

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/28/2011 8:43 AM, John Turco wrote:
    > Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-03-30 19:28:23 -0700, John Turco<>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <heavily edited for brevity>
    >>>
    >>>> Spyder 3 Pro ranges in price here from $125-$160.
    >>>> The Pantone huey Pro from $70-$100.
    >>>> The ColorMunki from $400-$450.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> All "Apple polishing" aside, what do you (and/or anybody
    >>> else) recommend, for a Windows PC?
    >>>
    >>> Is any such decent, hardware-based monitor calibration
    >>> product available, at around $100.00 USD or lower?

    >>
    >> Pantone huey Pro.
    >> It is good for both Mac& Windows displays, CRT, or LCD (inc.
    >> laptops). Mine including shipping was $79.87 from Amazon.

    >
    >
    > However...online customer reviews of the Pantone Huey Pro,
    > often mention how flimsy it can be.
    >
    > I want something that will endure, long past its warranty
    > period.
    >


    I have a Spyder2 that is long past its warranty and still working fine.
    A lot of my fellow CC members also have Sypders and they don't complain.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 28, 2011
    #18
  19. nospam

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > > On 2011-04-28 05:43:54 -0700, John Turco said:


    <edited for brevity>

    > > However...online customer reviews of the Pantone Huey Pro, often
    > > mention how flimsy it can be.
    > >
    > > I want something that will endure, long past its warranty period.

    >
    > Well I am not using it to sweep the driveway, or as a tool for scouring
    > the toilet bowl. As a photo hobbyist, who does some printing at home, I
    > wanted a tool to calibrate my monitors, without costing me a fortune.
    > It fit my needs perfectly.


    Okay, I guess "flimsy" may not have been the optimal word.

    > The huey Pro is not made of indestructible materials, and my usage is
    > not particularly harsh. So far it has performed as advertized, and I
    > have no complaints, nor any need to test the warranty.


    The criticisms were that, the Huey Pro stopped working, suddenly (i.e.,
    it had nothing to do with physical abuse).

    By the way, how is an entirely calibrated >system< achieved? Does the
    printer need its own such device, also? (I definitely doubt it, from
    my Google searches.)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    #19
  20. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > The printer does not need its own device,


    though many higher-end devices have one inbuild ...

    > though print results can be
    > measured and a custom profile created. I would rather have the paper &
    > printer manufacturers do that for me. Different printers, inks, and
    > different papers will respond differently. So to match what you have
    > achieved on a calibrated display with the output from any given
    > printer, you will have to match the ICC profile for a specific paper to
    > the printer.


    And the ink (which can be pretty expensive, often many times
    as expensive as the most expensive champagne).

    BTW, there are also generic profiles from display manufacturers
    --- the problem being that each display (and each printer)
    is different. (Displays definitively age. But I understand
    printers drift as well.)

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 17, 2011
    #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:
    761
    ProfGene
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. Jim Dalton
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    938
    Marvin Margoshes
    Jul 18, 2003
  3. Guest

    Printer & Monitor Calibration

    Guest, Sep 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
    Guest
    Sep 13, 2003
  4. Haydon
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    487
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    May 23, 2007
  5. nospam

    Re: Tweaking monitor calibration

    nospam, Mar 21, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    361
    Chris Malcolm
    Mar 24, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page