Lost in Monitor Calibration...
Back to the basics.
I thought I had it right, but actually it may have been all wrong. In other words, I got totally confused.
I wish to calibrate my monitors, so that my exports in AdobeRGB can be directly good at the printing lab.
I have:
- A MacPro 5.1 running MacOS 10.14.6 Mojave
- A Radeon RX580 graphic Card
- An Eizo CG2730 Monitor (27" with integrated sensor)
- An Eizo CG277 Monitor (27" with integrated sensor)
- Eizo's own software ColorNavigator
- if necessary: an X-Rite display Calibrator
So I think I have more than enough.
I cannot use C1P own "Eizo Calibration (Beta)", as the CG2730 is not supported)
Now ... Using ColorNavigator, what profile should I choose ?
Adobe RGB or define the temperature point of the screen ? 5000 or 6000 °K by myself ?
Use the integrated sensor, or the X-Rite ?
Once calibration is complete, select "custom" from the screen menu, or "Adobe RGB" ?
If someone would be kind and patient enough to help me with a step-by-step guide, it would be hugely appreciated (and most probably, usable by many others as well) :-)
Thanks in advance
-
@jjwithers "On the same machine, an unmodified RAW file in C1 does not look identical to a RAW file in Adobe Camera RAW."
That really is a different question. Both Lightroom and Capture One do some stuff to the raw file before showing it to you.
In Lightroom what you see from an "unedited" raw file depends for instance on what "Profile" is applied as a starting point, such as Adobe Colour, Adobe Neutral, Camera Lanscape etc.
In Capture One a similar thing applies: it depends on what Base Characteristics you choose, such as Film Standard, Film High Contrast, Linear Response, etc.
Both apps apply a certain amount of contrast, sharpening, saturation, clarity, etc. Capture One by default tends to apply a bit more saturation and contrast, I think. But of course in both apps all those things can be changed both up and down.
I think that is the reason for the differences you see rather than something to do with monitor calibration.
Ian
0 -
Yes, as Ian said, different development engines, with different ICC (or DCP) profiles, and different tonal curves, will give you different looks and colours. But, as far as TIFFs are concerned, there souldn't be any difference if you open a TIFF in Capture One (creadted by C1 or not) or in Photoshop or Lightroom. Be careful that when you open a TIFF in Photoshop, you must skip ACR and set Photoshop in such a way that it skips it. Otherwise, it will open it in ACR and the look could be different, then. This can be set in the PS preferences (more precisely in the Adobe Camera Raw preferences, that you access through the PS preferences).
0 -
@ Claude CAUWE
very much understand your problem because asking a simple question about monitor calibrations will lead to more confusion with all those opinions user post making something simple look challenging and difficult.
1. use the software which allows hardware calibration in your case this is color navigator. after calibration don't touch the monitor settings best lock them. use the same colorimeter for both monitors.
2. ignore all advice on low luminace and color temperature settings and start with a good general approach of 120 / 6500 / 2.2 than have some test images including something like this http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip printed by your lab in the colourspace your lab recommends and compare them to you monitor under the condition you check your prints. don't aspect a 100% match ! only if you see great differences alter the calibration settings.
3. keep the ambient light at your workspace as constant and neutral as possible. also check your images with an white background in your software. when you compare the images to you monitor close you eyes for a short moment when moving from the print to the monitor and back.
4. as others already said CN offers an option to match monitors, so calibrate your main monitor first and than use this calibration to match the other if they are still to much apart try to use the manual controls to get them closer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS6sjZmxjY4&list=PLdOJ5lYPddQkPJ6lfuXK__5wJP49g90K2&index=9&t=732s
0 -
@CSP
O thank you so much for summarizing all of this !
Feels like you have gone along the same confusion path to resume it so well.There must be as many solutions as users here, and I am very grateful to all who contributed - because all the information is valuable. Even if I don't use it immediately, it is stored "somewhere" and the day that I will challenge calibration again, they will pop-up again, having been better digested and integrated.
I was thinking that having two monitors of the same size and brand would help, but clearly monitors have a personality of their own :-) Now I am a bit wiser, and will stop seeking a perfection that my picts don't achieve anyway. Is it time to learn to be "happy with the best we can" ?
Have a great weekend, all of you (and leave that Calibration sensor on the shelf :-) )
0 -
color-mangment should make life easier not more difficult !
the best advice I can give is get a good book about color-managment and learn how everything interacts from camera to monitor to printer, it is not difficult to understand and it will help to make the right decisions for your specific work environment. when it comes to printer / monitor matching we have a lot of variables including our eyes and what works for one is no guarantee that it works for others especially with extrem settings but when you have watched the video I attached you already now that, andrew rodney is a really great source for information for everything related to colormanagment. comparing a print to an an image without access to a custom printer profile for soft proofing will always result in clear differences so to be over critical only leads to frustration. only when you see a tendency adjust your start settings.
( ...I started being interested in colormangment in the mid 90ies so because of his I became unintended a consultant for my clients I later made color management workshops for canon and gave lectures for graphic design students. what frustrates me is that CM has not really improved since than and is still without need too complicated )
0 -
Would you have such a good book to recommend ?
0 -
Hi Claude,
What is your native language ? I know very good books and websites in French....
0 -
My mother tongue is French indeed, but I don't mind if it is in English either
0 -
Hi Claude,
About colours in general, there is a very good website : http://www.profil-couleur.com, and books by Jean Delmas, "Gestion des couleurs pas à pas" and "La gestion des couleurs pour les photographes, les graphistes et le prépresse" (éditions Eyrolles), but I think you know most of the information contained therein. About calibration by itself, there is some information in the Arnaud Frich website : https://www.guide-gestion-des-couleurs.com. There are some few mistakes there, but without any drastic consequence.
In English : Bruce Lindbloom : http://www.brucelindbloom.com, and Phil Cruse : https://www.colourphil.co.uk/index.shtml
0 -
Thank your very much, Robert.
I will have a look at them - it's a rainy weekend anyway :-)
0 -
@Robert thanks for helping out
as not much changed in the last 30 years the book by the wonderful Bruce Fraser "real world colormanagment" is still very recommended but for me the absolut reference is http://www.colormanagement.de but this is also focused very much on professional offset printing.
2018_en_PSDHandbook_print.pdf. this is also aimed at professional print production but covers monitor calibration and soft proofing too and even gives an answer for the D50/65 question..... page 26 & 16 1 but be warned this is very advanced. but as the same principles apply wether you print with an small inkjet or a large heidlberg digital press I guess some can pickup valuable information.
0 -
Hi Claude, regarding your original point I may be of limited assistance. I shoot a lot of flat artwork for reproduction and artists catalogues. As a consequence I spent years trying to understand colour calibration. There are still some grey areas!
For me it begins and ends with white point. If you understand Input, Working , File and Output whitepoints things become clearer. There is a colour gamut & profile associated with each of these stages but it is simpler to think about whitepoint to start with.
White point = the relative appearance of a pure white object seen under a particular light source.
To work as accurately as possible with my camera I use Lumariver Profile Designer in reproduction mode to create an input colour profile for the camera, lens and studio lighting combination that I use. This is applied as a camera profile by C1 in linear curve mode. Due to the colour shifting effects of cross polarisation my input whitepoint is usually over 7000k, without cross polarization that is around 5600k using Bowens studio strobes. This is the input whitepoint.
Your computer screen and your surrounding lighting environment need to match in terms of whitepoint. This is important otherwise as your focus changes between your office ambient and your computer your own colour perception will change. I need the whitepoint that is illuminating the shot artwork and my screen to match in whitepoint otherwise the screen image and the original artwork can never be matched. Of course your office/studio needs to be as neutral in possible (grey) in decor. Eizo offers the possibility of matching a Eizo Lightbox to an Eizo screen for this exact purpose. I cant afford the Lightbox but use lighting with a known whitepoint of 5500 kelvin to illuminate artwork. I have a screen calibration to match this. In summary computer whitepoint equals your viewing conditions whitepoint. This is your working whitepoint. The whitepoint your screen is calibrated to.
Where does the 6500K standard come from? My understanding is that it was originally selected as being a good average for daylight. So now it is used as a default for most computer screens. And also for standard colour spaces such as Adobe and SRGB. This is somewhat confusing as here it is both a working (computer screen) and File (RGB file type) whitepoint. However daylight is variable from about 5000k to 9000k or higher. So if you are evaluating work in daylight you need to calibrate your screen to match the current state of daylight white balance. You would need a lot of calibrations as this is constantly changing. Roughly measuring daylight colour temp now at 1.30pm in Ireland I get a reading of close to 7200k.
File white balance? What is this? In Adobe and Srgb it is 6500k. If your printer is set to only expect Adobe RGB for example it does not need to see the white point setting in the file. It can take that file and transform the data to suit its capabilities based on the assumption of a white point of 6500k.
The printer will take that file and convert the colours it contains applying its own colour calibration in the process. This calibration being measured from the combination of paper colour and printer inks. This combination of inks and paper contains an output whitepoint which should also take into account final viewing environment.
The above is my explanation of white point within the photographic process. It ignores the spectra of light. This has an impact when looking at the same image on different screens calibrated to the same whitepoint. Whitepoint can be regarded as the average of the spectra of light from any particular source. Spectra being the different proportions of colour being emitted by a source. Different light sources with the same white point can have quite different spectra. Now how does that impact screens? Different model screens even when made but the same manufacturer can contain differing light sources with different spectra. For example my 2013 27” iMac has a different light spectra output to my Eizo 27” CG2420. The result of this is even if I calibrate both of them to say 5500K they both still look a little different, this is due to differences in the spectra they produce. This difference is further complicated by differing Gamma (contrast) of the screens. However even though both screens look slightly different they are both ‘good enough’ for sRGB but the Eizo is the only one I have with the required colour Gamut for Adobe RGB.
PS for calibrating the iMac screen I use Datacolour Spyder with DisplayCal.
Best Regards
Dickon Whitehead.
0 -
Dickon,
That's a very useful description of some challenges of trying to manage some of the less precise variables for end to end colour processing.
Another that I have recently noticed having increasingly more obtrusive effects is eyesight. In particular the effects of brightness (or darkness) adjustment, the distraction effects of "floaters" in the eye and temporary complementary colour after-images which may take longer (in my experience) to disperse and disappear than they did when I was younger. This is not an old man thing. The effects slowly but steadily invade one's sight over the years.
All of these things are more than capable of confusing the brain's ability to deliver a perfected colour edit if they are ignored.
Add in the most likely far form accurate retention of information we think we remember abut how something looked "at the time" and dissatisfaction with outcomes is almost certain. ;)
At least with art work there is a good chance that it will still look the same, in the same setting as it did at the tie the photographic record was created. So long as one can control all of the variables. Especially daylight values if daylight is unavoidable.
AI generation will offer greatly improved accuracy by using digital creation to skip past all of the previous traditional approaches. That may or may not be a "good thing" depending on ones personal point if view.
Hopefully people will be able to avoid its influence of they so choose.
Thanks for your guidance, Dickon.
0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
43 Kommentare