9 replies to this topic

[Scubysnaps]

I've had a monitor calibrator for about 3-6 months now, Huey pro, I'm not really convinced. Anyone else?

[Timmoranuk]

I've had a monitor calibrator for about 3-6 months now, Huey pro, I'm not really convinced. Anyone else?

Yup, a Colormunki. Excellent kit and made my printing WYSIWYG...

[rtrski]

I don't print much, but I recently realized that my shots coming out of DXO Optics were looking VERY different in its viewer than in ACDSee Pro 3's viewer. I could side-by-side the windows and see a huge difference in tone, although both were set to assume the same (sRGB) colorspace.

Turns out one didn't have the right monitor profile set. Fixed that, and both images looked the same.

Unfortunately after uploading to flickr they no longer look like they do locally. Probably a browser color space issue?

Now while that doesn't answer the whole "does the monitor calibration really get it RIGHT" part...it does argue to me that some sort of standard will strongly influence your happiness with your print results.

[Scubysnaps]

one thing that didn't convince me, id that I did a reboot recently shortly after a calibration, onto the black and white screen, yet it wasnt black and white, it was black and a whiter shade of pink! hmmm

[Bentoni]

I have been a photojournalist at a northern California newspaper for 13 years. Photos go through the hands (and monitors) of the photographers, the photo editors, the lab techs, and eventually to the presses. There seemed an obvious need to control color fidelity throughout the process, and several years ago the paper spent $10 million to upgrade the presses and the entire color management system. The upgrade included hiring the expertise of a Color Management consultant who spoke about IPTC profiles, 'device-independent color space' vs. 'device-dependent color space,' dot-gain, undercolor removal, and the various merits of LAB, Adobe RGB, sRGB, and the myriad ways of converting to CMYK. It made us all dizzy. The photographers here all use Apple Cinema displays and we used Colormunki to calibrate them. But then the Lab techs convert the files to CMYK, and the press operators tweak the ink on the presses and output the photos onto crappy paper racing through an offset press. If the color didn't look right, who could tell where the system failed?

My humble opinion is that color management is a complex concept that can easily confuse smart people, but smarter people should not waste much of their time on it. Every monitor's color will drift a little from the moment you turn it on. Some more than others. Even after calibration it won't be long before you'll need to calibrate again. We calibrated 15 identical monitors at the same time, and our test image file still looked slightly different on each. There are so many variables that were out of our control that the entire process was an exercise in chasing our collective tail. Color Management is much more an art than a science, and the vagueness of art reigns.

If you are working in a closed system — your camera, your monitor, and your output device — it should not be much trouble to get things to print with reasonable predictability. Make sure you are using the same color space throughout your workflow; Photo Mechanic, Camera Raw, Photoshop, Lightroom, Adobe Bridge ...whatever you're using. I use an Epson inkjet printer at home, and I use the ColorSync app that came free with my Mac to 'calibrate' my monitor. I followed the "Advanced" steps (which are simple) and my prints never surprise me. If I send files out to be printed on someone else's printer I try to get an IPTC profile for their printer and I soft-proof it. You can do this with most good commercial print houses, and even Costco.

Sorry for the rant, but I spent a lot of time studying this and eventually realized I had been spinning my wheels. Be smarter than me.

[tdpriest]

I've had a monitor calibrator for about 3-6 months now, Huey pro, I'm not really convinced. Anyone else?

I think that the Huey Pro isn't a fully specified system, in that it creates consistency within the local network: camera-monitor-printer, but doesn't match to an external standard.

My personal difficulty has always been matching the screen gamma to the printer output; I rather suspect that the difference between emission from monitor pixels and reflection from a print (even using one paper and the same artificial lighting exclusively) are always going to make this a problem.

Tim

[Autopsea]

I agree with Randall, It's just not possible to find THE solution, don't waste too much time on this.

[diver dave1]

Prior to using Spyder, Prints did not match the monitor well - giving poor prints. After using Spyder, the results between monitor and prints are quite close. I use a professional print shop, not a home printer. The prints have matched the monitor using 2 different shops.

[cdoyal]

Prior to using Spyder, Prints did not match the monitor well - giving poor prints. After using Spyder, the results between monitor and prints are quite close. I use a professional print shop, not a home printer. The prints have matched the monitor using 2 different shops.

Ditto. I use an old Spyder 2 and download profiles for the printers I send my photo to such as mpix.com. Every print looks great.

[Spacker]

I purchased a Spyder3 studio kit. My friends have all benefited from it. One thing I'd found is that using the monitor calibration and receiving images from a friends dell to my, as yet uncalibrated mac screen is that I can see details in the blacks that he can't. Surely a calibrated display should show information that exists in the image. Personally I'm unconvinced of the benefits outside of in-house printing.