Calibrating and Profiling Monitors...do it correctly. Use Argyll CMS.

[3dogs]

3dogs said: I went from that to the EIZO simply because it has the ability to represent 98% of the colours I can get out of my camera.

How do you know what you are getting from your camera?

Note, I deliberately avoided that, saying rather "ability" who other than Canon really is able to answer that sort of question.....see @TheHat post!!!!

 

[palombian]

.... However it pointed out that many devices are actually underperforming regardless of cost....

Some consider me a cheapskate who even calculates price/performance for his hobbies.

This attitude not only avoids financial stress but also sets you aside of the rat race.

@stratman, @dogs:
In one of my (actual) lives I am a glider pilot. With my cheap 40 years old glider I fly in the mountains among the best and/or the most ambitious pilots in the world.
When the ambitious ones speak to me: "Why don't you buy a better glider so you can fly longer distances ?", I reply "Well, when I fly 300 km with my old plane, I am respected for this result. When I buy the latest superglider, people would laugh when I fly only 500 km !"
The best pilots tap on my shoulder and say: "You have to fly for your pleasure".

Of coarse the best pilots (musicians, anglers, photographers ...) will reach the top with the latest equipment, but if you do not have the talent and the perseverance it can look foolish to chase the unattainable.

"Know thyself" as the ancient Greeks said.

 

[RogerB]

So let's see some more people take the step and give Argyll a shot and see what comes out.

So far it looks like 2 for 2 on improvements.

OK Mike - here goes.....

I tried dispcalGUI a year or two back and didn't get on with it too well, but thought I'd give it another try. I'm glad I did because when I opened it up it informed me there was a newer version (2.6.0.0) I downloaded that and it looked rather different from what I remembered, and in a good way. I chose "Calibrate & profile" from the options and selected 6000K which I know gives me the best monitor-print match.

I remembered that the process was pretty lengthy but I was still surprised by how lengthy. The calibration process (after adjusting my monitor controls to get the right white point) took about an hour and a half. I'm not sure how long the profiling took because I went away to have my dinner and left it running. When I came back after another hour and a half it was finished and the profile was installed and active. Couldn't be simpler!

Up until now I have used my i1Pro with i1Match or i1Profiler to profile my monitor and I've had good results - good enough to meet the UGRA requirements for soft-proofing monitors (see http://www.ugra.ch/udact-2.phtml for what this is about). I can't say if the colour accuracy is improved, but there is a marked improvement in two other aspects. In spite of good colour accuracy I have always struggled to get perfect rendering of deepest shadows and the lightest highlights. I can now see a difference between RGB 1,1,1 and 0,,0,0. In addition, where extreme highlights (250,250,250 to 254,254,254) used to show a tiny amount of colour, these now look perfectly neutral.

Overall a pretty good result for me. Colour accuracy has never been a problem and I realy can't see any difference in rendering generally, but shadow and highlight rendering is definitely better. And being a true geek, I love the way in which dispcalGUI gives you all the profile information and even generates 3D gamut plots. Very nice!

 

[Roy Sletcher]

I played guitar in a previous life and had a nice assortment of higher end Fenders and Gibsons. One day I was at the local guitar shop loitering. A father and son were shopping for the young boy's first electric guitar. The store's employee plugged in a low end Fender Squire electric guitar and made amazing music with it. Better than me and my high priced axes. The child's eyes light up and the father had a look of satisfaction all for one low price.

Generally, it's the player, not the instrument, that makes beautiful music. A good instrument facilitates talent's results but will only give a nudge up, if at all, for the mediocre.

That said, I'd gladly compute away in my mediocrity with a $1000+ monitor!

Aint this the truth, as Stratman says:
"Generally, it's the player, not the instrument, that makes beautiful music. A good instrument facilitates talent's results but will only give a nudge up, if at all, for the mediocre."

Same applies to photography and most creative or competitive pursuits. It is the person, not the tools.

In our club some of the best photographers have what appears to be sloppy or less than technically perfect images, but all that is trumped by the creativity, beauty and elegance of their work. They consistently get high scores because the aforementioned strong points heavily outweigh the flaws in their image.

As one acquaintance who judges image in Canada and the USA says, "You look for the image that speaks to you".

Now having said that I saw an advert that I can buy gold clubs that will enable me to play golf like Tiger Woods. (Or like he used to play)

RS

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Some consider me a cheapskate who even calculates price/performance for his hobbies.

This attitude not only avoids financial stress but also sets you aside of the rat race.

@stratman, @dogs:
In one of my (actual) lives I am a glider pilot. With my cheap 40 years old glider I fly in the mountains among the best and/or the most ambitious pilots in the world.
When the ambitious ones speak to me: "Why don't you buy a better glider so you can fly longer distances ?", I reply "Well, when I fly 300 km with my old plane, I am respected for this result. When I buy the latest superglider, people would laugh when I fly only 500 km !"
The best gliders tap on my shoulder and say: "You have to fly for your pleasure".

Of coarse the best pilots (musicians, anglers, photographers ...) will reach the top with the latest equipment, but if you do not have the talent and the perseverance it can look foolish to chase the unattainable.

"Know thyself" as the ancient Greeks said.

"Know thyself..." as the ancient Greeks said, "...and don't tell anyone", says the 21st century armchair philosopher.

I like lhis post as it/ sums up the amateur viewpoint admirably, and illustrates it is the enjoyment of what we do, and the pleasure in trying to do something well is an achievement, even though we can recognise our own limitations.

Most of us have become too old to believe in fairy tales, but sometimes there is magic in an image.

RS

 

[Roy Sletcher]

OK Mike - here goes.....

I tried dispcalGUI a year or two back and didn't get on with it too well, but thought I'd give it another try. I'm glad I did because when I opened it up it informed me there was a newer version (2.6.0.0) I downloaded that and it looked rather different from what I remembered, and in a good way. I chose "Calibrate & profile" from the options and selected 6000K which I know gives me the best monitor-print match.

I remembered that the process was pretty lengthy but I was still surprised by how lengthy. The calibration process (after adjusting my monitor controls to get the right white point) took about an hour and a half. I'm not sure how long the profiling took because I went away to have my dinner and left it running. When I came back after another hour and a half it was finished and the profile was installed and active. Couldn't be simpler!

Up until now I have used my i1Pro with i1Match or i1Profiler to profile my monitor and I've had good results - good enough to meet the UGRA requirements for soft-proofing monitors (see http://www.ugra.ch/udact-2.phtml for what this is about). I can't say if the colour accuracy is improved, but there is a marked improvement in two other aspects. In spite of good colour accuracy I have always struggled to get perfect rendering of deepest shadows and the lightest highlights. I can now see a difference between RGB 1,1,1 and 0,,0,0. In addition, where extreme highlights (250,250,250 to 254,254,254) used to show a tiny amount of colour, these now look perfectly neutral.

Overall a pretty good result for me. Colour accuracy has never been a problem and I realy can't see any difference in rendering generally, but shadow and highlight rendering is definitely better. And being a true geek, I love the way in which dispcalGUI gives you all the profile information and even generates 3D gamut plots. Very nice!

Certainly better than the results I have been getting. I have extensive samples and records going back several years.

My printed test images on glossy paper - IS inks and Pro 100 printer - best B&W gradient gives me 251 - 252 at the light end and nothing discernable below 6 at the dark end. Apart from that the colour range and colour rendition is spectacular. Of course knowing this I can post process my image accordingly, making sire the darkest and lightest tones match these values. Restricts the dynamic range very slightly, but ensures the full range of tones in the image. (246 SHADES OF GREY, and Red, and Blue, and GREEN - the adult version)

Been a year of so since my last test - Will have to revisit this area after the busy holiday season.

Interesting thread that Mikling started. Bet he did not think it would go in this direction. You never can tell on the internet.

RS

 

[Roy Sletcher]

That is a real point of interest @3dogs, what can our printers reproduce ?

I hear guys say all to often that their prints come out way to dark, and ask why ?, I not being a professional just shrug and say to myself, “you altered your flaming prints that why”.

Then I hear guys say they shoot in Raw, another shrug from himself, because once you open your raw file in an App. it instantly compiles it so you can view it on your calibrated screen. (Raw prawns come to mind)

Now I can hear howls of, “no it flaming doesn’t you twit” and I can instantly say “O’ YES IT DOES “and you can keep saying the opposite, and we could be there forever. (Our very own Pantomime)

The next thing is this “16 bit thing” I mean what’s the point you simply can’t print in 16 bit anyway, your so called raw file is sent to your printer in RGB and it then converts it to CYMK on paper, so that should leave most totally bewildered, but are they ?

My point to all of this is there is awful lot of rainbow chasers (Experts) who talk the talk and say I can perform miracles with my great equipment much better than you can, so upgrade to my standards or get off the pot !

Finally:- You can have the best equipment in the world but if you lack the patients and skills to use it properly then you’ll be off chasing that far off rainbow again, but hell ask the guy (Expert) down the road and I’m sure he’ll tell you which way it went.. !

That's my rant finished for now and Roy’s shrink may have a whacky new client to deal with, Hm... what his number again please..

Nicely said Mr Hat.

Always good to have somebody around to prick the balloon when we all get too pompous and theoretical.

I hear tell that even Billy Graham had a staff member whose job it was to whisper in his ear "Horseshsh_t" (or however you say that in Baptist speak) when he became too grandiose for his own good.

We all learn from each other in these messages, but it is important to keep our feet on the ground.

RS

 

[Roy Sletcher]

3dogs said: I went from that to the EIZO simply because it has the ability to represent 98% of the colours I can get out of my camera.

How do you know what you are getting from your camera?

The histogram will show you the range of tones from your camera.

One small example is to open a raw imaga in Adobe Camera Raw. Preferably an image well exposed with a full dynamic range of tones.

NOTE - It is important to use a raw image because it will not have a colour space assigned before rendering in ACR.

Start with the Prophoto colour space, and look at the histogram.

Change the colour space to aRGB -and look at the histogram. - you will see the difference.

Then change the colour space to sRGB -and look at the histogram again. - you will see the the tonal range contract again.

The difference is not huge. But at this level our progress is evolutionary not revolutionary.

Youi can probably do the same thing in Lightroom. I think they call their native colour space Melissa and not Prophoto

RS

 

[3dogs]

Some consider me a cheapskate who even calculates price/performance for his hobbies.

This attitude not only avoids financial stress but also sets you aside of the rat race.

@stratman, @dogs:
In one of my (actual) lives I am a glider pilot. With my cheap 40 years old glider I fly in the mountains among the best and/or the most ambitious pilots in the world.
When the ambitious ones speak to me: "Why don't you buy a better glider so you can fly longer distances ?", I reply "Well, when I fly 300 km with my old plane, I am respected for this result. When I buy the latest superglider, people would laugh when I fly only 500 km !"
The best gliders tap on my shoulder and say: "You have to fly for your pleasure".

Of coarse the best pilots (musicians, anglers, photographers ...) will reach the top with the latest equipment, but if you do not have the talent and the perseverance it can look foolish to chase the unattainable.

"Know thyself" as the ancient Greeks said.

@polombian from what my friend told me flying in the mountains is not for the weak of resolve, I can't now remember the correct name but he said that the mountains could deliver violent updrafts out of nowhere. He flies here at Benella not too far from the high country ridges where such things occur. He too ran an older glider, updated and sold to go low tech. His reason was that the older glider was a forgiving workhorse, the new longer lighter gliders were just hard work, and his search was for peace solitude and being at one with the sky around him, rather than being in constant competition with it.

Some consider me a cheapskate who even calculates price/performance for his hobbies.
Then some got way too much money, I don't buy ANYTING without counting my chance and what I will actually get for the spend!!

Gear is a very personal choice, you use the term "will reach the top with the latest equipment". I believe the 3880 demonstrates that the latest is not the greatest, I am sure there are Canon printers that occupy the same revered position. Absolutely agree with your assertion when one is taking part in elite physical or mental at the leading edge, but they push themselves very hard from within to the very limits.......because that is what they need to do.

We are not ( i don't think) discussing that place or those people, we are talking about the appropriate personal drivers as they apply to our activity printing image and calibrating monitors.
I believe the conversation containing...." well I spent..... and its the latest and greatest so that makes my output better than...........(whatever), is a dreamer". The person that says..." I spent X on this choice because it gives me access to......(whatever) and that way I can get better results," is a person I am comfortable talking to because I understand what they are telling me.

 

[3dogs]

Aint this the truth, as Stratman says:
"Generally, it's the player, not the instrument, that makes beautiful music. A good instrument facilitates talent's results but will only give a nudge up, if at all, for the mediocre."

Same applies to photography and most creative or competitive pursuits. It is the person, not the tools.

In our club some of the best photographers have what appears to be sloppy or less than technically perfect images, but all that is trumped by the creativity, beauty and elegance of their work. They consistently get high scores because the aforementioned strong points heavily outweigh the flaws in their image.

As one acquaintance who judges image in Canada and the USA says, "You look for the image that speaks to you".

Now having said that I saw an advert that I can buy gold clubs that will enable me to play golf like Tiger Woods. (Or like he used to play)

RS

The first time I heard The Furys - Sweet Sixteen, I resolved to learn Banjo, armed with a recording of the track I presented at the best music store in Melbourne, played the owner the track, and asked him to pick out a Banjo that would give me that sound.

He told me to purchase an air ticket to Ireland and to try to persuade Fibar to part with HIS Banjo as it was the only one in the world that had THAT sound.

Point is a musician, a photographer, a rider, a fisherman KNOWS the outcome he is looking for and KNOWS how to get there, if you are in any doubt take a listen to Dylans track Not Dark Yet, and others from the same album, different guitar for a different feel.
We are talking Monitors here, and calibrating the darn things, If the Monitor is incapable of producing a range of brightness, if it has patchy streaky bright spots, if it is incapable of reproducing MILLIONS of colours you can Argylle the flaming thing till your ass falls of - it AINT GOING to happen - EVER.

This discussion is progressing into the realms of calling Ansell Adams a Master Photographer, who did not need things like calibration and Photoshop.......utter unmitigated pig swill.
Ansell Adams was a master CHEMIST, before Photoshop he understood EXACTLY how ALL the component chemicals reacted to the films and papers he was using, he used different combinations on different papers and for different effects, and bought only the best and purest from all over the world.......today he would no sooner use a cheap Dell or budget NEC than let his darkroom failures see the light of day.......he would have the best of the best, as was ALL the photographic equipment he owned and used from all accounts his darkroom was a thing to behold, as was ALL the glass he owned. And why did he do that do you think?

I think I know the answer or part of it, he saw,knew and understood excellence, and went after it single-mindedly and REFUSED to compromise ........HIMSELF

Would he, with all his skills have achieved the lofty heights with mediocre gear......NO BLOODY WAY mate!, Fairy Tales, Draming, Urban Myth.......

Indeed !......Know thyself
but long before you have a hope in hell of that, you have to be true to yourself


A good instrument facilitates talent's results but will only give a nudge up, if at all, for the mediocre."

.........and that is all the mediocre need to get a foot on the next step, then with proper preparation and proper practice, set a foot on the next rung and so on...

I know this to be true, I have been part of too many folks journey that should NEVER be allowed anywhere near a horse, progress to consummate horse handlers by learning the skills on a good educated horse that gave them positive results when they got it right, and ignored them when they got it wrong. These folks had spent YEARS trying to get communication before they knew what it was and felt like, from horses that had been lied to all their lives so far and only knew how to evade, misbehave and show bad manners.
WITHOUT exception those folks went back to these horses and did proper preparation, and proper practice and got to having a GOOD HORSE...

My rant, no harm intended, if done, forgiveness sought as you read these words @Roy Sletcher as I have not put this in the most diplomatic words, my shortcoming.