Calibrationism vs. By the Numbers

I seldom start threads in this group, because my interest is in helping people with answers, and in my own learning when I run into a question that
I can’t answer, and need to do a little research.

Recently there has been little discussion of "accurate colors", followed by the usual recommendation that the person asking the question purchase a screen calibration device. I think a few words here might save people some
money, or cause their money to be spent on a new display, lens, or other equipment.

Color is an enormously complex field of human endeavor, and the only thing that is certain is that we don’t know everything about it yet. Photography,
particularly with the new advances in digital photography and profiling, is
in an explosive stage of complexity, and there are a large number of things
that you need to know to really navigate what happens to an image on its way from the original subject to your screen or printer.
By the time colors reach your screen, there have been through a pipeline consisting of several stages of capture and processing. Each stage has its
own flaws and idiosyncrasies. For example, the lighting, reflections between objects and within the camera, the optical and detector system, and
potential processing in the camera or the raw processor each take their toll on the accuracy of the final captured image. What matters is not accurate colors, but colors that look good, and an image that brings out the important colors and textures of the subject.

There are two philosophies for dealing with how to get good colors. One is
called "calibrationism", and is based on the notion that any bad colors, such as poor skin tones or color casts, means that there is an error somewhere in the pipeline, and fixing the colors is a matter of chasing down where that error is. When confronted with poor colors, a calibrationist will never ask about a specific color or object in the image, but instead about which components were calibrated, and recommend purchasing additional hardware or custom profiles. Final tuning, for a calibrationist, is always a purely visual affair that relies 100 percent on
an accurately calibrated monitor. I have several dear friends who are completely sold on this notion. I think it is a will o’ the wisp, and many
millions of dollars have been wasted on calibration gadgets.
I myself am a big fan of calibrationism’s toys and gadgets. I have always liked histograms, ever since seeing one on a NASA photograph many years ago. I also have a soft spot in my heart for measurement gadgets. I use a screen calibration device, and find that it works quite well. I do not hesitate to alter the monitor settings afterward, if I find that things are
not matching perfectly. I also have a spectrophotometer for measuring prints and colored objects. It is not used for creating profiles, but for experimentation and verification when I want to make sure something is working correctly, figure out what is unusual about a printout or a colored
object such as a flower, or to compare colors in a quantitative way.
Although they are convenient, and even necessary in a production environment, none of these gadgets is necessary to create excellent images,
as witnessed by the fact that many good images were being created, easily, in Photoshop before calibration devices were available on the market.
The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely
on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual
treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in
the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

Naturally, others are welcome to chime in with their own thoughts and ideas. I’m not prone to arguing, once I’ve said my say, but I will be happy to answer questions, or to otherwise clarify what I have said here. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

I seldom start threads in this group, because my interest is in helping people with answers, and in my own learning when I run into a question that I can’t answer, and need to do a little research.

Recently there has been little discussion of "accurate colors", followed by the usual recommendation that the person asking the question purchase a screen calibration device. I think a few words here might save people some money, or cause their money to be spent on a new display, lens, or other equipment.

Color is an enormously complex field of human endeavor, and the only thing that is certain is that we don’t know everything about it yet. Photography, particularly with the new advances in digital photography and profiling, is in an explosive stage of complexity, and there are a large number of things that you need to know to really navigate what happens to an image on its way from the original subject to your screen or printer.
By the time colors reach your screen, there have been through a pipeline consisting of several stages of capture and processing. Each stage has its own flaws and idiosyncrasies. For example, the lighting, reflections between objects and within the camera, the optical and detector system, and potential processing in the camera or the raw processor each take their toll on the accuracy of the final captured image. What matters is not accurate colors, but colors that look good, and an image that brings out the important colors and textures of the subject.

There are two philosophies for dealing with how to get good colors. One is called "calibrationism", and is based on the notion that any bad colors, such as poor skin tones or color casts, means that there is an error somewhere in the pipeline, and fixing the colors is a matter of chasing down where that error is. When confronted with poor colors, a calibrationist will never ask about a specific color or object in the image, but instead about which components were calibrated, and recommend purchasing additional hardware or custom profiles. Final tuning, for a calibrationist, is always a purely visual affair that relies 100 percent on an accurately calibrated monitor. I have several dear friends who are completely sold on this notion. I think it is a will o’ the wisp, and many millions of dollars have been wasted on calibration gadgets.
I myself am a big fan of calibrationism’s toys and gadgets. I have always liked histograms, ever since seeing one on a NASA photograph many years ago. I also have a soft spot in my heart for measurement gadgets. I use a screen calibration device, and find that it works quite well. I do not hesitate to alter the monitor settings afterward, if I find that things are not matching perfectly. I also have a spectrophotometer for measuring prints and colored objects. It is not used for creating profiles, but for experimentation and verification when I want to make sure something is working correctly, figure out what is unusual about a printout or a colored object such as a flower, or to compare colors in a quantitative way.
Although they are convenient, and even necessary in a production environment, none of these gadgets is necessary to create excellent images, as witnessed by the fact that many good images were being created, easily, in Photoshop before calibration devices were available on the market.
The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

Naturally, others are welcome to chime in with their own thoughts and ideas. I’m not prone to arguing, once I’ve said my say, but I will be happy to answer questions, or to otherwise clarify what I have said here. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

I seldom start threads in this group, because my interest is in helping people with answers, and in my own learning when I run into a question that I can’t answer, and need to do a little research.

Recently there has been little discussion of "accurate colors", followed by the usual recommendation that the person asking the question purchase a screen calibration device. I think a few words here might save people some money, or cause their money to be spent on a new display, lens, or other equipment.

Color is an enormously complex field of human endeavor, and the only thing that is certain is that we don’t know everything about it yet. Photography, particularly with the new advances in digital photography and profiling, is in an explosive stage of complexity, and there are a large number of things that you need to know to really navigate what happens to an image on its way from the original subject to your screen or printer.
By the time colors reach your screen, there have been through a pipeline consisting of several stages of capture and processing. Each stage has its own flaws and idiosyncrasies. For example, the lighting, reflections between objects and within the camera, the optical and detector system, and potential processing in the camera or the raw processor each take their toll on the accuracy of the final captured image. What matters is not accurate colors, but colors that look good, and an image that brings out the important colors and textures of the subject.

There are two philosophies for dealing with how to get good colors. One is called "calibrationism", and is based on the notion that any bad colors, such as poor skin tones or color casts, means that there is an error somewhere in the pipeline, and fixing the colors is a matter of chasing down where that error is. When confronted with poor colors, a calibrationist will never ask about a specific color or object in the image, but instead about which components were calibrated, and recommend purchasing additional hardware or custom profiles. Final tuning, for a calibrationist, is always a purely visual affair that relies 100 percent on an accurately calibrated monitor. I have several dear friends who are completely sold on this notion. I think it is a will o’ the wisp, and many millions of dollars have been wasted on calibration gadgets.
I myself am a big fan of calibrationism’s toys and gadgets. I have always liked histograms, ever since seeing one on a NASA photograph many years ago. I also have a soft spot in my heart for measurement gadgets. I use a screen calibration device, and find that it works quite well. I do not hesitate to alter the monitor settings afterward, if I find that things are not matching perfectly. I also have a spectrophotometer for measuring prints and colored objects. It is not used for creating profiles, but for experimentation and verification when I want to make sure something is working correctly, figure out what is unusual about a printout or a colored object such as a flower, or to compare colors in a quantitative way.
Although they are convenient, and even necessary in a production environment, none of these gadgets is necessary to create excellent images, as witnessed by the fact that many good images were being created, easily, in Photoshop before calibration devices were available on the market.
The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

Naturally, others are welcome to chime in with their own thoughts and ideas. I’m not prone to arguing, once I’ve said my say, but I will be happy to answer questions, or to otherwise clarify what I have said here. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

In article <12hyps857csdb$>,
Mike Russell wrote:

The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely
on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual
treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in
the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign
color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and
you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re
on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

Dan is definitely a man after my own heart.

I’ve been using Photoshop professionally in a prepress environment since before it supported any form of color calibration, and frankly I’ve never had a great deal of use for monitor calibration devices. In my industry, one thing and one thing only matters: the contract proof.
Different devices have different color spaces. Different printers, presses, and monitors have different characteristic color curves. That’s why the contract proof exists.

The workflow I’ve always used has started with the idea that a specific type of contract proof–a DuPont Waterproof or a 3M Matchprint, say–is the reality. This proof is what the client sees; this proof is what the press operator matches; this proof, not what a person sees on a computer screen, represents the reality of how the piece "should" look. Monitor calibration, when it is done, is done for the purpose of making the image on the monitor look as close as possible to the contract proof.
I’ve been working in CMYK almost exclusively for the last sixteen years, and so I have a pretty good sense of what a particular set of numbers will look like when proofed. I never work without the Info palette up; hell, I’ll even keep it set to display CMYK and RGB and I’ll look at the CMYK numbers while I’m color correcting an RGB image.

As a result, I don’t rely on having a color-calibrated monitor; nor do I rely on using profiles to deal with color. I look at the numbers; they don’t lie, though everything else may. As a result, I can color correct on a low-end laptop LCD better than many folks can color correct on a top-of-the-line calibrated monitor. 🙂

—
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

I seldom start threads in this group, because my interest is in helping people with answers, and in my own learning when I run into a question that I can’t answer, and need to do a little research.

Recently there has been little discussion of "accurate colors", followed by the usual recommendation that the person asking the question purchase a screen calibration device. I think a few words here might save people some money, or cause their money to be spent on a new display, lens, or other equipment.

Color is an enormously complex field of human endeavor, and the only thing that is certain is that we don’t know everything about it yet. Photography, particularly with the new advances in digital photography and profiling, is in an explosive stage of complexity, and there are a large number of things that you need to know to really navigate what happens to an image on its way from the original subject to your screen or printer.
By the time colors reach your screen, there have been through a pipeline consisting of several stages of capture and processing. Each stage has its own flaws and idiosyncrasies. For example, the lighting, reflections between objects and within the camera, the optical and detector system, and potential processing in the camera or the raw processor each take their toll on the accuracy of the final captured image. What matters is not accurate colors, but colors that look good, and an image that brings out the important colors and textures of the subject.

There are two philosophies for dealing with how to get good colors. One is called "calibrationism", and is based on the notion that any bad colors, such as poor skin tones or color casts, means that there is an error somewhere in the pipeline, and fixing the colors is a matter of chasing down where that error is. When confronted with poor colors, a calibrationist will never ask about a specific color or object in the image, but instead about which components were calibrated, and recommend purchasing additional hardware or custom profiles. Final tuning, for a calibrationist, is always a purely visual affair that relies 100 percent on an accurately calibrated monitor. I have several dear friends who are completely sold on this notion. I think it is a will o’ the wisp, and many millions of dollars have been wasted on calibration gadgets.
I myself am a big fan of calibrationism’s toys and gadgets. I have always liked histograms, ever since seeing one on a NASA photograph many years ago. I also have a soft spot in my heart for measurement gadgets. I use a screen calibration device, and find that it works quite well. I do not hesitate to alter the monitor settings afterward, if I find that things are not matching perfectly. I also have a spectrophotometer for measuring prints and colored objects. It is not used for creating profiles, but for experimentation and verification when I want to make sure something is working correctly, figure out what is unusual about a printout or a colored object such as a flower, or to compare colors in a quantitative way.
Although they are convenient, and even necessary in a production environment, none of these gadgets is necessary to create excellent images, as witnessed by the fact that many good images were being created, easily, in Photoshop before calibration devices were available on the market.
The other philosophy was created by Dan Margulis and is called "by the numbers". He acknowledges that calibration is important, but need not rely on instruments. Each image can benefit from a certain amount of individual treatment. This is done methodically, using tools and knowledge to home in the colors of specific objects, such as grays or skin tones, and to assign color and contrast to important objects in the image. "By the numbers" says that it doesn’t really matter how the colors got there, fix them, and you’ll have a good image. Learn to fix them well, and quickly, and you’re on the road to having better and better images for the rest of your life. With "by the numbers", it is possible, though masochistic, to get good colors using only a black and white monitor.

Naturally, others are welcome to chime in with their own thoughts and ideas. I’m not prone to arguing, once I’ve said my say, but I will be happy to answer questions, or to otherwise clarify what I have said here.