Monitor Calibration/Colour Profiles

BB
Posted By
belfast biker
Oct 22, 2008
Views
1652
Replies
21
Status
Closed
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.

What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

BB
belfast biker
Oct 22, 2008
"Paul" wrote in message

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). Straight out of camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:
http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg

Assigned Dell rgb profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg
M
me
Oct 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:22:33 +0100, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "Paul" wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). Straight out of camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:
http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg

Assigned Dell rgb profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

I believe this shows you don’t understand the use of the screen calibrations at all. You do not apply/imbed them to images. It is simply used by YOUR system when displaying images on YOUR monitor.To do that you assign the monitor for use in your OS color management setup, in more recent Windoze usually the color management tab is under Display=> Settings => Advanced. You also need to be using a color managed application and if need be set the monitor profile there as well, many will use the system one by default. The profile you want in the image is sRGB in your case, or AdobeRGB or Prophoto etc.

Then when I view the image in a color managed app on MY system I use MY monitor’s profile/calibration. Note many/most web browsers are NOT color managed. So to properly do this I might need to dl you image to correctly view the colors.
P
Pat
Oct 22, 2008
On Oct 22, 2:22 pm, "Paul" wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences).  Straight out of camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg
Assigned Dell rgb profile:http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

There is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but its pretty effective — especially if you use just one lab.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand, you adjust your monitor to their machine — when the monitor and the print look the same, you’re done. It’s pretty simple but incredibly effective.

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.
H
howldog
Oct 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.
What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.
So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

thats not how i use profiling at all. In fact, I only use it for soft-proofing, to see how an image will look under a different machine, output, etc.

IF I am going to be working on an image that will only be viewed on MY computer screen, then in the color setup, working spaces, under RGB, select Monitor Color or Monitor RGB. I get a very very good match there.

If I’m going to be working on an image that will be viewed by many people on many different machines, all bets are off, and I just go with sRGB and theres no way on earth to predict or control how it will look on their machines.

If I’m going to print, generally, North American PrePress standard has worked well for me in the past. If its color critical, theres two ways to go…. get a matchprint of the image and go from there, either have the printer color-correct what you dont like, or find a soft-proof profile that looks pretty close and go from there. If you’re lucky, your printer may have a profile for their printer and you can soft-proof with that. Even then, its not like I ever really expect an exact match. Pretty close is about all I’ve ever expected, sometimes i’m pleasantly surprised.
MR
Mike Russell
Oct 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

here is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but its pretty effective — especially if you use just one lab.

Some people, certainly, but not all.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand, you adjust your monitor to their machine — when the monitor and the print look the same, you’re done. It’s pretty simple but incredibly effective.

This sounds like something I’d like to recommend to people who ask this question in the future. Do you have a link for this?

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Not a disadvantage – No method works without a reasonably consistent lab.


Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
ES
Eric Stevens
Oct 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:22:33 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). Straight out of camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:
http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg

Assigned Dell rgb profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

Spyder and Dell are very nearly the same, as they are on my Dell 24 2408 FWP Ultrasharp.

Eric Stevens
G
gowanoh
Oct 22, 2008
The short and curlies:
Monitor calibration/Photoshop color management does only one thing: try to ensure that your monitor prints as objectively faithful a reproduction of your monitor image as possible.
You have zip/nada/zero/no control over how these images will look in a non-color managed program on your computer. You have no idea at all what it will look like on someone else’s computer, whether they are viewing it in a color managed program or not. This is an inherent bugaboo for e-commerce when trying to sell goods like clothing where perception of color can make or break a sale.
You can tune a monitor to try to display a specified white and black point (well you can try, it is nearly impossible with most commercial LCD panels and HDTVs) the purpose of which is to reproduce as faithfully as possible a specific gamut, like the NTSC standard (which is still tied to the defunt CRT).
AB
Alan Browne
Oct 22, 2008
Paul wrote:
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.

What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

I recently borrowed "an eye-one" monitor calibration device. I had calibrated the monitor manually (using the Apple calibration tool.) I guess I did a good job manually as with the eye one, the only difference is a slightly ‘greyer’ look to the monitor. (And I mean very slight).

In your referenced page above I see all the squares, distinct levels between them and even the webpage ‘black’ at #000000 v. the lowest square (1) at #010101. This is a testament to the iMac LCD monitor. It is great. (On my other monitor (Gateway) hooked to the same iMac, squares 1 & 2 look the same, but lighter than the BG).

IOW: you Dell monitor is not that great. Don’t be surprised, the monitors bundled with computers are rarely very good.

I’d like to get a printer profiler such as the ColorMunki. Other priorities include a new body and lenses, however.

I suggest you try:

-Prophoto RGB (which will not correct your monitor)
-for printing, proof on screen with:
View | Proof | Custom | Device: Working CYMK SWOP v2
Preview checked
Simulate paper colour checked.
Relative colorimetric

The above is shocking when you turn it on … but then you adjust for what you want on screen and you’re much closer in print.

G’luck.


— r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm — r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm — [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin — e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
— usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
ES
Eric Stevens
Oct 22, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

I don’t know about PS CS3 but I have some experience based on Photo Paint.

I have a new Dell 24 2408WFP Ultrasharp monitor which I have colour calibrated with the Datacolor Spyder. http://spyder.datacolor.com/

Unlike my previous Samsung, the color calibration of the Dell was almost exactly spot on.

I have been using both Nikon D70 and D300 cameras. The calibrated monitor does a wonderful job of displaying the original colours.

I have used the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter to calibrate my Epson 1800 printer and I have to say that while my prints are improved, they are still lacking. The reason is made clear by the colour management system of Photo Paint. When I give it the calibration curve for the printer and ask Photo paint to display out-of-gamut colours, about 40% of http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2956316425_1731408cb1_b. jpg appears in red: that is, it’s colours are beyond the range of colours the printer can produce.

So ultimately, I have to produce files for printing which look good on my monitor and employ colours which my printer can print. I expect you will have the same problem.

Eric Stevens
____
Oct 22, 2008
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:
So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

I don’t know about PS CS3 but I have some experience based on Photo Paint.

I have a new Dell 24 2408WFP Ultrasharp monitor which I have colour calibrated with the Datacolor Spyder. http://spyder.datacolor.com/
Unlike my previous Samsung, the color calibration of the Dell was almost exactly spot on.

I have been using both Nikon D70 and D300 cameras. The calibrated monitor does a wonderful job of displaying the original colours.
I have used the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter to calibrate my Epson 1800 printer and I have to say that while my prints are improved, they are still lacking. The reason is made clear by the colour management system of Photo Paint. When I give it the calibration curve for the printer and ask Photo paint to display out-of-gamut colours, about 40% of http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2956316425_1731408cb1_b. jpg appears in red: that is, it’s colours are beyond the range of colours the printer can produce.

So ultimately, I have to produce files for printing which look good on my monitor and employ colours which my printer can print. I expect you will have the same problem.

Eric Stevens

Since our last go round about the Spyder I acquired the Studio kit. I ran the 200 plus calibration using the printing calibration meter for Epson paper, its quite good for a first print. I say the image as displayed in CSPS3 closely matches the onscreen image…..but maybe the 700 plus calibration would be 100% There will always be a disconnect though from paper reflected imagery and back lit on screen…just a fact of life 🙁


Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
RG
Roy G
Oct 22, 2008
"Paul" wrote in message
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.
What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

A Monitor Profile is a file which a Colour Managed Program uses to adjust the Colours shown on your Monitor.

After you have Calibrated and Profiled your Monitor using the Spyder the Monitor Profile should automatically be used by Photoshop to adjust the colours shown on screen.

You DO NOT assign it to anything. You DO NOT convert anything to it. It is ONLY for use with your Monitor.

A Working Space Profile is a file which defines the colours used within your Colour Managed Program.

sRGB is one of a number of Working Space Profiles which you could choose to use, and is the nearest to the range of colours used in Web Browsers. When you "Save" an image in photoshop, the Working Space Profile will be "Tagged" onto it.

Internet Explorer is NOT Colour Managed, so sRGB is suitable.

Most High St Labs expect to receive images with the sRGB profile tagged on. Except that some of them will send you a Printer Profile, so that you can "Convert" from the "Tagged" on sRGB to it.

I would suggest you read the Photoshop "Help" files on Colour Management, because a lot of the information supplied by some posters is more than a little inaccurate.

Roy G
JM
John McWilliams
Oct 22, 2008
Mike Russell wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

here is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but its pretty effective — especially if you use just one lab.

Some people, certainly, but not all.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand, you adjust your monitor to their machine — when the monitor and the print look the same, you’re done. It’s pretty simple but incredibly effective.

This sounds like something I’d like to recommend to people who ask this question in the future. Do you have a link for this?

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Not a disadvantage – No method works without a reasonably consistent lab.

Hey, Mike, long time no see! (This from rpd s-s). Nice to hear from you.


john mcwilliams
JM
John McWilliams
Oct 22, 2008
trouble wrote:
The short and curlies:
Monitor calibration/Photoshop color management does only one thing: try to ensure that your monitor prints as objectively faithful a reproduction of your monitor image as possible.

No, that is not the only purpose of color management, nor the only end result. Sending to labs, prepress to name two.

You have zip/nada/zero/no control over how these images will look in a non-color managed program on your computer. You have no idea at all what it will look like on someone else’s computer, whether they are viewing it in a color managed program or not. This is an inherent bugaboo for e-commerce when trying to sell goods like clothing where perception of color can make or break a sale.

While true, if the image you present is, ah, true, you stand the best chance of decent reproduction on another monitor.


John McWilliams
RG
Roy G
Oct 22, 2008
"____" wrote in message
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:
So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

I don’t know about PS CS3 but I have some experience based on Photo Paint.

I have a new Dell 24 2408WFP Ultrasharp monitor which I have colour calibrated with the Datacolor Spyder. http://spyder.datacolor.com/
Unlike my previous Samsung, the color calibration of the Dell was almost exactly spot on.

I have been using both Nikon D70 and D300 cameras. The calibrated monitor does a wonderful job of displaying the original colours.
I have used the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter to calibrate my Epson 1800 printer and I have to say that while my prints are improved, they are still lacking. The reason is made clear by the colour management system of Photo Paint. When I give it the calibration curve for the printer and ask Photo paint to display out-of-gamut colours, about 40% of http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2956316425_1731408cb1_b. jpg appears in red: that is, it’s colours are beyond the range of colours the printer can produce.

So ultimately, I have to produce files for printing which look good on my monitor and employ colours which my printer can print. I expect you will have the same problem.

Eric Stevens

Since our last go round about the Spyder I acquired the Studio kit. I ran the 200 plus calibration using the printing calibration meter for Epson paper, its quite good for a first print. I say the image as displayed in CSPS3 closely matches the onscreen image…..but maybe the 700 plus calibration would be 100% There will always be a disconnect though from paper reflected imagery and back lit on screen…just a fact of life 🙁


Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Hi

You are correct about never quite getting an exact match because of reflected light rather than transmitted.

I have recently just finished recalibrating my system using the Color Vision Spyder and Print Fix system, using the 729 patches.

What I did differently, this time, was to allow the Test Patch Prints, on Epson Prem Glossy, to dry for 6 days before scanning with the colorimeter. I took a lot more care when reading the patches, making sure the sensor was in the centre of the patches and in close contact. I also did not hesitate to rescan any patch, I thought looked a bit iffy.

The Prints, using the profile, were very much closer to the screen display, but still needed a touch more Red and a touch less Blue. The Color Vision system does allow for adjusting the profile after some Test prints have been made.

Roy G
B
Bruce
Oct 23, 2008
If you note the instructions tell you to delete the Adobe Gamma program then set your monitor to factory settings BEFORE you run the software.

Bruce
P
Pat
Oct 23, 2008
On Oct 22, 5:15 pm, Mike Russell
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:
here is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but its pretty effective — especially if you use just one lab.

Some people, certainly, but not all.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide you with.  They mail you the print and email you the file.  By hand, you adjust your monitor to their machine — when the monitor and the print look the same, you’re done.  It’s pretty simple but incredibly effective.

This sounds like something I’d like to recommend to people who ask this question in the future.  Do you have a link for this?

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Not a disadvantage – No method works without a reasonably consistent lab.

Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

I sent the file to the email address on your website:
J
Joel
Oct 23, 2008
howldog wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.
What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.
So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

thats not how i use profiling at all. In fact, I only use it for soft-proofing, to see how an image will look under a different machine, output, etc.

IF I am going to be working on an image that will only be viewed on MY computer screen, then in the color setup, working spaces, under RGB, select Monitor Color or Monitor RGB. I get a very very good match there.

If I’m going to be working on an image that will be viewed by many people on many different machines, all bets are off, and I just go with sRGB and theres no way on earth to predict or control how it will look on their machines.

If I’m going to print, generally, North American PrePress standard has worked well for me in the past. If its color critical, theres two ways to go…. get a matchprint of the image and go from there, either have the printer color-correct what you dont like, or find a soft-proof profile that looks pretty close and go from there. If you’re lucky, your printer may have a profile for their printer and you can soft-proof with that. Even then, its not like I ever really expect an exact match. Pretty close is about all I’ve ever expected, sometimes i’m pleasantly surprised.

Too many IFs for nothing. The only IF you need to do is "IF" you want a good setup then calibrate your monitor to normal. You do not have to worry about millions of other monitors around the world.
CM
Chris Malcolm
Oct 23, 2008
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pat wrote:
On Oct 22, 2:22?pm, "Paul" wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). ?Straight out of camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg
Assigned Dell rgb profile:http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

There is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but its pretty effective — especially if you use just one lab.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand, you adjust your monitor to their machine — when the monitor and the print look the same, you’re done. It’s pretty simple but incredibly effective.

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Having found that my printer naturally prints the same general colourations as a good lab I adjusted my monitor to my printer using this method. Also important is visibility of shadow tones, so that the monitor can be used to judge shadow detail and dynamic range as well as colour. To do this properly requires that I take the added precaution of illuminating the print with a strong light of northlight colour temperature, while looking at my monitor under the usual somewhat dim room lighting which is its natural environment. Changing either of those illumination conditions would result in a different calibration.


Chris Malcolm
S
SDA
Oct 23, 2008
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:11:12 -0400, in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

Then when I view the image in a color managed app on MY system I use MY monitor’s profile/calibration. Note many/most web browsers are NOT color managed. So to properly do this I might need to dl you image to correctly view the colors.

FYI Both Safari and Firefox 3 are colour managed. I’ve noticed that my IE 8b2 isn’t, and neither is Google Chrome.

To test your browser out;
< http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPE Gprofiles.html#>
M
me
Oct 24, 2008
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:31:49 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "S.D.Allen" wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:11:12 -0400, in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
Then when I view the image in a color managed app on MY system I use MY monitor’s profile/calibration. Note many/most web browsers are NOT color managed. So to properly do this I might need to dl you image to correctly view the colors.

FYI Both Safari and Firefox 3 are colour managed. I’ve noticed that my IE 8b2 isn’t, and neither is Google Chrome.

To test your browser out;
< http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPE Gprofiles.html#>

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that.
BB
belfast biker
Oct 28, 2008
"Roy G" wrote in message
"Paul" wrote in message
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it’s time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.
What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

A Monitor Profile is a file which a Colour Managed Program uses to adjust the Colours shown on your Monitor.

After you have Calibrated and Profiled your Monitor using the Spyder the Monitor Profile should automatically be used by Photoshop to adjust the colours shown on screen.

You DO NOT assign it to anything. You DO NOT convert anything to it. It is ONLY for use with your Monitor.

A Working Space Profile is a file which defines the colours used within your Colour Managed Program.

sRGB is one of a number of Working Space Profiles which you could choose to use, and is the nearest to the range of colours used in Web Browsers. When you "Save" an image in photoshop, the Working Space Profile will be "Tagged" onto it.

Internet Explorer is NOT Colour Managed, so sRGB is suitable.
Most High St Labs expect to receive images with the sRGB profile tagged on. Except that some of them will send you a Printer Profile, so that you can "Convert" from the "Tagged" on sRGB to it.
I would suggest you read the Photoshop "Help" files on Colour Management, because a lot of the information supplied by some posters is more than a little inaccurate.

That ties in with an Adobe paper I’ve just found on working spaces: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections