What is really going on here???

[JerryL]

Hi all.

The monitors in our system are both Sony Artisans running under WinXP; fabulous displays to use. Lately, a question has come up repeatedly that has eroded the confidence in what I thought I understood.

Within our system, everything works, color is spot on, not even the smallest complaints.

However, we've recently handed off files to a handful of graphic designers, all of whom commented that our files were very dark and hard to use as a result.

The designers are all using older Macs, using older uncalibrated monitors. One of the GDs made the comment that when she buys stock photography, she only has to make minor color corrections and she's good to go.

The big questions:
- What exactly is happening here? Why would someone with a much older, far cheaper, uncalibrated monitor be able to purchase stock images that can be used out of the box, but ours are appear to be so out of whack?

- More importantly, why exactly do our images appear to be so dark to them?

- Is this a Mac vs PC thing here? Our monitors are using the Sony software of course, with a gamma of 1.8, target of D65. I vaguely recall that Macs have a higher gamma of 2.2 (maybe). Is this a factor? Should it be?

- Are there others with a similiar experience to this? If so, what do you do to compensate

Hoping for clear answers and better understanding...

Thanks,
jerry

[61Dynamic]

The designers are all using older Macs, using older uncalibrated monitors

What's happening is that their displays are not calibrated.

- What exactly is happening here? Why would someone with a much older, far cheaper, uncalibrated monitor be able to purchase stock images that can be used out of the box, but ours are appear to be so out of whack?

They're probably just used to it. If they are browsing and choosing stock on those displays, they probably don't know any better one way or the other.

- Is this a Mac vs PC thing here? Our monitors are using the Sony software of course, with a gamma of 1.8, target of D65. I vaguely recall that Macs have a higher gamma of 2.2 (maybe). Is this a factor? Should it be?

Macs are 1.8 and PCs are 2.2 natively. This could be a factor if they long long ago set theirs to 2.2 since yours are 1.8. It shouldn't be a huge difference but it could be enough. I'm sure, it they are old displays that the have dimmed quite a bit over time and that could be adding to the problem too.

- Are there others with a similiar experience to this? If so, what do you do to compensate

* Explain to them that color management works and the basics of setting it up, and how your images print up just fine when it's utilized properly. Then hope they listen.
* Perhaps you could challenge them to calibrate one of their displays so they can see how out of whack they are...
* Send them a small print of the work to demonstrate what results are possible on a color managed system.
or
* If they are clueless/closed-off to suggestions (or both) just brighten up the images a tad before sending them to that one client.

That last one should be last resort as it can be a PITA long term but...

[Serge Cashman]

It's unusual to calibrate a display (PC or Mac) to 1.8. Not that it matters in colormanaged applications though.

Non-calibrated macs by default use videocard LUTs adjustments to simulate gamma 1.8 on a normal ~2.2 monitor. Not sure if it's the issue though. But if they were using uncalibrated monitors with a usual mac 1.8 LUT adjustments and you were calibrating your monitors to 2.2 like normal people  do (quite an opposite of what you describe) then I would say I understand your problem. In this case... either tell them to calibrate their monitors with a colorimeter (to whatever targets they like) or tell them to stop using 1.8.

Other than that:

What software do you use, which color space you work in, in which format with which color settings you save the files that you give to designers?

Which luminance settings you calibrate your Artisans to?

[61Dynamic]

Oh, and what color space do you send them files in and do they even use color management in PS?

[JerryL]

What software do you use, which color space you work in, in which format with which color settings you save the files that you give to designers?

Which luminance settings you calibrate your Artisans to?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the replies!
Software:  (besides the last release of the Sony software, version 1.25): PS CS2.
Color space is always Adobe 98 RGB
I also use either Adobe 98 or sRGB, depending on what the designers require.  Typically this is Adobe 98.
File formats are either max quality JPGs or TIF, depending on what they require.  JPGs are typically on the order of 3 to 5 mb, corresponding TIF files are usually around 40mb (flattened).

For monitor settings, I can only answer "simply"
CRS Print RGB D65, with gamma set to 1.80.  From looking at the Custom Color Space dialog, this seems to map to a Luminance of White: 85.0 cd/m2, and Black 0.28 cd/m2.

Additional comments...
If it was only one designer stating our images were dark, I'd simply try to convince them that they need to understand color managment (I know - good luck!).  Having multiple designers with two common observations: (1) our images are dark, and (2) images from other sources than us are OK makes we wonder what else I could be off by.  This is a good thread...

Two of the designers are extremely excellent in what they do, and are quite conscientious about producing color properly for their clients.  I just don't understand how they can actually do this, if they're not having to tweak images from other sources.

They've all heard me talk about the need for CM, but getting them to understand this, let alone pony up for the add'l costs involved (possibly new monitors plus calibration tools) isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Also, one other comment that one designer said to me that seemed off:  She stated that when she converts RGB images to CMYK, she also has to account for some color shift.  Ignoring out of gamut issues, shouldn't the visual representation remain unchanged?  (in PS CS2 on machine this is true).  Or, am I missing something here?

For the most recent situation that prompted this thread, I will be cranking out printed proofs so they can see what things look like here (prints are spot on for us, so we do trust the output).

Again - Many Thanks!!!!!
jerry

[Serge Cashman]

For monitor settings, I can only answer "simply"
CRS Print RGB D65, with gamma set to 1.80.  From looking at the Custom Color Space dialog, this seems to map to a Luminance of White: 85.0 cd/m2, and Black 0.28 cd/m2.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know much about Artisan system, but there are people on this board who know how it works. For me it's hard to say if the settings are correct or not. Numbers look OK but I don't know what's "CRS" and "Custom Color Space".

I can't see anything obvious that would result in darker images on a mac. Theoretically even if you recalibrate your monitors to 2.2 (which technically could be a better idea for non-colormanaged applications) it should not make a difference for colormanaged applications...  

Luminance is quite low, but one would expect it would result in images that are too bright...

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't help.