Profiling a new iMac 24" Display with i1 Display2

[lumpidu]

Hi,

I finally got my new iMac 24" and gave it several profiling tries with my i1 Match 3.6.1 software and the i1 Display2 device. I used furthermore my Color Eyes Dispay Pro (CEDP) software. There are some interesting results.

First of all it seems I cannot dim the display to less than 210 cd/m2 according to the readings of the SW. Anybody with the same hardware has a workaround ?

Furthermore the differences between the Match SW and CEDP is like this that CEDP in profile evaluation mode gives me max dE of >5  (!) for calibrations done in i1 Match, otoh I cannot verify profiles generated by CEDP in the i1 Match software, only profiles made by i1 Match itself (ah yes this is certainly possible in one of their much more expensive packages ...).

According to the verification of both SW the max. dE is less than 0.6 for the profiles generated with the own sw.

It was very hard for me to get a matching grey perception for my second 19" LCD Samsung SyncMaster 913v with either software. With CEDP and adding more grey measurement samples I was sort of able to finally come close. I chose to add grey samples which showed a perceptable color shift. So I think the theory I read on this forum that banding occurs if a nonnative white point is chosen is correct. I chose 6000K for my room setup.

How do the Pros match their two (or more) displays with either CEDP or i1Match ? Which exact settings (beside the color temperature and the Gamma curve) are used and are you dealing with black point settings in CEDP as well or just set minimum (as I did) ?

[digitaldog]

Furthermore the differences between the Match SW and CEDP is like this that CEDP in profile evaluation mode gives me max dE of >5  (!) for calibrations done in i1 Match, otoh I cannot verify profiles generated by CEDP in the i1 Match software, only profiles made by i1 Match itself (ah yes this is certainly possible in one of their much more expensive packages ...).

The values are basically meaningless. Instead, there are some routines you can use to see how well the profiles themselves work in ICC aware applications:

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200412_rodneycm.pdf

View images, not deltaE values made in differing software, measured with the same device.

How do the Pros match their two (or more) displays with either CEDP or i1Match ? Which exact settings (beside the color temperature and the Gamma curve) are used and are you dealing with black point settings in CEDP as well or just set minimum (as I did) ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First, find which display has the lower luminance at the target you wish to produce (you can't make it higher if it can't meet that value so you have to calibrate the other to this lower value).

Make sure you're viewing the same image in an ICC aware application too.

[eronald]

How do the Pros match their two (or more) displays with either CEDP or i1Match ? Which exact settings (beside the color temperature and the Gamma curve) are used and are you dealing with black point settings in CEDP as well or just set minimum (as I did) ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As Andrew indicates, the trick is to measure the white of the *calibrated* dimmer monitor and set that as target white for the brighter one.

Dual monitor systems are a pest - why go there ?

Edmund

[jackbingham]

There is no great way to reduce the brightness of these monitors. You are pretty much forced to do this in the video card because even at zero, as you say.........too bright. So set the monitor to about 10% brightness in system prefs, Set Coloreyes monitor plugin to LCD Brightness only and then set your target white point, luminance for the value you want to hit and Display will do the rest of the work in the video card. Not ideal but it's the only way to get the brightness down. As for matching, from the second monitor to profile, in display open measure with sensor window, drag the measurement window across to monitor #1, hang the sensor and click measure. That will load chromaticity coordinates into white point target on monitor #2. Get rid of any gray points you added until after profiling again. Then if you see any non-gray areas you can add points and reprofile.

[lumpidu]

Well I wouldn't say that two Monitors are a "pest". First of all some prudent instinct in me doesn't want to throw away the old monitor, which I used before with my MacBook, and second Display real estate is undoubtfully helping in keeping the overview. I really like to have the Photo on the bigger Display and the tools or Help Viewer / Documentation on the other.
I also use Adobe Bridge on the smaller Monitor in icon view and Camera Raw on the bigger one. Having too big color / brightness differences between both monitors makes of course the work kind of suck.
Third: according to ColorSync both Monitors share about the same color space with a slight edge of the Samsung over the iMac monitor.

I made a variation of your proposal and used absolute colorimetric black point setting in CEDP and the same target illumination (220 cd/m2) as well as the same white point (6000K) for both monitors. Theoretically this should lead to more consistent grey brightnesses even if both monitors have different lowest possible luminosities. Additionally I added more grey measurement points for tuning color shifted problem zones.
Andrew I was reading your article and made the same tests in PS. Well at least both monitors show a difference between 0 and 1 in the marquee tool test. Banding and color shifts on the iMac are no issue any more after profiling but the Samsung has some minor color shifts.

As a software engineer I ask myself: why on earth is something like color so complicated and why do _we_ have to care so much and not the software ?

The results are now at least so that I can live with it. Softproofing on the monitor and the produced prints on my Epson 3800 match quite well on Velvet Fineart paper with the standard profiles. The monitors have a quite similar appearance if viewing the same B&W photo on both screens. In color photos the difference is even less apparent. Is this then what I can expect at best ?
Unfortunately the monitors are too bright, so prints are coming out a tad darker. But I find this less a problem than two different bright monitors.

I tried also Hahnemuehle Photo Rag with the manufacturers profiles but here the greens are somewhat lacking, although the greens looked okay when softproofing with the Hahnemuehle profile. Maybe I need to get a good Epson 3800 Hahnemuehle Photo Rag profile ? Any recommendations ?

[digitaldog]

Well I wouldn't say that two Monitors are a "pest".

Well there are two monitor systems on one machine and (more common) multiple systems and multiple displays. Obviously we'd like both to match in both situations. I think what Edmund may have been referring to is a dual display system where one may only be used for Palettes and he may be questioning why someone would attempt to make them match. Again, its really nice when they do. But this can often be a pain not worth attempting depending on the differences in the two units.

I also use Adobe Bridge on the smaller Monitor in icon view and Camera Raw on the bigger one. Having too big color / brightness differences between both monitors makes of course the work kind of suck.

I stopped using Bridge due to so many issues it has (I think of it as quite the train wreck). One issue was, it had issues previewing images identically to Photoshop but maybe that's been fixed recently. But maybe not.

Unfortunately the monitors are too bright, so prints are coming out a tad darker. But I find this less a problem than two different bright monitors.

How are you viewing the prints? Do you have the soft proof set for Paper White/Ink Black in Full screen mode? That could be a factor. Can you control the luminance of the print viewing conditions to better match the displays?

[lumpidu]

I stopped using Bridge due to so many issues it has (I think of it as quite the train wreck). One issue was, it had issues previewing images identically to Photoshop but maybe that's been fixed recently. But maybe not.

I kind of like Bridge. After reading the book "Real World Camera Raw" From Schewe and Fraser I gave Bridge more attention. It needs to get a bit used to, but I think it is very powerful and I like it better for adding Metadata than e.g. Lightroom. The integration of Camera Raw and Bridge got quite good and I only use Lightroom for creating non standard printing layouts. And then again Lightroom lacks dual monitor support ....
For the preview thumbnails: I didn't have those issues yet; seldom thumbnails are not showing up in full detail, but after initiating a new thumbnail generation for the particular folder, things get good again. In this case it also helps to increase the thumbnail cache size and to make the correct thumbnail settings (e.g. full resoution). I think the book stated that you have to use full resolution thumbnails to get color matching.

How are you viewing the prints? Do you have the soft proof set for Paper White/Ink Black in Full screen mode? That could be a factor. Can you control the luminance of the print viewing conditions to better match the displays?

Yes softproofing is with paper white & ink black in full screen mode.

And here comes the poor part: According to the colorimeter measurement I have a viewing light of 2100K   As i am doing most of my photographic work in the evenings with curtains down and the room has just a couple of standard halogen lights. I already looked, how to get a Solux here in Iceland, but hmm... that will be probably an US import issue. Any alternatives for the quick shot ?

And then again here comes the 4th reason for having a dual-monitor setup:
if I want to evaluate the print under these suboptimal conditions I am looking at the picture on the smaller monitor and place a bright white area on the big screen. I am holding the print very close facing the white screen et voila: almost perfect matching colors. I know this is a poors man solution but, so far it worked quite ok, besides looking at the print is somewhat arkward and the Hahnemuehle still lacks a bit the greens.

How is your experience with the Hahnemuehle standard profiles (and I know that you are selling custom profiles) ?

[digitaldog]

The integration of Camera Raw and Bridge got quite good and I only use Lightroom for creating non standard printing layouts. And then again Lightroom lacks dual monitor support ....

Well I'm a Lightroom kind of guy. And while I have systems with dual displays, I can live with it on one (for the time being...). But I need more than a simple browser and LR fits my needs.

And here comes the poor part: According to the colorimeter measurement I have a viewing light of 2100K   As i am doing most of my photographic work in the evenings with curtains down and the room has just a couple of standard halogen lights. I already looked, how to get a Solux here in Iceland, but hmm... that will be probably an US import issue. Any alternatives for the quick shot ?

Ill take the color values you got with a grain of salt. And yes, Solux are superb. They are not easy to set with regard to luminance however. You can't dim them (you can but the color changes) and moving them around is difficult.

How is your experience with the Hahnemuehle standard profiles (and I know that you are selling custom profiles) ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have none. I know the Epson canned profiles are excellent. Don't know about the other paper manufactures but the buzz isn't always good. And yes, I'm "selling" profiles but its not anything I do for the bottom line, it helps pay for Greenies for the puppies. I usually tell people to try the canned profiles first, in the case of Epson, they usually find no reason to buy a custom profile (they are that good).

If you have some Epson papers and their profiles, you might be better off, at least to test the CMS you currently have. IOW, its possible a lot of your problems are poor canned profiles.

[lumpidu]

Thanks for the good hints Andrew! I will certainly post a few more topics in this forum, but so far you got me on the right track.

Jack I will also try out your approach for the calibration with CEDP and see if I get better results.

[eronald]

As a software engineer I ask myself: why on earth is something like color so complicated and why do _we_ have to care so much and not the software ?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167667\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because all of this convoluted workflow was designed by software engineers.
Now, that was an easy answer.
Actually there is a hope it may get better one day. I'd say that day is about five years away.

The present ICC-conformant workflow is an external-measurement workflow where the user is responsible for calibration and checking his equipment and writing the profile files that allow color to be converted correctly when it is moved from one device to another. In due course I guess we will have more self-calibrating equipment, and the bits and pieces will start talking to each other.

If you really care about color, you should buy an eyeone and try your hand at making your own profiles and checking your own output. The profiles someone like Andrew will make will probably be better than those you will generate in-house, but owning an eyeone will bring you a sense of confidence that every part of your system is working to spec.

Edmund

[lumpidu]

If you really care about color, you should buy an eyeone and try your hand at making your own profiles and checking your own output. The profiles someone like Andrew will make (or even mine) will probably be better than those you will generate in-house, but owning an eyeone will bring you a sense of confidence that every part of your system is working to spec.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I think I will do this one day. But the cost for an i1 that makes sense are in the 1200 USD range , because the LT versions capabilities are too limited I guess. Does the UV-IR cut filter versions make an important difference ?

Which hard-software combination are you using for profiling ?

[eronald]

There are varying points of view on UV filters. My position is that may use them for proofing (maybe) but not for photo art prints.

I myself use an Xrite DTP-70 and Monaco Profiler Platinum combination for profiling inkjets; I do have Profile Maker Pro and an iSIS eyeone-based chart reader. I have checked that the iSIS gives the same quality of results as the DTP70, but I'm still using the DTP70 out of habit. The profiling engines in Monaco Profiler and in Profile Maker Pro are not identical, there are subjective differences not only in workflow but in the "character" of the output.

Other consultants have different setups, and in particular some of the older equipment has its advantages. In particular, I have heard it said that a SpectroLino with a polarizer works better for rough papers.

One should note that there are some very good third-party software suites out there such as Basiccolor and the open-source Argyll, which can help those who choose to purchase a "naked" instrument.

I have had numerous discussions with Xrite about the price point of their instruments, in an industry where the instrument user is now often an individual photographer rather than a press house. I continue to believe that pricepoint is key in the photo market while less important in the press and prepress sector.

Edmund

Yes I think I will do this one day. But the cost for an i1 that makes sense are in the 1200 USD range , because the LT versions capabilities are too limited I guess. Does the UV-IR cut filter versions make an important difference ?

Which hard-software combination are you using for profiling ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]