Ignoramus question re monitor calibration and deep blue hues

[glenno]

I apologize for asking something that's likely obvious to most folks here. I've read about color management and calibration for a while, but am still a bit confused.

I've calibrated my 30" Apple Cinema Display with a Spyder3 Elite, using ColorEyes Display Pro.  I've played around with several recommended settings, and gotten what seem to be very good results, except for one thing.  I can't get the rich, deep blues that I get with the pre-installed Cinema Display profile that came with the Mac Pro. I know that's a crappy profile (uncalibrated, overly contrasty, very dark midtones).  But.  It displays gorgeous blues (and  decent color overall).  I do a fair amount of landscape photography, and those rich blue skies and seas look pretty dulled and disappointing on my properly calibrated monitor.  For the hell of it, I even tried calibrating with some high (cool) white points, but to no avail.

Is this just a fact of proper calibration, due to printer and ink limitations, and my eye will adjust over time (i.e., I'll forget about those lovely blues)?  Or could I -- or my Spyder3 -- be doing something wrong?

Thank you very much.

[Dale Allyn]

snip...
Is this just a fact of proper calibration, due to printer and ink limitations, and my eye will adjust over time (i.e., I'll forget about those lovely blues)?

Mostly, yes. A truly color-managed workflow will remove a lot of the questions, but the reality of viewing prints (a media viewed in reflective light) vs. images viewed on screen (a media viewed via transmissive light) can take a bit of "getting used to". That is, there is an adjustment in one's expectations that must take place. The viewing circumstances are different. We have various tools to accommodate these differences.

[glenno]

Mostly, yes. A truly color-managed workflow will remove a lot of the questions, but the reality of viewing prints (a media viewed in reflective light) vs. images viewed on screen (a media viewed via transmissive light) can take a bit of "getting used to". That is, there is an adjustment in one's expectations that must take place. The viewing circumstances are different. We have various tools to accommodate these differences.

Thanks, Dale.  So then the other dumb question, I've just got to ask to ensure I'm really clear...

Since these days more folks likely see photographic work initially online rather than in prints at galleries or elsewhere, do most photographers make alternate versions of their images that may work better online than for printing?  Or is that a completely useless endeavor, since color, contrast, brightness, etc. on most people's monitors are totally unpredictable?  (I'm not talking about simply converting to sRGB/saving for web.  I mean processing the image itself differently for web viewing than for optimal printing, since as you note, they're two very different viewing modalities.)

~Glenn

P.S. Speaking of online viewing, beautiful work in your portfolios at your site. ('Returning Home' is particularly stunning and evocatively titled.)

[Paul Sumi]

Since these days more folks likely see photographic work initially online rather than in prints at galleries or elsewhere, do most photographers make alternate versions of their images that may work better online than for printing?  Or is that a completely useless endeavor, since color, contrast, brightness, etc. on most people's monitors are totally unpredictable?  (I'm not talking about simply converting to sRGB/saving for web.  I mean processing the image itself differently for web viewing than for optimal printing, since as you note, they're two very different viewing modalities.)

Even though it'll drive you crazy, it's worthwhile.  I make a sRGB version specifically for on-line browsing using my calibrated setup.  This is checked on a second, uncalibrated sRGB desktop LCD monitor with current version Firefox and IE and also on my notebook computer's LCD monitor.

For me it's mostly a matter of making sure the shadow detail is acceptable without making the highlights too light.  

Paul

[Dale Allyn]

Thanks, Dale.  So then the other dumb question, I've just got to ask to ensure I'm really clear...

Since these days more folks likely see photographic work initially online rather than in prints at galleries or elsewhere, do most photographers make alternate versions of their images that may work better online than for printing?  Or is that a completely useless endeavor, since color, contrast, brightness, etc. on most people's monitors are totally unpredictable?  (I'm not talking about simply converting to sRGB/saving for web.  I mean processing the image itself differently for web viewing than for optimal printing, since as you note, they're two very different viewing modalities.)

~Glenn

P.S. Speaking of online viewing, beautiful work in your portfolios at your site. ('Returning Home' is particularly stunning and evocatively titled.)

Hi Glenn,

Sorry for the slow reply. I've been swamped.

I subscribe to the "no questions are stupid" philosophy (well, mostly), so to me there's no need to shy away from asking things one is wondering about. We're all learning (hopefully).

I can't speak for "most photographers" regarding preparation for web vs. print production, but I can tell you about my situation. Typically, I process an image for print first. This involves preparing for the specific paper and size that I expect to print. When I'm happy with the results I then make a web version, but as you have mentioned, we can't be sure of how most people will view our images with respect to the monitor or its calibration state. This makes it difficult to prepare the image for web, so the best approach (in my opinion) is to simply make the image correct for your (calibrated) sRGB display and be aware that the images will look different to others. Now to compound this problem, I have a very bad habit of feeling lazy when it comes time to make the web version after working an image for print, so sometimes I do a less-than-perfect version for web, promising myself to get back to it and redo it. But then more time passes than should before I get back to fix it. I need to replace several images on my site now.

For me, the print is the goal, but in my opinion the web version should also be processed with a sensitivity to the viewing situation, and this requires a different approach. Easy for me to say, less so for me to get around to doing. I process for printing using a wide gamut display, so this is not a great tool for processing the images for web. For this reason I have a "lesser" sRGB display for the web image (and I have three other Macs with less carefully maintained displays on which I also check web versions). It's very helpful to view one's images on several different computers, using different browsers, etc., but I'm seldom happy with how the images look when I do this so I try not to obsess over it. I'm a Mac user and have five browsers for testing website functionality, etc. Recently I was in the United Red Carpet lounge in Tokyo (Narita) and looked at my site on one of the lounge-provided Toshiba laptop there and I hated the way my images looked (the whole site actually). There's not much we can do about that sort of issue. Browsers, operating systems, and displays render our sites and images differently.

Glenn, thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad that you like "Returning Home". It's a photogenic place.

Best,

Dale