How do you know you are really calibrated?

[kevs]

I just got both eye one and Spyder 3. One I"m going to return, but I wanted to test both with new imac 27"

It seems the eye one is bit cooler and contrastier. I "think" the spyder is more accurate.
But who knows?  I'm looking at past images I've printed.

Does someone sell a series of hardcopy prints with CD in which these prints and files should be a definitive match?

Someone posted a file online which I downloaded a while back in which the bars turns crazy colors if the monitor was not calibrated correctly. This file actually worked on the Artisan I had. The crazy colors were not there on the Artisan, the file looked neutral (opened in Safari). The file has the crazy colors with all calibrations I have done with both eye one and now Spyder.

[bjornaagedk]

I use the UDACT tool from UGRA to measure the calibration and grey balance precision.
www.ugra.ch

[kevs]

thanks, don't speak czack or whatever that site leads to. anyone else?

[Wayne Fox]

I just got both eye one and Spyder 3. One I"m going to return, but I wanted to test both with new imac 27"

It seems the eye one is bit cooler and contrastier. I "think" the spyder is more accurate.
But who knows?  I'm looking at past images I've printed.

Does someone sell a series of hardcopy prints with CD in which these prints and files should be a definitive match?

Someone posted a file online which I downloaded a while back in which the bars turns crazy colors if the monitor was not calibrated correctly. This file actually worked on the Artisan I had. The crazy colors were not there on the Artisan, the file looked neutral (opened in Safari). The file has the crazy colors with all calibrations I have done with both eye one and now Spyder.

If trying to match printed output, the easiest item to vary is the monitor calibration and then perhaps the viewing conditions of the print.  All else is pretty locked down.  I don't know if either device is more "accurate" because accurate to me is simply matching your own output. and I find often a default setting using either device won't match the printed output.

If the display is too cool or too warm, you may want to re-profile and adjust the white point.  Not sure why you would want to use hardcopy prints output on a different device than the ones you are using.  You may wish to print a standard test print such as the one offered at outback photo or from Bill Atkinsons's (also linked on that page) which should yield a very good print from your printer, then you can determine if perhaps a different white point might offer a closer match.

To me the real variable in all of this is the viewing conditions of the output which can vary dramatically.

[kevs]

Wayne,
thanks, Ok, so I would want to print some images out of my Epson printer and see which profile looks closer to the printed image?

I should do different white points than 6500?

I view with Daylite and daylight balanced Ott lite.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Make sure that skin tones don't look jaundice or magenta, or maroon tinted brown in any color target of choice.

If you've got good editing skills and a DSLR camera that shoots Raw take a picture of your display and edit it in your Raw converter of choice to look exactly like the color target and post here.

I've done this with someone else in another forum and helped him choose the right colorimeter/software package that was best tuned to his new wide gamut LED backlit display which now-a-days need these colorimeters with specific filters and driver tweaks for decent accuracy.

I had him use the PDI color target which has the most grueling skin tone target where if you nail that everything else falls into place. Google to find the target. It's easy to find.

Here's mine which is in the AdobeRGB space so it needs to be viewed in a color managed app.

[attachment=19519:iMacPDIs...tonePNET.jpg]

[kevs]

Bill, how do that?
the spyder version is warmer and contrasy
The eye one is bit lighter and cooler

I took screenshots of each, but when opened them in preview, the opposite effect played out.

It's very subtle, I made a print, compared. still hard to know.

[Tim Lookingbill]

If you're making prints and see only subtle differences then you've reached your goal. None of this technology can guarantee split hair perfection in color matching. The eye's adaptive nature prevents this level of precision.

What this technology tries to achieve is a reasonable facsimile on a consistent basis between devices to where the integrity and pleasing quality of the image is maintained.

You should've seen what color matching was like before all this starting somewhere back before the mid '90's. Almost every big boy commercial press outfit and photo lab had their own proprietary software and hardware workflow chain costing thousands of dollars to maintain and implement where only they and they alone could guarantee "That Look Of Quality". If the client wanted to go to some other competitor, it was like starting over from scratch costing a lot of money in time and proofing materials.

It took Adobe, Apple and the ICC standards and others technologists to draw the line in the sand in defining how digital color should look across devices as a means to make all this more efficient, cheaper and more competitive.

You youngin's don't know how good you got it now.

Now get off my lawn! I'm whittling a coloimeter out of wood.  

[jjlphoto]

You need a control image. Andrew Rodney has a great one posted on his site. It has flesh tones, grey scales, color bars, etc. You print it out with no color edits and see if it matches your display. If you are really adventurous, send it to labs or pre-press houses as well.

[kevs]

thanks, john, can you point out where the control image is on Andrews site, can't find it.

Bill, great post:
my only thing then which to pick??
The spyder is a bit more contrasy, tad more warm
Eye one is bit less contrasy, tad more shadow details becuase its less contrasy,brighter — bit cooler (is that more nuetral I don’t know)
I don’t know which one is more neutral or more correct?

I need to choose one over the other.

[jjlphoto]

http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml

Printer test file on top left of list

[trinityss]

Hi Kevs,

It depends on what your reference is?
Are the older prints your reference when viewing under the Ott light?

When you are saying that it looks either cooler or warmer, is that then when doing sofproofing?
Make sure that you use the printer profile during softproofing that you used when printing the older prints.

I don't know what your source, rgb or cmyk?
Here are some solutions with reference prints:
for RGB (fotolab prints)
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=1186
for CMYK
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=5

Good software solutions are indeed the UDACT tool and patchtool.
http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/Patch...m#Display_Check
http://www.babelcolor.com/main_level/scree..._Patch_View.htm

But having a cooler or warmer feeling is mostly influenced by the white point.
I have a GrafiLite myself which uses a Ott light with as color temperature 5700.

Kr,

[kevs]

Kr,
thanks, lot of it is over my head.
Both the eye one and Spyder were fairly close to all my prints, opted to keep the Spyder.
nice links. thanks.