Standard Image

[Rob C]

I seem to remember having once had a link to a site where one could check out the calibration of the monitor - well, at least the range of tones shown from black to white - a sort of grey scale thing.

The problem/question arises from today's calibration effort on my LaCie monitor using their proprietory Blue Eye Pro puck. I find that I simply can't get the right Luminance reading, regardlss of where I set the thing, it refuses to reach the figure to which I'd set it and corrected it to in the past. Yet, looking at the monitor post-calibration, it looks rather bright, as if the Check Test is failing to reveal what the calibration figures to which it was set have actually managed to do. In other words, resetting to a higher figure appears on-screen to have worked, but the actual testing says not. Whom to believe - the  machine or the eye? For my own internal use, I'd settle for what pleases me here, but then who knows what horror versions of my stuff might be appearing elsewhere.

I hate this business; I like certainties,  not guesses.

Anyway, anybody know of or remember the link to that online check?

Rob C

[churly]

Rob - Here is one possibility http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php

[Ronny Nilsen]

Here is another possibility:http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

Ronny

[Rhossydd]

Also have a look at http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

[mediumcool]

Also have a look at http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

Ugly, ugly, ugly. Couldn’t stay to read. 

[Rhossydd]

Ugly, ugly, ugly. Couldn’t stay to read. 

Your loss. Yes, the site isn't a great example of web design, but the information on Norman's site is first rate.
NK is behind Imatest and Gamutvision.

[mediumcool]

Your loss. Yes, the site isn't a great example of web design, but the information on Norman's site is first rate.
NK is behind Imatest and Gamutvision.

No, not my loss. To calibrate the way Koren suggests, using arbitrary sample images, is rubbish in my opinion. And what I did read applied to Windows only.

So no loss. I will keep using hardware calibration, thanks. 

[Rhossydd]

To calibrate the way Koren suggests, using arbitrary sample images, is rubbish in my opinion.....
So no loss. I will keep using hardware calibration, thanks. 

If you had read the page fully you'd know that just using "arbitrary sample images" isn't Koren's recommendation for best practice, just useful for people without hardware calibrators*  to quote from the page;
"If you want the ultimate in monitor-print matching or you can't get good calibration with the visual approach, get a calibrator"

Rob, the OP, was asking for references to test images to use to confirm his hardware calibration and this page has several.

*At the time the page was written hardware calibrators were still exotic pieces of hardware few people used and CRTs were still the screens of choice.

[Rob C]

I must thank you all again for your help. I say again, because I distinctly remember writing a thanks note which seems to have vanished off the face of the thread.

It's very cold here, and I'm typing using fingertipless gloves; it could be that my brain is also semi-chilled and I forgot to post after checking the thing out in Preview...

Semi-chilled: I heard today on the news that a second daily glass of wine or other alcoholic beverage will raise your chance of mouth cancer by a factor of three.

Cheers.

Rob C

[markadams99]

Your loss. Yes, the site isn't a great example of web design, but the information on Norman's site is first rate.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html is attractively functional to my eye.