Topic: Monitor profiling for novice (Read 6173 times)

scubarob639 · « **on:** November 29, 2005, 11:51:41 pm »

Suggestions on what kind of monitor profiler to get? Once I calibrate the monitor can I use this ICC or ICM file to direct the printer, so it will match the monitor? I read the tutorial on profiling, but I think it might be dated as far as equipment used. Why does the camera matter as long as what I see on the monitor matches what comes out of the printer?

Thanks, Rob

Just read the thread a couple of topics down. Same questions asked. I guess I would like to know if anyone has used the Syder2 colorimeter with printfix? You get the whole thing for about 300 bucks. They say you can profile the monitor and printer with it.

Rob

kaelaria · « **Reply #1 on:** November 30, 2005, 08:01:06 am »

Think of the computer as a central hub, and imagine a profile for every device that data goes through. A monitor profile for everything displayed, a printer profile for everything printed, a scanner profile for everything coming in from the scanner, etc. The profiles mearly translate anything weird with the given device to take it to common ground before being passed on. If you mearly use a monitor profile, that's fine so long as you don't plan on printing. If you skip the printer profile you will see the quirks of the printer, uncorrected. That being said, all but the pros can use the standard printer profiles, they are very close. Also, most major online printers provide profiles for thier machines that you can download. I send all my stuff out and use the profiles provided, with perfect results. I print proofs with my printer at home just as a rough estimate, yet it's still remarkably accurate with the stock profile.

I use the eye-one display2 calibrator/profiler. It does an exceptional job on my equipment, especially my 24" Dell. It was $220 from chromix.

francois · « **Reply #2 on:** November 30, 2005, 08:56:53 am »

Quote

...if anyone has used the Syder2 colorimeter with printfix? You get the whole thing for about 300 bucks. They say you can profile the monitor and printer with it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,
PrintFix has been reviewed on this site ([a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/printfix.shtml]here[/url]) and it was not recommended. I have no personal experience with it, though.

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #3 on:** November 30, 2005, 11:25:23 am »

I echo kaelaria's views that the monitor calibration is the important thing. Once that's done right, the standard printer profiles that are provided by the printer manufacturer (if you're using their own papers) or by the paper manufacturer are usually pretty good, close enough for all but pros and perfectionists.

I've used both the Spyder (though an older version a couple of years back) and Eye-One monitor calibrators, and thought that the Eye-One gave slightly better results.

Lisa

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2005, 11:53:47 am »

I've used the ColorPlus and original Spyder and a Monaco Optix Xr. On my old CRT the Colorplus and the Spyder produced identical results. I never tried the Spyder (it was borrowed) on my LCD but the ColorPlus (Spyder with weenier software) was clearly inferior to the Monaco.

I think Dry Creek has some articles comparing all of these things.

francois · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2005, 12:22:43 pm »

Quote

I think Dry Creek has some articles comparing all of these things.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Review is [a href=\"http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm]here[/url].

scubarob639 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 30, 2005, 10:20:40 pm »

Thank you for all the helpful information.

Rob

Jonathan Ratzlaff · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2005, 11:59:13 pm »

I am not sure of the value of profileing cameras and scanners. The main reason being is that as soon as adjustments are made to the image, the information in the profile is meaningless. The most important is monitor calibration so what you see is accurate. The new version of the spyder and spyder 2 pro is considerably better than the old version both in the sensor and in the calibrating software. Print fix is not worth it for me. profiles for your printer are important as well.

kaelaria · « **Reply #8 on:** December 03, 2005, 12:11:14 am »

Profiles are not for making artistic correction or alterations. They are for correcting 'defects' in the hardware to bring the data to a predetermined standard. If your scanner added (for example only) 20% too much green to every image, would you simply say - ' well you can adjust it in photoshop so what's the point?'. No, of course not. You want everything to be the standard spec coming in and going out of each step of the process.

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2005, 01:57:30 pm »

Quote

I am not sure of the value of profileing cameras and scanners. The main reason being is that as soon as adjustments are made to the image, the information in the profile is meaningless.

It is far easier to make the image look the way you want by starting with something that is reasonably accurate to begin with. If you start with an image with a complex color cast (especially one that is hard to quite pin your finger on, you just know that it doesn't look quite right), you might never figure out exactly what to do to fix it. Trust me, I know this from experience. It's well worth profiling your camera, and, if you use ACR for RAW conversion, relatively easy to do.

Lisa

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2005, 08:11:45 pm »

For monitor calibration Integrated Color Corporation's ColorEyes Display with X-Rite DPT 94 (same as Monaco Optix XR) is an attractive and satisfactory package, state-of-the-art. There is a review on this site.

Going back to the original question in the first post, do not use the profile this generates as a printer profile. It is only a monitor profile. You need a separate profile for the printer. Once the printer and the monitor are both profiled so that each device correctly interprets the numbers in your image file, you are well on the way to being well colour-managed. Profiling the camera and the scanner, as Kaelaria has mentioned, also makes sense to minimize the amount of repetitive colour correction you need to do in Photoshop.

scubarob639 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2005, 10:51:42 pm »

The information and advise has helped me a lot, thank you. One area where i'm still a little unclear is how to profile my camera? Any articles around on camera profiling?

Rob

digitaldog · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2005, 10:58:36 pm »

Quote

The information and advise has helped me a lot, thank you. One area where i'm still a little unclear is how to profile my camera? Any articles around on camera profiling?

Rob
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Before going off and wanting to handle camera profiling, you might want to read this:

[a href=\"http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_17_ICC_profiles_with_camera_images.pdf]http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_17_IC...mera_images.pdf[/url]

Then perhaps ignore the issues and use a converter like Adobe Camera RAW or Apple’s Aperture where you have no need to worry about profiles for the camera.

Another good read;

http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf

Tim Gray · « **Reply #13 on:** December 04, 2005, 10:46:06 am »

check out http://www.visual-vacations.com/ColorManag...01/04camera.htm you will need a McBeth color checker.

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2005, 12:26:54 pm »

Quote

check out http://www.visual-vacations.com/ColorManag...01/04camera.htm you will need a McBeth color checker.

That's the tutorial I used to do it too (many thanks to Jonathan ). Very easy.

Lisa

Author Topic: Monitor profiling for novice (Read 6173 times)

DarkPenguin