Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: mreco99 on October 15, 2013, 07:23:39 am
-
Hi
Im stuck with laptop only for photo editing as its the most convenient.
I use a dell studio 1558, and am now printing images.
As you can expect the printed image isnt exactly like i expect.
Is it worth getting something like X-Rite i1 Display PRO? or am i wasting my time and money?
another question related to that, if i attached a secondary monitor to my laptop for final calibrated edits, is this a good idea, and am i very dependant on the graphics card in my laptop for this being worth while (ATI)
the laptop works well for me for photoshop CS6 editing in terms of processing.
I need to nail this printing thing, currently i am using an online print service while i am deciding whether to get a epson 3880 printer, so i cant keep getting prints back that arnt how id like them
thanks
MrEco
-
You're stuck with it because it's convenient?
-
There are several problems with laptop displays.
The most serious shortcoming is that almost all laptops - and consumer/office-grade monitors - use TN panels. The TN technology has a very restricted viewing angle, to the point where the top of the screen is too dark and the bottom washed out. Only a thin horizontal field is "correct". So obviously critical judgement of colors and tonality is next to impossible. The reason TN is so widely used is that it's cheap - and fast; which is a big deal in the gaming segment.
Yes; you can calibrate a laptop display and it will improve things, within those restrictions.
If you consider an external display you will need a calibrator anyway, so it's never wasted. The i1 Display Pro is probably the best all-round calibrator on the market today, save for dedicated/integrated solutions for some very high-end monitors (Eizo/NEC).
An external display is a good solution for laptop work (but get a good one!). There may be some practical inconveniencies with calibration/profiling if you need to disconnect the monitor frequently, because the OS has to keep track of which monitor profile to load for each display on startup. So you need to keep an eye on that. But it'll work.
-
Im stuck with laptop only for photo editing as its the most convenient.
I use a dell studio 15, and am now printing images.
As you can expect the printed image isnt exactly like i expect.
Is it worth getting something like X-Rite i1 Display PRO? or am i wasting my time and money?
Unless you have a good quality display with something like IPS technology, the colour will vary with viewing angle. Calibration/profiling might help a bit, but colour, contrast, black point etc will vary with viewing position.
They will also vary with screen brightness level, ambient lighting and so on.
I did a Google of "Dell Studio 15", and it wasn't clear from that what screen technology it uses - and I think there are various screen options - but it's unlikely to give consistent colours. However, as our eyes adapt, you won't necessarily know it's changing, unless colour changes are marked.
another question related to that, if i attached a secondary monitor to my laptop for final calibrated edits, is this a good idea, and am i very dependant on the graphics card in my laptop for this being worth while (ATI)
Yes, provided the secondary monitor has an IPS screen.
the laptop works well for me for photoshop CS6 editing in terms of processing.
I need to nail this printing thing, currently i am using an online print service while i am deciding whether to get a epson 3880 printer, so i cant keep getting prints back that arnt how id like them
My opinion: don't expect consistent, accurate colour from any printer or print service unless you have a stable, calibrated and profiled monitor. And use a fully colour managed workflow.
-
Thanks for the replies.
Its convenient because i cant spend all evening tucked (work during the day) away in a space room somewhere editing images. But with a laptop i can be half social, if you know what i mean.
My laptop is TN, i have read alot about IPS screens, good and bad ones, so im not totally in the dark.
Yes i will definately be disconnecting the external screen everyday, would the calibration need to be run everytime i re connected?
Id be happy to get a new laptop IF there was a good (non MAC) solution but even the best ones (with IPS, varies on who you talk to) seem to be a half way house, unless someone know otherwise? I need windows laptop due to my IT work.
Can anyone recommend a good external screen that isnt mega bucks?
-
Can anyone recommend a good external screen that isnt mega bucks?
A monitor is where it really pays off to spend as much as you can. There are huge differences - not only in specifications (which is what everyone looks at), but also in quality control and tolerances (which is what everyone should be looking at).
If you're on a budget (who isn't?), be smart. Go down in size to get the same quality for less. Decide what features you really need (don't listen to the marketspeak), and which you don't need. There's money to save there, which can buy you added quality.
EDIT: recalibration each time you reconnect should not be necessary if everything works as it should. But you need to keep an eye on it. If something suddenly looks wrong, that's a likely explanation (and then you may have to recalibrate). But you should recalibrate regularly anyway.
-
Thanks, seeeming as im happy (enough) working on a 15 inch laptop screen, i dont need a big external screen, any recommendations?
What do you think of this one? £279 cheapest Eizo on that site
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-eizo-foris-fs2333-23inch-monitor-black/p1537470 (http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-eizo-foris-fs2333-23inch-monitor-black/p1537470)
-
The "safe", well-regarded brands are Eizo and NEC. Yes, their top of the line models are out of reach for most normal incomes, but they have affordable lines as well. The advantage is that they already have their quality control set up to meet high standards, and they have a reputation to protect.
The one basic requirement is an IPS panel. Don't consider anything else.
Wide gamut will cost you. You probably don't need it. I have a wide gamut Eizo at work, because I need it there, but at home I have standard gamut and I'm perfectly happy with that.
Other than that it's difficult to make specific recommendations. You should ideally try it before you buy, preferably at home. The sad fact is that you don't always get what you pay for, mostly due to sloppy QC.
Personal experience: A couple of years ago I bought a Dell U2410, which is a "bargain high end" model with very high specifications on paper. When I got it it turned out to be completely useless, with one side of the screen cyanish and the other side magenta-pinkish. Not what I expected, to say the least. Long story short, it turned out that a lot of people had gotten these turkeys, and Dell's official response was to declare it "within specification". Tough luck.
Now, I'm sure most U2410s (and present U2413s) are perfectly fine. And I'm sure it's not only Dell. But this is the sort of thing that can happen, and that's why you should look more at QC than specifications, and try it at home if possible.
-
The Foris is excellent. A friend has one. Recommended, a good buy in that price range.
-
I've been using various laptops for years with external monitors both at home and work. At home I have a high end NEC which I have calibrated with their Spectraview II software. At work I have a crappy Dell monitor which I calibrated once, about a year ago, just to get it in the ballpark of what I am used to. I routinely take my lap top home and then back to work each day. I just place my laptop in sleep mode, unhook it from the external monitor, take it home, and plug it into the home monitor. I do the same thing when I come to work. The OS is smart enough to identify the external monitor and load the correct associated profile. At home I take the extra step of starting up Spectraview which I do not have in my startup folder. Works like a charm. Unless you are running on some ancient version of Windows, or perhaps they mucked things up in version 8 which i have no experience with, it should work fine.
-
Thanks for the info guys
Love the "try at home" option, except nobody will agree to that lol
Maybe the UK law of distance selling can apply to returns. ie 7 days grace for non business activities.
I have ordered the Eizo Foris monitor as i also checked other reviews and they rated it very well (for the price), and does seem to do very well with sRGB range which is fine for me.
I also ordered the X-Rite i1 Display PRO
I assume my laptop graphics can handle it fine? My laptop has ATI Radeon Mobility HD 5470 chipset
My laptop is win7 64bit.
Laptop graphics spec seems to be ok from what i can tell.
Integrated dual-link DVI output with HDCP13
Max resolution: 2560x1600
Integrated DisplayPort output
Max resolution: 2560x1600
Integrated HDMI® 1.3 output with Deep Color, xvYCC wide gamut support, and high bit-rate audio
Max resolution: 1920x1200
Integrated VGA output
Max resolution: 2048x1536
-
With the Foris and an i1 Diplay Pro, you should be all set. Enjoy.
There has been a wave of inexpensive 23 inch IPS monitors lately, of which the FS 2333 is probably one of the best and an excellent "entry-level" monitor for photography. It certainly beats your laptop screen.
-
thanks, and it has a 5 year warranty!
With the X-Rite i1 Display PRO i can calibrate as many monitors as i like cant it? its not limited to one monitor?
-
OK got the EIZO screen plugged in (HDMI as no digital socket on the laptop)
Immediate result is images on the Ezio look almost like the printed image, and alot different than the laptop screen, as expected. Brilliant
calibrated the laptop screen and it now looks better.
calibrated the Ezio and it changed a little.
Both screens were called CCFL technology, i assume thats right?
One strange thing though
When i now view my images in Windows photo viewer they seem all weird ie very contrasty and over saturated, until i use the "play slide show" in windows photo viewer, then its all right. very odd. seems ok in photoshop.
The ICM file created in xrite, do i need to do anything with that? or now its saved for both screens, itll automatically use that?
thanks for any help
MrE
-
Both screens were called CCFL technology, i assume thats right?
I believe you should use the "White LED" setting for the Foris. That's what it is (RGB LED is a very expensive high-end technology).
The ICM file created in xrite, do i need to do anything with that? or now its saved for both screens, itll automatically use that?
That's correct. It's all set up at system level, so don't do anything. Photoshop will find the profile by itself.
When i now view my images in Windows photo viewer they seem all weird ie very contrasty and over saturated, until i use the "play slide show"
That's weird. Photoshop and Windows Photo Viewer are both fully color managed (use the monitor profile) and should display identically. Try again. The slideshow mode in Photo Viewer turns off color management however (nobody knows why...).
Maybe it's a v4 profile (the default in i1 Profiler) and Photo Viewer doesn't like that. Set it to v2. You could also try matrix vs. LUT.
Calibrating a display is actually two separate processes lumped into one for convenience:
1) Calibration. A simple, basic adjustment of the display itself. Affects everything globally, but not a part of color management.
2) Profiling. The profile is a complete and detailed description of the monitor's behavior in its calibrated state. The precision is much higher. This profile is used to display the image, but only by color managed applications. Other apps just ignore it and send data straight to the display.
So calibration is system-level, but color management (the profile) is application-level. (To confuse things the calibration look-up table is embedded in the profile, but again that's just for convenience. They're still separate).
-
thanks for replying.
white led for the foris, should it autodetect that, should it be in the foris manual?
checked again this morning and windows photo viewer is definitely completely wrong when not viewed as a slideshow, but slideshow is fine, same for laptop screen and foris
ill see if i can fine the v2 setting,and the matrix v LUT
on the foris when xrite said "change RGB to get the sliders in the right place", all i seemed to be able to do to alter this was adjust the colour temperature to alter these,is that right. I think i got the temperature down to 5500k to seem about right.
Is CCFL correct for the laptop?
Is there a way to set either screen back to default?
thanks again
Mr E
-
You probably need to put i1 Profiler in "advanced" mode for these options to come up. It's a simple tick box on the home screen.
The thing is that you should get the Foris as close as possible to the calibration targets before the actual calibration starts. Those targets are, for now, D65 (6500 K) white point temperature, 120 cd/m² luminance, and gamma 2.2.
The main reason to do this instead of just letting the calibration handle it (which it can and will) is that the monitor's internal circuitry has higher bit depth and thus higher precision than the computer's video card, where it otherwise will be done. So it just improves the final overall quality.
The way this normally works is that you dive into the monitor's OSD menu and adjust brightness and R-G-B gain (separately), while the sensor reads off the values and tells you on-screen how close you are. When you're close enough, you quit and the real calibration can start. I haven't used this function in i1 because I have other ways to get there.
There's also an OSD "reset to factory state" item somewhere. Just look around for it. Don't know about the laptop.
-
I have NEC 3090 and ASUS UX31A laptop with IPS screen. And I have advanced tools for monitor calibration (I1 spectrophotometer, DTP 94, Monaco, etc).
But comparing NEC to IPS laptop, there is difference. Somehow colors, darks and whites looks different. But I have an old Dell Inspiron 6000 ad that one is much worse than ASUS wiht IPS screen.
My suggestion would be to get new generation laptop with IPS screen. Dell XPS, Asus Zenbook, Samsung 7 series etc. is using IPS screens - just search and decide what features you want. SOme of them is already rathr cheap on ebay (time by time).
-
After receiving and connecting a new Dell 27" monitor yesterday, I found that my Display Color Management was missing all previously associated profiles because Windows used (correctly) a different monitor driver.
Check yours out by clicking On Control Panel/Display/Settings/Advanced/Color Management. If no profiles are listed, then that will explain the strange color differences between Windows explorer or preview and software where a profile or monitor has been associated in the programs' preferences.
-
I have a HP elitebook with the dreamcolor screen for mobile edits. It's the best option out there for folks who need mobility and spot-on colors, as well as processing power which out classes most desktops except for expensive professional rigs.
-
I use a calibrated laptop (Spyder 3 Pro). It's not great, but I know its limitations.
However, I too experience colour changes between PS CS6 and a colour managed browser eg: Firefox, Chrome or Safari (all sRGB files).
In my case, my images on the web lose saturation, mainly the reds.
Also, if I browse them in windows (7) Picture Viewer, they are de-saturated, but if I double click and open them, the colour is back, same as PS. The best explanation I have come across is that ICC aware PS is using my monitor profile to build the preview, but the browser(s) are not. What I don't understand is why there is any difference when viewing sRGB files on my calibrated monitor - I would have thought my monitor profile was always 'active' for recognised sRGB files.
If I convert my images to the monitor profile in PS, but save them untagged, they come out over saturated in PS, but look fine when browsed on the web or in windows, i.e. like the original PS image.
Anyone know what is going on? Try it maybe - browse some images in windows, then double click to open them and see if there is a difference. It might just be my set up(?)
Thanks.
-
To try to narrow down your problems:
- Do you save files from PS with an embedded profile? It's important that you do. When you save a jpeg in PS, there's a checkbox "ICC Profile: sRGB" (or similar) that should be checked. If you use "Save for Web" there's a check box "Embed color profile" which should be checked. If you don't have an embedded profile, that could explain your problems.
- When you open files in PS, what colour space do you use? Go to Edit menu, Color Settings... and in the "Working Space" box, first line (labelled "RGB:") you should have sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB but NOT monitor RGB or any device-specific profile. In the "Color Management Policies" box, I recommend all the options should be "Preserve...", and I recommend checking all the "Ask..." check boxes (that warns you of mismatches).
If those two are right, Firefox, Safari and the latest Chrome (in the last month or two) should correctly colour manage the images - provided your laptop has an appropriate monitor profile installed. But you must have a profile embedded in the images or most programs will not colour manage the file. You can set an option in Firefox to assume images with no profile are sRGB, but that's not the default setting, and the other two can't colour manage images with no profile. Forget about IE - even IE11 - Microsoft have made a complete pig's ear of colour management in IE, and IE ignores monitor profiles (more or less guaranteeing that colours will always be slightly or very inaccurate).
-
Thanks Simon for your reply.
In short, yes I do all the things you mention. I really appreciate the information though, as it backs up that I have been doing things correctly.
The bit about converting to monitor profile and saving untagged was something I found on the web, I tried it out of curiosity but don't use it in practise.
As it is, I trust PS and use the methods you have outlined.
The only time it is a problem, for example, is if I were to show my online flickr collection to someone, on my computer, then I know the images are about 15% de-saturated compared to showing the same images in Bridge (PS). Of course, most people who just want to have a look at some of my photos' don't know, or care, what all the fuss is about! As a mate pointed out, in the real world, nobody has calibrated monitors anyway - who knows what they are viewing!
Thanks again.
-
What you're describing is not supposed to happen. Something's broken here, and in those cases the culprit is usually the monitor profile. But in this case I would suspect the OpenGL driver in the video card, affecting Photoshop only. Try to disable OpenGL in the Photoshop preferences and relaunch.
Another possibility could be a multi-monitor setup and the correct profile not being loaded for each display. Yet another possibility is a v4 monitor profile, which Photoshop has no problems with, but Firefox does not recognize at default settings (it has to be enabled).
To sum up and rephrase what Simon Garrett said: As long as there is an embedded profile in the image, Photoshop and the color managed browsers should all display identically. In all cases the source profile is converted to the monitor profile. That's the standard color management chain, and that's all there is to it. "Previews" have nothing to do with it.
In Photoshop, assigning or converting to the monitor profile turns off color management: source and destination profiles are the same, so no change. The RGB values are sent directly to the display unchanged. That's the definition of no color management. (although assigning and converting yields different visual results, since the RGB values are either changed or unchanged).
In Safari and Firefox at default configuration, no embedded profile means there's no source profile to convert to the monitor profile from, so again it's sent unchanged to the display and by definition unmanaged. Firefox has an optional configuration (mode 1) that assigns sRGB to untagged files, thus kickstarting the color management chain back in operation.
Windows Picture Viewer is fully color managed (except in slideshow mode) and should be in line with the others. Windows Explorer is not color managed and all bets are off.
-
OK, some background as I have pondered over this for a while.
Gateway NV 59 / Core i5 / 8GB ram / ATI HD 5470 512MB. Profiled with Spyder Express 2, and later Spyder 3 Pro (4.0.2) as I thought this might have been the problem.
I've had the same issue with CS4/5/6, so, you're probably right, it is a hardware fault. I have updated the video card driver in the past and ferreted around in the 'Catalyst Cpontrol Center' but can't find 'Open GL'. In PS preferences I can only find 'open CL' which was greyed out. I turned off the graphics processor but no difference.
However, to be clear: I save a file in PS; jpeg / sRGB (embedded) to a drive, doesn't matter which. I then browse that file in windows(7) picture viewer and it appears de-saturated. I double click to open the file and the colour returns. This has been my 'test' as it is completely independent of Photoshop. When opening the file in windows, my computer is then applying an adjustment and the image appears the same as it does in PS or Bridge.
I found this bloke having the the same issues a few years back -tonysleep.co.uk/blog/the-photoshop-srgb-mystery
I really appreciate peoples help but I am not too worried about it, more curious. Afterall, it is a laptop.
Thanks.
-
OK, some background as I have pondered over this for a while.
Gateway NV 59 / Core i5 / 8GB ram / ATI HD 5470 512MB. Profiled with Spyder Express 2, and later Spyder 3 Pro (4.0.2) as I thought this might have been the problem.
I've had the same issue with CS4/5/6, so, you're probably right, it is a hardware fault. I have updated the video card driver in the past and ferreted around in the 'Catalyst Cpontrol Center' but can't find 'Open GL'. In PS preferences I can only find 'open CL' which was greyed out. I turned off the graphics processor but no difference.
However, to be clear: I save a file in PS; jpeg / sRGB (embedded) to a drive, doesn't matter which. I then browse that file in windows(7) picture viewer and it appears de-saturated. I double click to open the file and the colour returns. This has been my 'test' as it is completely independent of Photoshop. When opening the file in windows, my computer is then applying an adjustment and the image appears the same as it does in PS or Bridge.
I found this bloke having the the same issues a few years back -tonysleep.co.uk/blog/the-photoshop-srgb-mystery
I really appreciate peoples help but I am not too worried about it, more curious. Afterall, it is a laptop.
Thanks.
Have you checked that your Spyder software is creating v2 (not v4) profiles? I suggest not using v4 if you're having problems. When you export a file to jpeg, what does it look like if you open it with Firefox? If it doesn't look the same as the original in Photoshop, I would think either there's a setting wrong in Photoshop, the monitor profile is bad, or there isn't an embedded profile. Or, of course, a faulty video driver. Faulty video drivers can have very mysterious symptoms which often affect some programs only - maybe only one program.
-
I'm no expert (self taught / hobby) but I'll try and answer some of this...
Not sure about this V2 / V4 profiles thing. I remember updating the driver to 4.0.2 when I got the Spyder 3.
My Spyder 3 Utility is V 1.1.9 but I can't find anything under preferences.
In my Windows > control panel > colour management > profile info it says the monitor profile is V 2.4.0 but I'm not sure what this relates to.
I browsed a few images in Firefox and they looked pretty good, close to Photoshop and any difference perhaps due to compression. Certainly better than a couple of years back when I was having my problems browsing my Flickr stuff. At the time my research indicated Firefox was colour managed (sRGB), but there were definite differences so maybe it wasn't enabled or something. Since then I had been using my Windows Picture Viewer test because it mirrored the problems I was having on the web. It may just prove to be have been a red herring.
I have ignored Flickr and even my own website partly because of this for a long time. I'll upload some images and see how I go. Thanks for your suggestions.
-
V2 or v4 monitor profile is a user defined option in the calibration software. You get to choose which one you want. V4 is a newer specification, but not supported everywhere, so v2 is the safe choice. If you don't see this option, it's v2.
I then browse that file in windows(7) picture viewer and it appears de-saturated. I double click to open the file and the colour returns
We need to be precise here. What exactly are you doing? Are you browsing in Windows Explorer and opening in Windows Picture Viewer? The former is not color managed, but the latter is. They are very different animals.
Display color management is all very simple on a fundamental level. Document RGB (embedded profile) gets converted to monitor RGB (the monitor profile). The latter values are sent to the display. That's all; that's the complete chain of events that happen. So for troubleshooting there are three possible failure points: 1) source profile, 2) monitor profile, and 3) the conversion from 1 to 2.
And of course you need to rule out anything that is not color managed at all, and ignore it.
-
Right, this is where I have been going wrong, with my understanding of Windows Explorer and Picture Viewer. I always felt there was some kind of colour management being applied between the two, but no-one could explain it, even after showing them. Plus, a while back , I was getting the colour changes on the web which added up to more questions than answers.
Everything now makes sense. This has been very useful to me, thank you very much for your time guys.
I want to be confident about my understanding of colour management because there are a lot of people around like me who perhaps know just enough to confuse the issue further!
-
That's good. The main thing about color management is to not buy into this myth that it's too complicated for mortals to understand. That's simply not true.
It's actually very simple: there's a source profile, and a destination profile. Each is a description of a color space, and one gets translated/converted into the other. If the description is accurate, the result is accurate.
I took a quick look at the tony sleep blog you linked to. He's overcomplicating the matter so much it's hard to know where to begin. For one thing, he seems to believe the operating system does color management on its own "Windows uses sRGB as the assumed and default colourspace for images without tags, and monitor profiling applies not only in Photoshop but system wide". No wonder he gets into trouble if he thinks that. The reality is that Photoshop converts from the document profile to the monitor profile, on the fly, and sends the result of that conversion to the display. That's all there is to it. Windows has nothing to do with it, except making the monitor profile available for Photoshop.
This idea that color management is a "system thing" is probably at the root of much of the misunderstanding (and is in turn probably rooted in missing the distinction between monitor calibration on one hand, and post-calibration profiling on the other). Applications either are, or are not, color managed, and that goes for "native" OS apps as well. Those that are not can simply be ignored.
And time and time again, you see articles on the internet "solving" color management problems by effectively turning color management off ("now it displays correctly, just like Windows/Internet Explorer...") These "solutions" usually involve using the monitor profile as working space/document profile, which does just that: It turns color management off. Problem solved indeed.
Color management itself is dead simple. Applications without color management causes complications no end.
-
Looking back, my problems started because Firefox (and others), at the time was supposedly colour managed, that is recognise my sRGB files, but it wasn't. This could have been a problem at my system level.
Thing is, I think you're right about people over complicating it. I contacted a well respected photographer who had published articles on colour management, and he informed me that CM was a very in depth subject that even he didn't fully understand, and my problem was using a laptop display.
After this I got bogged down with things like Tony Sleeps article and people who knew what CM was, but not how to explain it as clearly as you (guys) have.
Thanks again.
-
Just to add something to this, there ARE laptops with IPS panesl. Gigabyte, for example, makes one designed for the gaming market (but it would be a very nice photo editing machine, too).
http://www.gigabyte.com.au/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4626#kf
There are certainly others, but you may need to look outside the "traditional" vendors.
-
That's good. The main thing about color management is to not buy into this myth that it's too complicated for mortals to understand. That's simply not true.
It's actually very simple: there's a source profile, and a destination profile. Each is a description of a color space, and one gets translated/converted into the other. If the description is accurate, the result is accurate.
Except that getting accurate description with laptop screens (topic of this thread) is very hard. And the translation/conversion is not trivial either.
-
I am considering purchasing the same setup for my desktop (Foris FS-2333 + i1 Display Pro).
I was tempted to get the EIZO CS230 because at first it seemed like a bargain. However, I soon realized that I had to pay for the ColorNavigator AND a calibrating device as well. The cost went off the roof and I dismissed the idea that very moment. I find it unacceptable that Eizo ships their software without a device to use it with!
Anyway, my question is, would I be happy with the Foris option? Or would I be wasting money while trying to save some?
-
Not sure about this V2 / V4 profiles thing. I remember updating the driver to 4.0.2 when I got the Spyder 3.
Ignore it, there's nothing a V4 profile today brings to the party but perhaps problems with some applications. Until the PRMG is implemented (something you don't have to worry about but it's not), V4 profiles are mostly V2 profiles in sheep's clothing.
-
x-rite had a recent and really good three-part series webinar on color management with Joe Brady. Probably on their website somewhere or maybe Youtube by now.
Basically, he had a Mac Notebook Air (or Retina?) which was bad, feeding into a Eizo monitor. On the calibration of the LCD screens, he showed some issues of the Mac which showed the screen as not only differing in brightness in 9 different quadrants that their i1 PhotoPro 2 hardware looks at, but also the color (Kelvin) being different as well and by a lot. Evidently, Eizo somehow adjusts their monitors individually during manufacturing to compensate and even out those issues, but you pay for it dearly. Plus, he mentioned "No two will ever be alike" for the issues of differing portions of the screen (General LCD notebooks, LCD screens, etc.).
Down the line to the individual or home user, it does make the calibration smoother and easier with their hardware on the Eizo than say a Mac which would be impossible at the home level and maybe doable at the manufacturer's level, just they won't go that far to make the screen perfect in terms of brightness and color issues (e.g. Some can go colder or warmer in the corners.). You adjust one thing, say color or brightness, and hope the entire LCD screen falls into some norm - which it cannot.
So if you have some high-end LCD monitor (He said his was some Eizo $5K monitor, but an older model.) they can be calibrated and made better than a general brick-and-mortar store monitor, but you end up paying for it too. I think the line was drawn at the $700 point between the good LCDs and not so goods.
SG
-
Yes you can, I have an 11" macbook air that I calibrated, and since I am familiar with it, I can actually work on it within a ballpark for sketches, and the difference between it calibrated vs the factory profile is immense