Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Andy M on October 19, 2007, 11:40:33 am

Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: Andy M on October 19, 2007, 11:40:33 am: I've recently bought a Spyder 2 to use on my Apple 23" aluminium, and 13" MacBook displays but have so far been massively disappointed with its results.

I attempted to use LL's Camera to Print recommendation of:

White point - 6500
Gamma - 2.2
Luminance - 110 to 140

The result was very cold, and not at all pleasing to the eye.

I then tried the following settings:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/1635844431_486f440dfc_o.jpg)

These are much more appealing to the eye, but having edited a photo (using Lightroom) have found the colours to be way too OTT on another calibrated display.

The photo in question:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1613844980_e84c745dd8_o.jpg)

I've noticed too that chromatic aberration has been highlighted since the shot has been processed.

I've been letting my displays warm up for an hour plus, and calibrate in a darkened room with the display at full brightness.

Can anybody recommend any improved settings, or a suggestion as to where I may be going wrong?
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: jbrembat on October 19, 2007, 03:58:39 pm: I can say what I see in your photo.
The photo is over exposed. I'm not able to say if this a shoting problem or a developing problem.
I don't see severe chromatic aberration.
The white balance is approximated.
The image is in ProPhoto color space (not good for web).
I don't know if the result depends on wrog monitor profile/calibration.

I tried to give a fast enhancement, but the sky is burned.

Jacopo
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3629/1613844980e84c745dd8osryw3.jpg)
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: Andy M on October 19, 2007, 04:13:41 pm: Quote
I can say what I see in your photo.
The photo is over exposed. I'm not able to say if this a shoting problem or a developing problem.
I don't see severe chromatic aberration.
The white balance is approximated.
The image is in ProPhoto color space (not good for web).
I don't know if the result depends on wrog monitor profile/calibration.

I tried to give a fast enhancement, but the sky is burned.

Jacopo

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Jacopo,

Thanks for your reply

The photo was intentionally overexposed at shooting in order to get acceptable exposure of the little boy - if not, he and the foreground would have been badly underexposed.

The chromatic aberration isn't too bad, but a little too noticeable on my monitor.

The use of ProPhoto is my mistake - I forgot to change on export

Thanks for having a play with the photo. Your version looks really appalling on my monitor, with a bad orange cast - something I am sure is down to my calibrating of my monitor, and not your post-processing skills

Thanks again
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: feppe on October 19, 2007, 04:43:01 pm: The corrected photo above looks much better than the one from you, so your assessment seems to be correct.

I get good results with Spyder2. I'd suggest following the help files, and just playing around with the settings.

Hmm, just remembered that aren't Macs 1.8 gamma? I calibrate my PC display to 2.2, so you might wanna try 1.8.
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: pete_truman on October 19, 2007, 05:19:50 pm: I had a similar problem and it took me a while to fix. I have a MacBook Pro 15" and Apple 23" display. After much frustration I eventually replaced the supplied software with Color Eyes Display Pro and it immediately did a better job with the Spyder 2 puck. I found the major issue to be getting the white point correct. After some fiddling I found the following settings in CEDP to work:

White point: D65, 110cd/m2
Gamma: 2.2
Black point: min luminance

There's a description on my website (under New > Colour Management). Good luck - I know the frustration this can cause first hand. But once you get there and understand why it makes it so much easier!
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: ChasP505 on October 20, 2007, 07:47:21 am: Andy, I'm assuming you are using the Spyder 2 Pro software and not Spyder Express. I once tried the Express version and got terrible results. I would first make sure you are running the latest version of the software. It can be downloaded from the website. Make sure your display is set to all factory default settings. The settings you show in your screen capture are the same as what I use and I get great results.

And stay with the 2.2 gamma settings... Apple no longer uses 1.8.
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: pete_truman on October 21, 2007, 06:49:24 pm: Just seen there's a new Spyder, cunningly named Spyder3. Appears to be adding many new features, new software, etc. I would hope a leap over the previous version. See Spyder3 (http://www.spyder3.com/). According to website available end October 2007.
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: PSA DC-9-30 on October 23, 2007, 12:24:21 am: Quote
Andy, I'm assuming you are using the Spyder 2 Pro software and not Spyder Express. I once tried the Express version and got terrible results. I would first make sure you are running the latest version of the software. It can be downloaded from the website. Make sure your display is set to all factory default settings. The settings you show in your screen capture are the same as what I use and I get great results.

And stay with the 2.2 gamma settings... Apple no longer uses 1.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=147365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just bought a Spyder2 Express and am puzzled by what I see with my old ViewSonic CRT (using this as a stopgap measure). On one hand, the brightness and contrast are much improved and are much more in line with other new, calibrated monitors we have at work. OTOH, there seems to be sort of a bluish-gray color cast. This is especially noticeable in grayscale images. Also, some of my images seem to have areas that seem to be covered by a fog. In some cases, I think this may have been attributable to my overzealous use of Shadow/Highlight in CS2, compensating for a too-dark display.

I am still very new to the whole monitor calibration game, and I'm really wondering what to do now? Upgrade my software to Spyder 2, or 3? Buy something else? I was originally looking at a Huey, but enough people here seem to think it is worthless
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: eronald on October 23, 2007, 07:00:55 am: Although this is probably off-topic, I recommend that anyone short of a CMS expert set every single CMS setting to sRGB - this prevents the inevitable profile mismatches and usually also means that files shown in non color-managed browsers display the same on those systems. BTW, only fairly low luminance levels can be obtained from CRTs, and even lower ones from old CRTs. Close your windowshades, dim your room lights, and lower the luminance settings you attempt to profile to.

Edmund
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: Andy M on October 25, 2007, 12:00:47 pm: I'm going to have another go at calibrating tonight.

Thanks for the advice offered
Title: Frustrated With Spyder 2
Post by: ChasP505 on October 25, 2007, 05:20:04 pm: Quote
Close your windowshades, dim your room lights, and lower the luminance settings you attempt to profile to.

Edmund, I get the best results when I use my Spyder2 Pro to calibrate my Dell Ultrasharp LCD in a totally dark room with no lights on at all. I use native WP, 2.2 gamma and 6500 temp. Any comments on this?