Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: mdijb on April 01, 2010, 11:46:18 pm
-
I have set up my new NEC 2690 and calibrated using the Spectraview software. The colors are excellent. However, compared to my old monitor, the brightness and contrast of the new one are much greater. I can change these to reduce what seems to me excessively bright at the moment. If i do so what is the relationship of these changes to the calibration I have just done,which used the settings suggested by NEC?. SHould i recalibrate after I get the brightness and contrast that looks good to me, or is there no connection between these monitor settings and the calibrated result?
COlor management is confusing, even to college grads like me.
MDIJB
-
Once you've changed basic parameters such as brightness and contrast you should reprofile the display. Once you've set gamma, luminance and white point, redo the profile and then don't touch any of those settings unless you are still not happy with them, in which case repeat the whole thing with different settings. If you are working on low ambient light, use a low level of display luminance, usually in the range of 100~120 cm/M2, gamma 2.2 and white point in the range of 5500 - 6500. Your choices within these ranges depends on what gives you the best print to screen matches in your operating environment.
-
A picture is worth a thousand words (in this case, the cd/m2 setting and to the same degree, target white point):
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
-
Andrew, the picture is fine of course, and the basic principle of setting the parameters in context of ambient viewing conditions is agreed. The problem is, I suspect, a great majority of people doing digital imaging DO NOT own or use a viewing booth when making or viewing their photographs, and for a great many people, an LCD display setting as high as 150 cd/m2 (as shown in your picture) would induce them to produce prints which will emerge from the printer looking disappointingly dark when viewed under non-controlled artificial lighting. I don't think there is an easy solution to this one, except (i) to encourage folks to AT LEAST use Solux lighting at a reasonable viewing distance from the prints, and (ii) experiment in the conditions most relevant to their context, taste and requirements.
-
Andrew, the picture is fine of course, and the basic principle of setting the parameters in context of ambient viewing conditions is agreed. The problem is, I suspect, a great majority of people doing digital imaging DO NOT own or use a viewing booth when making or viewing their photographs, and for a great many people, an LCD display setting as high as 150 cd/m2 (as shown in your picture) would induce them to produce prints which will emerge from the printer looking disappointingly dark when viewed under non-controlled artificial lighting. I don't think there is an easy solution to this one, except (i) to encourage folks to AT LEAST use Solux lighting at a reasonable viewing distance from the prints, and (ii) experiment in the conditions most relevant to their context, taste and requirements.
That’s not been my experience. If the print looks like a good match under controlled lighting by the display (which is the only way to get a print to screen match) the same print when viewed elsewhere, within reason looks perfectly acceptable.
-
True, but that is a different point from what I was getting at.
-
Andrew, what I see in your picture is that the brightness a contrast in each of the the three images do not match. Especially the image in the light booth compared to the image on the wide gamut monitor--not even close.
What i expected to see was these two to close together and they are not-- please explain.
MDIJB
-
Andrew, what I see in your picture is that the brightness a contrast in each of the the three images do not match. Especially the image in the light booth compared to the image on the wide gamut monitor--not even close.
What i expected to see was these two to close together and they are not-- please explain.
Its a picture. On a web page! Come over to my office anytime and you are welcome to view.