Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Kristian Kruse on January 02, 2009, 11:08:17 am

Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Kristian Kruse on January 02, 2009, 11:08:17 am
Hi all,

I have checked the forum and found several useful threads to help me, but I'll still start this one as I need a idiot proof explanation. So please be kind to me ;-)
I just purchased a HP LP2475w and now I want it calibrated. I borrowed a i1Display2 from work. Actually the all the Phohoshop experts at work (only working with retouch etc.) never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC. I'll try that later, but for now I'll like to have help with the device.

My questions are, what EXACTLY should my settings be before I start the calibration? Are there anything to be aware of during and after? As mentioned, I really need a idiot proof guide, because I'm a bit confused.
Furthermore, should I change my color preference in Photoshop afterwards? Currently set to AdobeRGB1998.

I really hope you have the time and patience to help me!

Thanks, Kristian.

PS. Do anyone have this attached to a MAC? I cannot get the USB hub to work - just me or?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 03, 2009, 11:01:25 pm
Hi Kristian,

I haven't seen your monitor, although I've heard terrific things about it, and I'd say you've made a good purchase.

This site (http://www.imagescience.com.au/ColourControl/colourProducts/gmUsingEyeOneDisplay.html) is a fantastic guide to using your calibrator.  I'd start there.  Your calibration targets should be 6500K white temp, 2.2 gamma, and 90-120cd/m2 luminance.  (The luminance setting depends on your requirements, and the lighting in your workspace.  I use 100, and it's great in my office.  My advice is to err on the low side, even though it will seem oddly dim to begin with.)

Yes, I've used mine on a Mac many times, it'll be fine.  However, it often doesn't work when plugged in to the keyboard USB port, or similar.  It needs plenty of power, so plug it directly into a port on your computer.

No, you don't need to change your colour settings in any way.  The monitor profile just does its work in the background, so to speak.  You can continue to use Adobe RGB or whatever.

Now, settings.  The EyeOne software only gives you a tiny bit of advice about your settings - namely, to set your Contrast to 100%.  The rest is left to your trial-and-error.  From my experience with many different monitors, I would suggest setting your Brightness, as well as the Red, Green and Blue settings, all to around 50%.  Then run the calibration, and see what you end up with.

Basically, I'd try to keep all those settings in a "safe zone" between 30 and 70%.  If you run the calibration, and end up with the Brightness too low eg 20%, then reset your Brightness, R, G and B settings all to 40% and run the cal again.  Conversely, if you end up with a very high Brightness setting eg 90%, reset the Brightness, R, G and B settings all to 60% and calibrate again.

I know this all sounds a bit tedious, but you'll only need to go to this much trouble once.  Subsequent calibrations will be much easier.

I hope this helps.  Write back if you need more advice.  All the best.

(Oh, there's a wide-ranging discussion about your monitor going on here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=618034).)



By the way, this:
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC.
makes me seriously doubt this:
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
Photoshop experts
If they truly were experts, they would be following correct colour-management procedure, and would use the excellent equipment available to them.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 04, 2009, 12:57:32 am
I have had a HP LP2475w for about a month now. I use a Spyderpro3 to Calibrate. I have fiddled alot with calibration and seem to get the same good results except for banding when looking at a gradient like the one in lagom site, I am not sure if this is correct or not.

The two lots of settings I have have tried both give me the same results, white balance matches my prints well black and white detail is good but there is slight gradient banding:

6500K : 2.2 with Luminance 100
R 242
G 209
B 206
Brightness 8
Contrast 80

6500K : 2.2 with Luminance 100
R 154
G 132
B 130
Brightness 41
Contrast 100

I am not sure if these settings will help you Kristian as I dont know if the banding is normal. Its the first LCD I have had like this so have nothing to compare it to. If I use the monitors 6500K option and use the profilers 6500:Native option the banding is slightly worse.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Kumar on January 04, 2009, 03:50:47 am
You might want to ask David Tobie or David Miller on the Colorvision Yahoo group to help. They are very responsive and helpful. Also see if ColorEyes Display can help get better results.

Cheers,
Kumar
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 04, 2009, 07:37:54 am
Thanks Kumar, I have registered and posted a similar question there, perhaps its the software or Spyder.

Maybe someone else has had similar experience with other software and puk with the same monitor.

Guy
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 04, 2009, 04:21:18 pm
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
Actually the all the Phohoshop experts at work (only working with retouch etc.) never use the calibrator, but solely the calibration function in the Display system preferences on the MAC.

First off, that's super frightening to hear. These guys need to "get a clue". Sorry.

OK, based on the puck and your display, you only need to deal with Native Gamma and White Point in the software for those two calibration targets. Unless you have a high bit, high end LCD with supporting software, there's nothing to adjust on that unit other then the intensity of the Fluorescent light. That's luminance. There is absolutely NO correct setting other than the one that produces a visual match to the print you're properly viewing (viewing booth), next to the display.

That said, LCD's out of the box are very bright (probably at least 200+ cd/m2). I'd start out at 140-150cd/m2 adjusting it upward (or if possible, the viewing illuminant down) to result in a match between calibrated/profiled display with proper soft proofing setup in Photoshop and the print within the proper lighting.

As to your question about working space's and specifically Adobe RGB (1998), that's a total workflow question based on document source and final output. As a start, you probably need to understand what a working space is and how to select one:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf)
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 04, 2009, 11:35:41 pm
Sorry to Hijack your post Kristian

Quote from: digitaldog
you only need to deal with Native Gamma and White Point in the software for those two calibration targets. Unless you have a high bit, high end LCD with supporting software, there's nothing to adjust on that unit other then the intensity of the Fluorescent light. That's luminance. There is absolutely NO correct setting other than the one that produces a visual match to the print you're properly viewing (viewing booth), next to the display.

I have tried using the native gamma and found that the results I got had a little more banding and too bright or rather brighter than my prints. I find that if I get the luminance down to 100 by lowering the RGB sliders it matches my print well, but I still still have gradient banding. More so with the Native gamma than if I use the RGB Controls. My thinking was that one should try and adjust the hardware ie monitor as much as possible to get as close to the target as possible and that the software would be doing less and would just give the final tweak? By not adjusting the RGB sliders and leaving the gamma as native, isnt that letting the software do all the work?

What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 05, 2009, 12:45:28 am
Quote from: Gupfold
What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.
I'd like to know about this too.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 05, 2009, 02:56:30 am
Quote from: Gupfold
I have tried using the native gamma and found that the results I got had a little more banding and too bright or rather brighter than my prints. I find that if I get the luminance down to 100 by lowering the RGB sliders it matches my print well, but I still still have gradient banding. More so with the Native gamma than if I use the RGB Controls. My thinking was that one should try and adjust the hardware ie monitor as much as possible to get as close to the target as possible and that the software would be doing less and would just give the final tweak? By not adjusting the RGB sliders and leaving the gamma as native, isnt that letting the software do all the work?
I think you're confusing native gamma with native white point.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 05, 2009, 09:30:15 am
I beg your pardon, Yes Native White point not Native gamma is what I tried, however Digitaldog says to use Native Gamma and Native White point?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 05, 2009, 09:45:41 am
Quote from: Gupfold
I beg your pardon, Yes Native White point not Native gamma is what I tried, however Digitaldog says to use Native Gamma and Native White point?

Yes. Both result in LESS banding, not more.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 05, 2009, 09:47:42 am
Quote from: Gupfold
What would your reason be for starting with a luminance of 140-150 and working up, other than having very bright working conditions. Most recommendations I have read say start at 120 and work down as this is normally too bright.

Because most LCD's can't hit low luminance levels without adjustment to the LUT (which we want to avoid) AND most good print viewing conditions for workstations can easily hit much higher values. I've got no issues with 150cd/m2 (about the real minimum I can hit on my NEC) and my GTI box is still dialed down in intensity to provide a match.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: walter.sk on January 05, 2009, 10:11:29 am
Quote from: digitaldog
Because most LCD's can't hit low luminance levels without adjustment to the LUT (which we want to avoid) AND most good print viewing conditions for workstations can easily hit much higher values. I've got no issues with 150cd/m2 (about the real minimum I can hit on my NEC) and my GTI box is still dialed down in intensity to provide a match.

Andrew:  Right now my NEC 3090 is calibrated and profiled at 135cd/m2 with the iOne 2 and SpectraViewII. I am awaiting delivery on a GTI PDV-3e/D print viewer, after which I will try the higher values on the 3090.  I have two questions, though:

1) As it is now, my reds on the monitor seem to be way too bright and saturated, to the point where they even hurt my eyes.  The room lighting is lower than the monitor brightness, but not cave-like.  Is this just my perception after using a CRT for 10 years, and will it be even more pronounced at 150 cd/m2?

2)  Is the useful life of the  flourescent tubes shortened at higher brightness levels, and if so, to what degree?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 05, 2009, 10:17:59 am
Quote from: walter.sk
1) As it is now, my reds on the monitor seem to be way too bright and saturated, to the point where they even hurt my eyes.  The room lighting is lower than the monitor brightness, but not cave-like.  Is this just my perception after using a CRT for 10 years, and will it be even more pronounced at 150 cd/m2?

2)  Is the useful life of the  flourescent tubes shortened at higher brightness levels, and if so, to what degree?

1. The room lighting cannot be too low! It can be too hight. I'd try 140/150 (you can build multiple presets with the SpectraView software and toggle between them).
2. Yes, drive the display higher, Fluorescent tubes last less. The usable time the bulbs will last vary. The "typical" lifespan is about 25000 hours. By the time they die, you'll be using a newer display technology.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Kristian Kruse on January 06, 2009, 02:04:18 pm
Hi all,

After countless of calibrations I ended up with the settings:
White Point = 6500K
Gamma = 2.2
Lumi... = 120
Brightness = 52
Contrast = 100
R = 153
G = 142
B = 152

I think the colors are pretty good, but I find it a bit dark and I don't feel like turning up the brightness even more, otherwise it would start irritate my eyes!
I tried with Native White Point, but felt that the colors were off! A lot! However, the 6500K does causes some banding!

Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 06, 2009, 03:31:33 pm
Quote from: Kristian Kruse
I think the colors are pretty good, but I find it a bit dark
Don't worry about that - after a couple of days you'll be totally used to it.

Where is the banding apparent?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 08, 2009, 01:03:49 pm
I have re calibrated AGAIN and got much better results. It is a little bright but still matches my prints nicely and banding is minimal, if you really look closely you can see very slight banding middle to dark tones.

White Point = 6500K
Gamma = 2.2
Lumi... = 120
Brightness = 42
Contrast = 100
R = 176
G = 149
B = 145
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 08, 2009, 03:32:43 pm
Those are good looking numbers, mate.  But I still think 120 luminance is too high - 100 is better IMO.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 08, 2009, 03:43:49 pm
Quote from: Damo77
Those are good looking numbers, mate.  But I still think 120 luminance is too high - 100 is better IMO.

Too high why?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 08, 2009, 04:39:32 pm
From my own experience, and the evidence of thousands of forum posts.  Not a day goes by without somebody saying "Help! My prints are too dark!", and the source of the problem being traced to a too-bright monitor.

Look, I know you're the expert (and how!) but I think you're losing the common touch.  This talk of "140-150 and go up from there", while it may be scientifically correct, is impractical and is likely to cause humble photographers a great deal of grief and wasted prints.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 08, 2009, 04:47:45 pm
Quote from: Damo77
From my own experience, and the evidence of thousands of forum posts.  Not a day goes by without somebody saying "Help! My prints are too dark!", and the source of the problem being traced to a too-bright monitor.

Look, I know you're the expert (and how!) but I think you're losing the common touch.  This talk of "140-150 and go up from there", while it may be scientifically correct, is impractical and is likely to cause humble photographers a great deal of grief and wasted prints.

I don't see people having any issues matching screen to print with these display luminance plus, greatly reduced LCD luminance is of questionable usefulness if any.

People who say their prints are too dark also have to tell us how they are viewing the prints and if its controllable (which it should be), can you up that luminance and maintain the color?

140cd/m2 is the lower end of what these devices can hit. Dimming them further by using LUTs isn't really useful.

The optimal max ambient light with a display at 90cd/m2 is roughly 16-20 candela which is mightily dim.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 08, 2009, 05:08:12 pm
I don't know why Andrew would advocate that high of a luminance either.

I've got my iMac calibrated around 90 cd/m2 and my prints match my monitor perfectly. But I do have all my windows covered by curtains and have only one light source on, a 620 lumins GE Sunshine fluorescent T8. I do have to put my prints directly under this light to have them match my monitor. I've raised the luminance of my iMac which maxes out at about 250 cd/m2 and putting it at 120 is blindingly bright and hurts my eyes after a while.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 08, 2009, 05:29:47 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
140cd/m2 is the lower end of what these devices can hit. Dimming them further by using LUTs isn't really useful.
Like I say, it's hard to ignore the countless threads of evidence to the contrary.  I'd say it's very useful, both in terms of real-world print matching (as opposed to "I can afford to spend oodles of money turning my office into a colour-scientist-approved viewing environment" print matching), and eye strain, as tlooknbill mentioned.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 08, 2009, 07:47:58 pm
You can run your display that high but then you'ld have to match it with equal ambient light and since you can't rely on your window light due to the variances throughout the day and into the night, you'll have to equip the room with probably 2-4, 80 watt 4 foot fluorescent T12 tubes depending on room size.

Those are some bright lights for a studio.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 09, 2009, 12:29:25 am
Since Calibrating to 120, I have had to go back down to what I find a more comfortable 100. 120 seemed to bright after a while and I feel like I have to squint when I look at lots of white. 100 still gives me the best match to the brightness of prints, in "normal viewing conditions". I still have a little banding but only noticeable if the gradient is very wide, banding is fairly evenly spread but very slight. I feel I am better off with a little banding than with too bright a screen.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Damo77 on January 09, 2009, 12:44:21 am
Quote from: Gupfold
I feel I am better off with a little banding than with too bright a screen.
I agree.

Glad to hear you've achieved a satisfactory calibration.  Happy new year!
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 09, 2009, 04:32:11 am
Do the Lacie and NEC Monitors also show banding like this after calibration, is this normal for a LCD like the HP LP2475w.

Isnt trying to match a print to a screen under a light booth with 500 - 2000 lux lighting not very productive as the print will probably never actually be viewed under such bright light or even that 5000K colour light. Is that just to have a standard, if so why would they suggest such a bright standard?
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 09, 2009, 10:02:59 am
Quote from: Gupfold
Isnt trying to match a print to a screen under a light booth with 500 - 2000 lux lighting not very productive as the print will probably never actually be viewed under such bright light or even that 5000K colour light. Is that just to have a standard, if so why would they suggest such a bright standard?

Doesn't matter. The idea, at least initially is to ensure that the print and screen match, you can't even evaluate that possibility without having a viewing booth next to the display!

OK, lets say you do have a match. Great. You know what you see is what you get in this reference environment,. IF you want to match to another environment, you can and should (down to building a custom profile with the measured illuminant for the custom white point). You can produce a print that's lovely, but you can't say it necessary matches the display!


Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: NashvilleMike on January 09, 2009, 01:20:56 pm
Quote from: Gupfold
Do the Lacie and NEC Monitors also show banding like this after calibration, is this normal for a LCD like the HP LP2475w.

I have an NEC 2490 that I run a bit dim (100 cd/m2 at 6250K and 2.2) and I've never had any banding issues with the NEC. So it might be an issue with the HP monitor, or perhaps something else is going on.

What is frustrating, at least for me, is having to buy the monitors "blind".  I wish there would have been a place locally where I could have seen, say, the Eizo CE and CG 24" as well as the NEC 24" monitors side by side to compare. I like the NEC, quite a bit actually, but I also don't think it's quite as excellent as some reviewers have made it out to be either.

-m
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: sandymc on January 09, 2009, 03:22:49 pm
For what its worth I have a 2475, which I calibrate via an Eye One. I have it set to brightness of 19, R 225, G 200, B 224. That's brighter than the recommended 100-120, but I found that uniformity was better at the higher level, and anyway I have a bright work area. I can't see any banding on my display.

Sandy
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 09, 2009, 03:45:04 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
OK, lets say you do have a match. Great. You know what you see is what you get in this reference environment,. IF you want to match to another environment, you can and should (down to building a custom profile with the measured illuminant for the custom white point). You can produce a print that's lovely, but you can't say it necessary matches the display!

Excuse me if my questions sound ignorant, but these forums offer a very nice opportunity for me to learn from more experienced and knowledgeable people.

Yes thats what I mean, A print under a 5000K viewing booth at 500 lux that matches the display is most likely going to look very different where it is finally displayed as very few houses, galleries etc have 5000K, 500 lux lighting, I battle to even find any 5000K fl tubes. So would it not be better to have a viewing booth that is 'more likely' to match the final viewing lighting, like cool white, or warm white which are readily available or a mix of these at lower lux levels? If 5000K is not your typical lighting why would this be a standard?

Sandy, mine is also more uniform when 120 or higher but in my office I find it too bright, the banding I see at 100 is very slight and in any real images I have never seen it, so far I am very happy with it.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 09, 2009, 03:52:47 pm
Quote from: Gupfold
A print under a 5000K viewing booth at 500 lux that matches the display is most likely going to look very different where it is finally displayed

I'm not so sure. Other than the fact we're working with digital files, we've been making prints for decades that don't necessarily match under differing illuminants. The Ciba's I made in the lab and examined there looked fine in my home, the lighting was totally different too.

I wasn't trying to match the print to anything and unless you're viewing the print and display in a context that proves that you've got a match, its immaterial. The print from here isn't chopped liver because you took it elsewhere to view. It probably doesn't appear the same as when you viewed it by the display. You don't know this, you're not viewing them at the same time. Our eyes adapt to white (one reason why print to display matching ain't easy).

There's two issues here. One is making a print and display match. That tells us something really useful about our color management system. The other is making a print that looks as you expect away from that environment. When the print and display match (you've edited the file as desired), the print should look just fine elsewhere (within reason).
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 10, 2009, 12:31:06 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
There's two issues here. One is making a print and display match. That tells us something really useful about our color management system. The other is making a print that looks as you expect away from that environment. When the print and display match (you've edited the file as desired), the print should look just fine elsewhere (within reason).

Thanks for putting up with my questions. I agree and understand this, I was just questioning or rather wondering why 5000K and 500 or 2000 lux were chosen as a standard to view prints under, is it just because this colour gives a reasonable match to screen or is it similar to most viewing enviroments or both.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 10, 2009, 01:07:13 pm
Quote from: Gupfold
Thanks for putting up with my questions. I agree and understand this, I was just questioning or rather wondering why 5000K and 500 or 2000 lux were chosen as a standard to view prints under, is it just because this colour gives a reasonable match to screen or is it similar to most viewing enviroments or both.

I don't know they are standards. In fact, if you refer to what are somewhat standards (ISO ISO 3664:2000 specifications: Viewing Conditions - for Graphic Technology and Photography), its an old such standard, developed around the old CRT technology and in need of an update.

5000K isn't the right answer, all the time. In fact, I'd prefer if specifying color would not use K (or correlated color temp) but rather using a standard illuminant (D50). D50 and 5000K are not the same. Lots of colors correlate to 5000K but there's only one color at D50.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 10, 2009, 02:34:49 pm
I can confirm what Andrew says about the meaning and appearance of Kelvin (K) and how it makes prints look under these types of so called full spectrum lights. Each manufacturer of claimed 5000K lighting show slight differences within the same number between them but it's quite subtle and in fact not worth being concerned about because of other variables such as limitation of color gamuts among different output devices.

The differences between the appearance of different Kelvin rated lighting isn't that noticeable either with prints as long as you stay within 4700K-6000K. I've investigated four brands of print viewing lights that fall between these Kelvin numbers, 5000K GE Sunshine fluorescent tube, 4700K Solux MR6 halogen, 5900K BlueMax CFL and the 5500K Ottlight CFL. The GE and the Solux only show slight differences between each with Solux retaining correct looking saturation/hue in warm colors better than the GE, the Ottlight looks bluer and the BlueMax looks closer to the GE's with quite a bit more noticeable greenish yellow even though it's suppose to be 5900K.  

As long as prints look close to neutral under these lights by viewing a grayramp or B&W print and make colors look good which is the most important, it shouldn't be a problem. You'll never exactly match with split hair precision your prints to your display under these lights, but if you can make them look good, you'll be fine.

Below is a comparison shot of two prints of standard color targets with the CMYK target (Ole No Moire) on the left and an Epson 2200 inkjet (PDI target) on the right viewed under two different lights with Kelvin ratings far apart from each other. What you are seeing is exactly how these prints look under these lights. Please view in a color managed app.

[attachment=10835:SoluxVSO..._CMYK_LL.jpg]
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 10, 2009, 04:35:11 pm
Quote from: tlooknbill
Below is a comparison shot of two prints of standard color targets with the CMYK target (Ole No Moire) on the left and an Epson 2200 inkjet (PDI target) on the right viewed under two different lights with Kelvin ratings far apart from each other. What you are seeing is exactly how these prints look under these lights. Please view in a color managed app.

Solux looks way more better <g>
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Gupfold on January 10, 2009, 11:41:01 pm
Thanks for all the answers and time. Learning would be a far more difficult process without these forums.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: trinityss on January 11, 2009, 09:01:41 am
If i compare images (sRGB) from the KODAK Color Management Check-up kit in Photoshop on my HP LP2475w display with the prints from that kit under the OttLight (i measure 5600K) then they look warmer, the grey on my display is more reddish / warmer. My monitor is calibrated towards 6500 / gamma 2.2 / 120 cd/m˛.

Should i keep the 6500K as white point on my monitor or go for 5600K? But then i'm making my white point more warmer...

sRGB and AdobeRGB have both D65 as white point, does this mean that my monitor white point also must be D65 in any circumstances?


Kr,
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 11, 2009, 10:47:19 am
Quote from: trinityss
Should i keep the 6500K as white point on my monitor or go for 5600K? But then i'm making my white point more warmer...

IF that results in a match fine. BTW, what did you measure the Ottlight with? As for 6500K, did you look at the spectrum?

Quote
sRGB and AdobeRGB have both D65 as white point, does this mean that my monitor white point also must be D65 in any circumstances?

Working space specifications and display target calibration aim points are separate, don't have to match.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: trinityss on January 11, 2009, 03:52:03 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
IF that results in a match fine. BTW, what did you measure the Ottlight with? As for 6500K, did you look at the spectrum?

Hi digitaldog, thanks for your reply!

Ok, then i'll try to match the white point of my Ottlight. Let's see if the greys are more neutral then...
I'm measuring it with my EyeOne display2 in Eye-One match.
[attachment=10839:ott.jpg]

But then my white point is not as recommended in the ISO3664?
[attachment=10841:ISO3364_...SO_12646.jpg]
source: http://www.creativepro.com/article/the-dar...omeback-part-2- (http://www.creativepro.com/article/the-darkroom-makes-a-comeback-part-2-)

I'm a little bit "white point" confused.
So i don't need to worry about the white point of working spaces, and it's allowed to have a white point more close to that of my ambient light/ottlight.
But then i don't meet the ISO3664...

Eventually i want to achieve what is specified in the ISO and have a good match between my prints and monitor.
I was hoping that it was possible with this HP monitor...


Your question about the spectrum of the 6500K, did you mean the the spectrum of the white point of my monitor after calibrating towards 6500K?
If that is the case, i think this is only possible when i would have an eye one Pro and Eye-One Share...?

Kr,
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 11, 2009, 04:25:31 pm
Quote from: trinityss
I'm measuring it with my EyeOne display2 in Eye-One match.

Try i1 Share (free). You can see the spectral curve which is quite interesting.

Quote
I'm a little bit "white point" confused.
So i don't need to worry about the white point of working spaces, and it's allowed to have a white point more close to that of my ambient light/ottlight.
But then i don't meet the ISO3664...

Those white points are separate from themselves. As is the "gamma" (TRC or Tone Response Curve). They don't have to match.

Quote
Your question about the spectrum of the 6500K, did you mean the the spectrum of the white point of my monitor after calibrating towards 6500K?

Lots of colors correlate to 6500K. 6500K is not an exact color. The display is not really producing 6500K (or it would melt on your desktop). As to spectrum, the one that's interesting to look at is the one for viewing the print. I suspect despite the claims of "full spectrum", if you look at the plot of the OTTLight in i1 Share, you'll see some nasty spikes.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 12, 2009, 02:22:16 am
trinityss,

The reason your display gray looks red after viewing your prints under the OttLight is because this light has a blue green spike your eyes can't detect because your eye can't see color tint in the brightest whites on a print due to adaptation kicking in staring at bright white. Same thing happens on your display. It looks neutral but it's really not. It still doesn't affect your edits which is what's important.

I get the same thing on my calibrated iMac. This is the nature of all artificial lighting. Your eye constantly color corrects. You can try matching your display's white point color tint to a white piece of paper viewed under your OttLight, but like I said it can be very hard to see this because by the time you do make out the actual tint of paper white the eye is already adjusting. You'll be quite frustrated trying to achieve this level of perfection.

In addition to this different papers reflect different color casts under different brands of lights even though the lights look neutral.

This can be seen in the shot posted below between the spectrally flat 4700K Solux lamp which prints may at one point be viewed under like at a gallery and the 5500K OttLite CFL that I have and the one you may be using. I don't have your model. Mine is the new 100watt output OttLite HD Natural Lighting CFL.

I have yet to know what the color tint of D50 or D65 looks like since no one has made this clear to me.

[attachment=10850:SoluxVSo...ik_LL_Lg.jpg]
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: digitaldog on January 12, 2009, 09:47:04 am
Quote from: tlooknbill
trinityss,

The reason your display gray looks red after viewing your prints under the OttLight is because this light has a blue green spike your eyes can't detect because your eye can't see color tint in the brightest whites on a print due to adaptation kicking in staring at bright white.

That and the possible effects of OB's and that spike can really make some papers look way, way off.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 12, 2009, 02:13:29 pm
Yeah, I started noticing the Solux light brings out all of these spectral differences in papers over the other lights I tried out. I included lazer printer paper with optical brighteners in the shot and as you can see the Solux shows it and the Ottlight doesn't. That Solux is one mysterious light.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: trinityss on January 12, 2009, 03:23:35 pm
Quote from: digitaldog
Try i1 Share (free). You can see the spectral curve which is quite interesting.

Those white points are separate from themselves. As is the "gamma" (TRC or Tone Response Curve). They don't have to match.

Lots of colors correlate to 6500K. 6500K is not an exact color. The display is not really producing 6500K (or it would melt on your desktop). As to spectrum, the one that's interesting to look at is the one for viewing the print. I suspect despite the claims of "full spectrum", if you look at the plot of the OTTLight in i1 Share, you'll see some nasty spikes.

The EyeOne display isn't supported in i1 share, i'll try with an EyeOne pro and will post the spectrum...

I've recalibrated my display with the following settings 5600 / 1.8 / 120 cd m˛ and may match is much better, but there is still a red cast.
Taking into account that there always be a red cast (due to the spikes in my OttLite, any recommendations on how to minimize further the red cast?
Can i manually play with my rgb controls, or should i just try to find a better color temperature?

Thx!
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: trinityss on January 12, 2009, 03:43:44 pm
Quote from: tlooknbill
trinityss,

The reason your display gray looks red after viewing your prints under the OttLight is because this light has a blue green spike your eyes can't detect because your eye can't see color tint in the brightest whites on a print due to adaptation kicking in staring at bright white. Same thing happens on your display. It looks neutral but it's really not. It still doesn't affect your edits which is what's important.

I get the same thing on my calibrated iMac. This is the nature of all artificial lighting. Your eye constantly color corrects. You can try matching your display's white point color tint to a white piece of paper viewed under your OttLight, but like I said it can be very hard to see this because by the time you do make out the actual tint of paper white the eye is already adjusting. You'll be quite frustrated trying to achieve this level of perfection.

In addition to this different papers reflect different color casts under different brands of lights even though the lights look neutral.

This can be seen in the shot posted below between the spectrally flat 4700K Solux lamp which prints may at one point be viewed under like at a gallery and the 5500K OttLite CFL that I have and the one you may be using. I don't have your model. Mine is the new 100watt output OttLite HD Natural Lighting CFL.

I have yet to know what the color tint of D50 or D65 looks like since no one has made this clear to me.

[attachment=10850:SoluxVSo...ik_LL_Lg.jpg]

Hi tlooknbill,

That is interesting info you write...

I have this model:
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=2248 (http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php?xProd=2248)

What is your personal experience with the solux, do you reach a better macht compared with the OttLite?
Is the gray more neutral? Has the Solux less spikes?

Do you know if there is a kind of a recommended way of comparing between hard and soft copy?
Some procedure that tells you to wait 3 seconds and look inbetween to a black or white solid?

Kr,

Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on January 13, 2009, 01:18:17 am
I find the Solux and the GE Sunshine fluorescent T8 tube provide the best appearance of neutrality of B&W prints as long as it's printed with black ink only. The printed grayramps that appear in the side by side comparison shot of the two lights I posted were printed with black ink only from my Epson 1270 on Epson's matte paper. B&W prints using all inks will give off different color casts among all the lights. The Solux will be a bit on the brownish red side, GE Sunshine will appear a tad on the olive green and the OttLight will appear dull blue with a bit of olive green. Some of this may be due to the printer profile used combined with adaptation.

These are all subtle differences.

I just conducted an adaptation test on the Solux by staring for about 2 minutes at the scene depicted in the previous posted image with only Solux on and all ambient light turned off while at night and then looked back at my iMac and found no noticeable red cast in my gray desktop. It retained neutrality. The GE Sunshines do cause a slight maroon-ish red, but the OttLights create a stronger more noticeable brownish red.

I don't know how red your display is with your print viewing lights. If you have concerns about the cause, calibrate your display at night with all lights off and see if your gray's on your display look neutral. And if you want to neutralize your eyes with the lights on I'ld suggest closing your eyes and cover them completely with a dark cloth that blocks all light. Even when you shut your eyes you can still see reddish orange from your eyelids and this does affect adaptation as well, but this is really splitting hairs on this.

I only use soft proofing for controlling gamut clipping. I find using Relative Colorimetric with Black Point Compensation on and leaving Ink Black and Paper White off is all I need with my current setup which is currently using several GE Sunshine T8's one on each side of my display and another under the table for more focused light.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Mikko S on May 26, 2009, 08:38:00 am
sorry .... wrong button
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Mikko S on May 26, 2009, 08:52:53 am
Hi, I am trying to calibrate the LP2475 and came up with a problem which is very strange. The red shades are far too strong, i.e medium red and even orange-red areas turn to far too red (darker skin tones as well) . I have used three calibrating devices trying to calibrate it: ProfileMaker 5 with EyeOnePro photo spectrometer, MonacoOPTI(xr) and ColorMunki Design. All ending up at more or less same results, I have also tried different color temperatures from 5000 to 6500K, etc, no effect on red boost. I know that reds are too boosted as I have a test sheet that I print to a color calibrated Epson 4880 that I use as a test sheet for prepress work and my primary monitor is (calibrated) 24" iMac that gives perfect visual match with the Epson Color proofs (same good results on another iMac). My intention was to use the lp2475 as secondary monitor for the iMac but as such it can not be used for color accurate photo or prepress work. Is there something in this LCD monitor technology that it can not be calibrated (easily) for color accurate work? or is there a problem in my unit. For normal office work it is probably perfect. I feel that the profile should be edited to compensate the red boost and the ProofMaster 5 bundle has the ProfileEditor module that could probably do it but I have never used it (as never needed before with any other monitor), the user guide is useless for a beginner. Anyone knows a good reference for instructions how to use the ProfileEdtor to fine tune the profile. Thanks in advance.  (PS this is my second unit of LP2475 as the first one had so strong horizontal color shift from green to red that I asked replacement right away)
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: neil snape on May 27, 2009, 01:04:05 pm
I have the Dream Color 2480 which may be similar. What I saw withit as if I used say i1MAtch the reds were richer than they should be compared to a proof as you also saw. The only thing I found to work , and work well is to calibrate with Color Eyes, an i1 Pro, and let the monitor run to it's maximum gamut.

What also works of course is use HP monitor APS with it's specific i1 colorimeter. The results were more accurate with Color Eyes, but APS is overall quite good now too.

I also saw a rapid change in the first weeks, but now after 6 months colors are very stable and reliable for all color managed apps.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Mikko S on June 04, 2009, 05:37:35 am

Hi thanks a lot, the ColorEyes really did the trick just with the default settings, hope I had known that from very beginning as none of the other SW could do that and I spent days with them, I used the MonacoOPTIX XR calibrator with ColoEyes. The nice thing is also that ColorEyes can set the iMac screen (which I use as a primary monitor) which is far too bright even when the brightness is set to lowest level, none of the other calibration systems could set that as well to target level.  Thanks again.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Mikko S on June 23, 2009, 09:49:48 am
Quote from: Mikko S
Hi thanks a lot, the ColorEyes really did the trick just with the default settings, hope I had known that from very beginning as none of the other SW could do that and I spent days with them, I used the MonacoOPTIX XR calibrator with ColoEyes. The nice thing is also that ColorEyes can set the iMac screen (which I use as a primary monitor) which is far too bright even when the brightness is set to lowest level, none of the other calibration systems could set that as well to target level.  Thanks again.

One more thing I noticed, as I am using the LP2475 as a secondary monitor for 24" iMac and just updated to PhotoShop CS4. You have to turn the Enable Open GL OFF from the preferences >performance settings of CS4 or it will not apply the profile correctly to the external monitor, took me another couple of days to figure this out. Everything looked ok with CS3 on all other settings were similar. This open GL support is new in CS4 but does not work properly with dual monitor setting in iMac.
Title: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: IanWorthington on July 04, 2009, 11:51:18 pm
Hi.  

Thanks to all for the invaluable information in this thread.  Whilst in the UK last month I bought one of these: they're not available in Colombia where I currently live (and if they were they'd no doubt be twice the price due to supply chain issues here).

It survived it's exposure to airline baggage handling unscathed, and is currently sitting next to me, earning me jealous looks from my teenage sister-in-law. (That's got to be a good thing, right?) My next problem is how to profile it.  I have a Monaco Optix XR DTP95 (iirc), but it's in storage up in DC, and it will be another 6 months before I'm back there (and then there appears to be mixed opinions on if that colorimeter can cope with the extended gamut of this screen).

Are there any techniques that might get me most of the way to a usable set up I can use in the mean time? Or if I begged a profile off of another user, along with their panel settings for it, is there sufficient tightness in manufacturing that that might work? (I'm happy to supply my profiler serial number as proof that I really do own one of these).

Any advice happily received.

i
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 01, 2013, 11:54:36 am
I have re calibrated AGAIN and got much better results. It is a little bright but still matches my prints nicely and banding is minimal, if you really look closely you can see very slight banding middle to dark tones.

White Point = 6500K
Gamma = 2.2
Lumi... = 120
Brightness = 42
Contrast = 100
R = 176
G = 149
B = 145

I don't get this at all. Where do you se these numbers? I have a Spyder 4 Elite and it doesn't change settings on the actual monitor like this, does it?

Before getting the Spyder I set the monitor to settings like these found online and the results looked pretty good both on home prints and on other devices I have, like an iPad.

After resetting the monitor to facory setting and doing the Spyder calibration, the photos I output from Lightroom look absurdly saturated and too dark on other devices. In other words with the Spyder calibration, results elsewhere look nothing like on my monitor, which somewhat defeats the purpose.

So I'm not supposed to manually set anything on the monitor apart from factory defaults? (It asks me to set brightness during setup which I did)
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 02, 2013, 05:03:47 am
See http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_lp2475w.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_lp2475w.htm).
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 02, 2013, 06:36:25 am
Thanks for the link! Interesting reading!

It doesn't answer my questions unfortunately, about how to use the Spyder for this display. What I have landed on for the moment is:

-resetting the monitor to default settings.
-calibrating using the Spyder.
-restoring the custom settings to the monitor, using the setting they arrived at in the article.

This doesn't seem like a logical workflow at all, but it seems to yield better results than merely using the Spyder. Perhaps this Spyder thingy simply won't do the job on a wide gamut display. Perhaps I should start with the custom monitor settings from the article and then use the Spyder based on that instead of a factory reset.

I simply don't know and that is my concern.
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 02, 2013, 07:16:06 am
I don't use the Spyder, so I can't help with their software.  I use a ColorMunki Display with Argyll software.  I have brightness 28 and contrast 75, and set the RGB levels using the Argyll software.  This provides a mode where you can set R, G and B levels to give approximately the right white point for the chosen colour temp.  Then I let the Argyll software do its stuff. 
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: D Fosse on November 02, 2013, 10:02:53 am
Quote
This doesn't seem like a logical workflow at all

And it isn't. It completely invalidates the profile, so you're back to square one. First off you need to realize that there is a fundamental difference between color managed software (Lightroom/Photoshop) and non color managed software. The process of calibration/profiling affects them on different levels.

There are many common misconceptions about monitor calibration, but the most common of all is that it's all about modifying the monitor response to meet a certain standard, and that's it. While this is true in a non color managed situation (it's all the tools you have), this is merely the starting point in a color managed situation.

In proper color management a new level is introduced: the icc profile. An icc profile is a description of a color space. Adobe RGB is a color space, while AdobeRGB.icc is the description of that space. Similar for monitors: <monitor profile>.icc/icm is the description of the monitor's color space. And here's the key to understanding the whole thing: The monitor profile is the description of the monitor in its current (calibrated) state. Change the calibration, and you need a new profile to describe the new state.

This is the difference between color managed and not. The color managed application uses the monitor profile directly when it displays the image. It's a straightforward profile conversion, although done under the hood and on the fly. The non color managed application just sends the RGB numbers straight to the display. It's calibrated, yes, but the profile has a much higher precision level than that. For a wide gamut monitor this difference is crucial, because only the profile can account for the extended gamut and remap the image RGB values accordingly.

So this explains why it's oversaturated when you view in a non color managed environment. The image is created in sRGB and has sRGB numbers. But the monitor is closer to Adobe RGB.

----


Now to part 2; how you do this:

First reset the monitor (and video card) to defaults. That part is OK.

Next, the calibration will adjust the video card to reach the desired gamma, white point temperature and luminance level. Here's the thing: You don't want those adjustments to be too dramatic, because the video card is a low-bit, low precision link in the chain. Much better to do as much as possible in the monitor's internal circuitry. That's why the Spyder asks you to adjust brightness.

Then, when the calibration part is finished, the profile is created. This profile, which is what Lr/Ps will use, describes the monitor in its present state. Don't change anything on the monitor from this point, because if you do you will need a new profile.

(EDIT: I should add, just to cover everything, that the monitor profile is set up on system level automatically by the calibrator. No further user intervention required. I say this because some people will then proceed to set the monitor profile up as working space in Photoshop, which is totally wrong in every conceivable way and defeats the whole purpose).
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 02, 2013, 11:21:42 am
Thanks a lot for answering and at great length too! :)

The problem is that this is what I did to begin with: resetting the monitor to its factory defaults, calibrating with the Spyder and adjusting the monitor's brightness in the process.

This is what I though looked terrible and that I didn't think could be right. I suppose I won't know for sure how right or wrong it is until I have a print professionally made for comparison.

I did the calibration again and turned the room lights off this time after the ambient reading. Looks a bit better or maybe I'm slowly getting used to the new look. I certainly have a case of maybe a thousand badly edited photos on my hand which is the price to pay for having started this only now.

I still don't understand it all:

Why the various web sites has tweaked settings for the monitor itself to display most accurately, while mine will simply have factory default.

Why it starts out calibrating at 6500 and then says white point 5000 recommended at the next step (a number than cannot be set by me anywhere at least. Then why is it recommended?)

Why the display gets a bit brighter the minute you click save on the calibrated profile, even though I'm supposedly already viewing it at that point.

If Lightroom and my scanner will need to be set by me to load the new profile or if it is now the default setting everywhere.

Why the icons on my operating system look fine while the photo thumbnails inside folders are now horribly over saturated.

Included three screenshots of the finished calibration.
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: D Fosse on November 02, 2013, 12:45:11 pm
Turn off the ambient light measurement, it only introduces another variable which is the last thing you need. (Plus it's a wholly unnecessary feature if you ask me). Once you've done that, it isn't very difficult. Just do what the Spyder asks you to, and it will show you on screen when you get to the correct level.

OK, the other things. My usual advice in these situations is this: Don't buy a wide gamut monitor unless you fully understand the implications. It changes a lot of rules, and there are special requirements that have to be fulfilled. The two most important are these:

1) Use only software that is fully color managed. Anything else will display oversaturated and incorrectly. You need to learn to ignore that, if you have to use such apps (Windows Explorer is one).

2) You must have a valid monitor profile for those apps to use. A valid profile is one that describes the monitor accurately. If the description is not accurate, it will not display correctly.

What you need to do when starting up the calibrator is to set a couple of parameters: Gamma, 2.2. White point temperature, D65 (6500K). Ignore the D50 recommendation. Luminance, 120 cd/m˛. These are average settings that work for average conditions. When you gain more experience, you may want to modify them.

Then just let the calibrator do its thing, the rest is handled automatically. There's basically nothing more you need to do, except observe what I wrote above.
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 02, 2013, 02:07:37 pm
OK, thanks a lot!!!

I redid everything, turned of the ambient measurement and did a long iterative calibration. It is starting to look like a result I can trust. Still seems slightly odd that I have to increase vibrance this much for things to appear more or less like before, but I suppose it could be right. I will have to get used to the new color environment.

I'll output some images and see how they look at my calibrated monitor at work. If they appear similar then I think I can call off any panic attacks. :)

Thank you both again for helping out!
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: wolfnowl on November 02, 2013, 02:42:05 pm
Excellent advice - at the risk overstating the obvious...

1) Remember to allow your monitor to warm up before calibrating it.
2) Remember that monitors change over their lifespan, so don't expect to calibrate it once and be done forever.

Mike.
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 02, 2013, 02:51:49 pm
1) Remember to allow your monitor to warm up before calibrating it.
Very good point.  The HP LP2475 seems slower to stabilise than others I've used.  Both colour and brightness take at least 30 minutes to stabilise.  I recommend leaving it on for an hour before calibrating. 
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 02, 2013, 03:23:31 pm
Yes, that is a good point! I actually rarely turn my computer and monitor off, which is probably a bad idea in terms of lifespan, but that's how it is. :)
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: D Fosse on November 03, 2013, 08:26:31 am
Good, I'm sure you can get this to work.

I have to say something about web browsers, which is where most unsuspecting wide gamut display owners trip up. At the moment there is only one browser that works satisfactorily with wide gamut displays, and that's Firefox. But you still have to modify the default configuration a bit.

Several browsers claim to be color managed, including Safari. The problem is that most content on the web is untagged (doesn't have an embedded profile), and that breaks the color management chain. There's no source profile to convert to the monitor profile from, and so those browsers just leave the material in an unmanaged state, sending the image RGB numbers straight through to the display unmodified.

Firefox has an optional configuration that assigns sRGB to any untagged material. This gets the color management machine running again. Assigning sRGB is a safe assumption since it's most likely created in sRGB with that intent. And this has the added advantage that you effectively get full color management even on untagged material, instead of "close enough" which is what you normally get.

To get there, type about:config (copy/paste that) into the address bar, and scroll down to gfx.color_management.mode. Change the value from 2 to 1, and relaunch Firefox. The beauty of this setting is that it affects the whole works, page elements as well as images. Everything appears correctly.

(and while you're there, you can enable v4 monitor profiles as well, in case you should ever need that).
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: hugowolf on November 03, 2013, 11:03:13 am
Several browsers claim to be color managed, including Safari. The problem is that most content on the web is untagged (doesn't have an embedded profile), and that breaks the color management chain. There's no source profile to convert to the monitor profile from, and so those browsers just leave the material in an unmanaged state, sending the image RGB numbers straight through to the display unmodified.

IE9 and 10 use sRGB for untagged images, which is exactly what you would want in almost every case. What they do not do is use the monitor profile, which makes viewing on a wider gamut monitor interesting.

Firefox for me, came with color mode set to one (full color management), but with ICC v4 dissabled.

You can see what is working and what is not with this: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

It is primarily concerned with ICC profiles, so there are a couple of things it doesn't show:

This is what happens on a wide gamut monitor using a browser with v4 support, but not using the monitor profile: IE9
(http://www.dpreview.com/files/g/TS535~R0~2741312.jpg)

This is what happens on a wide gamut monitor using a browser with v4 supportand using the monitor profile: Firefox 25
(http://www.dpreview.com/files/g/TS535~R0~2741311.jpg)

And here is what you need to do to enable near full color management with Firefox
http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=510

Brian A

Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: D Fosse on November 03, 2013, 11:21:41 am
The IE policy is brilliant. It guarantees with 100% certainty that nothing will display correctly - ever. No chance. Congratulations are in order  :D
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: hugowolf on November 03, 2013, 12:07:08 pm
The IE policy is brilliant. It guarantees with 100% certainty that nothing will display correctly - ever. No chance. Congratulations are in order  :D

No, there is a slim chance.

Brian A
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 03, 2013, 12:57:32 pm
No, there is a slim chance.
Agreed.  If the monitor happens to be exactly sRGB in colour space and TRC then IE will display correctly.  But even monitors with an sRGB mode and factory calibration are rarely very accurate.  As you say, slim chance of accurate colour with IE. 

It's bonkers.  Microsoft go to all the trouble of implementing colour management in IE, but use only the image profile and don't bother with the monitor profile.  They've implemented 99% of the functionality of colour management, but by missing the 1% (looking up monitor profile) they virtually rule out the possibility of accurate colour. 

If anything proves the insanity in Microsoft, this is it. 
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: D Fosse on November 03, 2013, 01:17:50 pm
Actually IE does in fact have full color management - all the code is there and happily churning along. It does convert from a source profile to a monitor profile, as it should. But then some brilliant engineer said "hey, let's not use the actual monitor profile, let's use sRGB!". And they all said yeah, whatever...

This is very likely the stupidest decision in the entire history of computing. It's all there, and then they deliberately broke it.

For wide gamut users it means everything comes in psychedelic technicolor, no exception. Even an Adobe RGB image, which could otherwise pass without too much comment. For everyone else it's no color management, tagged or not. Unless you happen to have a monitor that matches sRGB exactly, of course.
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 13, 2013, 01:55:58 pm
And so I brought a few adjusted Tiffs with me to work and had a look. The photos actually look closer to the ones at home than I had expected. Clearly not identical but at least not miles apart. And a lot better from the calibration with no ambient light on.

So that is good at least! The real test will be to have a professional print made. I feel unable to tell anything for certain at the moment. Even after taking a break for a week I am equally confused about what to trust.

The calibrated display appears to me to have a bit too low contrast and saturation. Everything looks wrong and this has put me off working with photography altogether for now. The histogram just doesn't feel right to me.

I suppose when I get a print, I can increase contrast and saturation a bit if needed. No matter what the Spyder says, what matters is what ends up framed on the wall.

But I hate this feeling of having lost years of photo adjustments. And not having any confidence in what I am actually outputting now. Despite clearly not knowing anything about anything, I actually work as an image editor for a company. And even at work now I feel increasingly color blind when I tweak those skin tones. It is driving me crazy. I stand waiting for my tram to work and I mentally color correct people around me. They all look off.

But enough whining. Thank you all for having helped out! :)
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: MiSwan on November 13, 2013, 07:09:02 pm
Now, look what you've all done to him! This doesn't look good from over here. This is not how it's intended to end up, right? ;)

Do we have a doctor here? Someone has to pay for one. Ok, let's see who of you  done most damage…… hmm?
Title: Re: HP LP2475w calibration from scratch
Post by: Stormhalvorsen on November 14, 2013, 03:37:58 am
I propose the need for a new medical term, something like Digital Chromatosis; -the lack of color confidence, the inability to correctly adjust skin tones and/or the sensation when returning to your desk after a break of seeing that the image on screen is horribly over edited. :)