Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Mark F on December 14, 2014, 12:43:05 pm
-
When I bought my current iMac in 2008 I had a really tough time trying to calibrate it. There were large discussions in this forum in those days on what to do and I wound up with the eye-one Display 2 device but using the Color Eyes Display Pro software. I'm now upgrading to the new 5k Retina iMac and I'm wondering if calibration is still a major issue. I expect I'll have to upgrade to the Yosemite version of software but is there anything else I need to look out for? My current settings for white point are: D65, 100cd/m2 but I'm not sure the calibration ever actually reached the 100cd/m2 level.
Thanks for your help.
-
When I bought my current iMac in 2008 I had a really tough time trying to calibrate it.
How so?
There were large discussions in this forum in those days on what to do and I wound up with the eye-one Display 2 device but using the Color Eyes Display Pro software. I'm now upgrading to the new 5k Retina iMac and I'm wondering if calibration is still a major issue. I expect I'll have to upgrade to the Yosemite version of software but is there anything else I need to look out for? My current settings for white point are: D65, 100cd/m2 but I'm not sure the calibration ever actually reached the 100cd/m2 level.
Those values were arrived at and used for what purpose?
-
Around that era, the iMacs tended to be super-bright and it was next to impossible to bring the level down to something 'reasonable' like 100-120. I think the min you could get was something like 150-160. What some of us did was use ColorEyes or BasICColor to lower the max which of course threw away a bunch of scale at the top end. I think all that went away w/ the advent of LED backlights in 2010 or so.
-
Around that era, the iMacs tended to be super-bright and it was next to impossible to bring the level down to something 'reasonable' like 100-120.
There’s nothing reasonable or non reasonable with values higher than 120cd/m2, it all depends on how you view the prints next to that display. I use 150 cm/m2 to match my GTI viewing booth (set to 67 on it’s digital scale for brightness).
The correct values, for backlight intensity or white point is that which produces a visual match and of course the print illuminant plays a role (so YMMV):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Now out of the box, something like 250-300 cd/m2 would be rather unreasonable to me, for one, you’d need one really bright viewing booth or system and 2nd, you’d burn out the backlight a lot faster than going 150 cd/m2 or lower.
-
When I bought my current iMac in 2008 I had a really tough time trying to calibrate it. There were large discussions in this forum in those days on what to do and I wound up with the eye-one Display 2 device but using the Color Eyes Display Pro software. I'm now upgrading to the new 5k Retina iMac and I'm wondering if calibration is still a major issue. I expect I'll have to upgrade to the Yosemite version of software but is there anything else I need to look out for? My current settings for white point are: D65, 100cd/m2 but I'm not sure the calibration ever actually reached the 100cd/m2 level.
As mentioned, the 2008 iMac had a real problem with dimming, I think the lowest was more in the neighborhood of 200 cd/m2. But there were only 1 or 2 generations of iMacs with that problem, and since 2009 all have been fine, you can dim them well below any needed level.
The 5k will calibrate just fine, I believe the correct setting is "white LED". You shouldn't need the Color Eyes software with the new iMac.
-
ok, perhaps a bad choice of words. 'correct' for *my* environment and luminance levels of viewing and analysis.
For *me*, I need about 90-100 and the minimum level of those iMac's could not get anywhere near there.
-
Sometimes, not always, it’s far easier to just raise the print viewing illuminant than try to lower the display backlight intensity. The point is, you don’t have to hit a real low value and some newer displays out of the box, can’t hit such low cd/m2 values natively. Leave them be, up the print viewing conditions.
-
That's why I eventually got a PA241 to do the critical work on. My primary viewing space is my living room and given the lighting, it's hard to bump it significantly. I'm looking into the new Soraa LED BR lamps which look to put out more light (& less heat) and a superior spectrum
It's not my intention to hijack this thread so i'll leave it be
-
Leave them be, up the print viewing conditions.
Not always so easy when you work in an office-type environment, and send your work off to offset presses in another city...as I mostly do. The typical agency scenario. Then you need to have some sort of standardized screen viewing conditions.
The way I handle it is to go after paper white and contrast ratio. But beyond that I can't do much about the print viewing conditions.
-
Thanks to all, good information.
I exhibit in local libraries and hospitals and cannot control the lighting. But what I am also inferring is that I will likely have to experiment a bit to get the setting that will yield the same results I now have and am comfortable with.
-
Not always so easy when you work in an office-type environment, and send your work off to offset presses in another city...as I mostly do.
Don’t know why. No room for either a small Fluorescent booth or one Solux task lamp?
-
I exhibit in local libraries and hospitals and cannot control the lighting.
That’s another part of the equation all together. The display+print viewing condition match implies the two are together. What happens after that isn’t usually in anyone’s control. But the idea is to calibrate the display to produce as close as possible, WYSIWYG and thus a match of these two items. Move the print outside that editing environment and all bets may be off.
But prepress departments and printing companies have produced files for output to be viewed in an infinite number of conditions and this hasn’t been a huge issue, thanks in part to our eyes ability to adapt to the conditions.
-
Don’t know why. No room for either a small Fluorescent booth or one Solux task lamp?
Well, yes, but I still don't have a "print" as such to match. I do get to see the final result, but usually days or weeks later. That said, the result is nearly always spot on with the "paper white/contrast ratio" strategy. I usually know the type of paper in advance.
I'm sure the "up the print viewing conditions"-strategy will work perfectly well as long as you control the entire process in a closed loop - IOW you print the file yourself. But instinctively I don't see how I could work with luminance in the 150 range - for that to work I'd have to raise the overall ambient light to a very uncomfortable level. I need to visualize on screen what the result will look like under "average" conditions, and for that 100 -110 cd is fine where I sit.
It's true that many monitors perform poorly below 120 cd or so. But I'm sure the NEC PAs can handle down to well below 100. Eizo in fact defaults to 80 with the CG/CX, but I really don't see what they're getting at there. That has to be way too low for anything but a very dark room. Maybe it's just a holdover from CRT.
-
Well, yes, but I still don't have a "print" as such to match.
You never get to see the output? No proofs?
I'm sure the "up the print viewing conditions"-strategy will work perfectly well as long as you control the entire process in a closed loop
Yes that’s ideal of course. An open loop has variables that may make color matching between display and output sometimes impossible. Not ideal but the real world. But even if you use a differing output device like a good desktop printer, you can verify that screen to print matching is close.
I'm sure the NEC PAs can handle down to well below 100.
Yes, no issues (older NEC’s may not) and lots of other displays will produce less than ideal behavior if you try to force the issue. Easier to up the illuminant.
-
You never get to see the output? No proofs?
Yes, I do get to see the output eventually, but much later. Sometimes I get proofs; sometimes not. Which is why I have to organize my whole workflow as a one-way operation. Out it goes; done.
Working this way isn't all that uncommon and a lot of photographers take this in stride as a matter of routine. It used to be quite risky and the prudent thing was to always ask for proofs. But nowadays it's hardly necessary. All the printers I've worked with recently have a strictly color managed process and the result is consistent and predictable. It works.
So what I need to have on my monitor is a white point and a black point, and those two have to correspond to the paper and process. Once I have that, the rest falls into place by itself.
-
A quick update that might be helpful for anyone who is also moving from an older iMac to the new 5k Retina model. It turns out that both Xrite and Color Eyes Disply no longer support the Eye-One Display 2 device. Neither company has software for the device that will run under Yosemite. I've been told that the current screen hardware is so different that the old device sensor would not work properly. I did not expect that (or the additional expense).
-
Neither company has software for the device that will run under Yosemite.
And yet, SpectraView is fine, begging the question, why can't these two companies do so in a timely fashion.
-
And yet, SpectraView is fine, begging the question, why can't these two companies do so in a timely fashion.
Apparently it is not a question of timliness - they have no intentions of supporting the Eye-One Display 2.
-
Apparently it is not a question of timliness - they have no intentions of supporting the Eye-One Display 2.
X-rite isn’t? What justification would they have for not supporting software to drive their hardware on a current Mac OS? Is this JUST 4K?
-
That they want to sell more i1Display Pro units. They make $$ there, they do not simply modifying software.
Same thing w/ companies (like Apple) that decide to stop supporting certain hardware in newer versions of the OS
or applications.
-
X-rite isn’t? What justification would they have for not supporting software to drive their hardware on a current Mac OS? Is this JUST 4K?
Here is the reply I received from their TEch Support group:
" We have no software program available to allow your i1Display 2 to work on Mac OS X 10.8 and higher. The i1Display 2 was discontinued in 2010 when we started shipping our new display profiling systems…the i1Display Pro and the ColorMunki Display. These new colorimeters are also much better suited for the new technologies that are being used by display manufacturers. They are both fully supported on all current Windows and Mac operating systems."
The next paragraph was a sales pitch for the new devices.
-
The next paragraph was a sales pitch for the new devices.
With an upgrade discount I'd hope.
-
With an upgrade discount I'd hope.
No mention of that. Or were you joking?
-
No mention of that. Or were you joking?
I was serious but didn't expect they would (but they should).
-
I was serious but didn't expect they would (but they should).
Ah, if we all did what we should do this would be a better world than it is.
[Sorry, no more philosophizing].
-
Lucky I'm using a Spyder4. I saw they even created an update for the Spyder3 to work on Yosemite. So I hope I can count with that longtime support for my Spyder4 too....
-
Ah, if we all did what we should do this would be a better world than it is.
[Sorry, no more philosophizing].
you are buying sufficiently expensive mac, you can buy i1display pro for $129...
-
I thought this was a software issue, not a hardware issue. xRite issued a special version of i1Profiler to work with the eye one display 2 because the older software didn't work. Is this no longer available or does it no longer work?
this is unrelated to the brightness issue, which was the main reason people used ColorEyes.
-
I calibrated my iMac 27" 5k with X-Rite Munkicolor. It seems to work just fine. Images look spectacular.
Bud