Monitor calibration target for photos that will be viewed on screen AND printed

[marc aurel]

I work as an architectural photographer and would like to ask for your opinion about the best monitor calibration target (white balance). The files I send to my customers will mostly be viewed on screen. But quite often the same files will be sent to magazines for publishing. Often I do not have a direct contact to the magazines so I don't know how exactly they prepare my files for print.
Until now I calibrated my monitor to 5800 Kelvin. The idea behind this was to use a compromise between the recommendations for use on screen (6500 Kelvin since most monitors use that) and for print (5000 Kelvin). The idea was that the color temperature is not too far off from what I want it to look like - neither on screen nor in print. But I am not sure if this is the best solution. Of course I could prepare to different versions of each file which would be quite a lot of work. I could try to create a photoshop action to automate a shift in white balance, but the adjustments in photoshop are not measured in Kelvin.

What is your approach? What is your monitor calibrated to? What are your expreiences with magazines and what they expect from an RGB file they get from a photographer (in Europe)?

[elliot_n]

I don't think it matters much what colour temperature you run your monitor. Just use what feels neutral to you (mine is running at 6200K). The colour temperature shouldn't effect how you colour correct your files - whether you're working at 5000K (warm) or 6500K (cold), your 'neutral' remains constant (the interface elements of Photoshop, Lightroom etc). Files for magazines and websites should have the same colour balance.

[digitaldog]

What is your approach? What is your monitor calibrated to?

My display is calibrated using differing calibration targets to match differing output (mostly print).
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

You can't shoot for an undefined aim point and everyone other than you viewing images on-screen are mostly undefined.

[marc aurel]

I don't think it matters much what colour temperature you run your monitor. Just use what feels neutral to you (mine is running at 6200K). The colour temperature shouldn't effect how you colour correct your files - whether you're working at 5000K (warm) or 6500K (cold), your 'neutral' remains constant (the interface elements of Photoshop, Lightroom etc).

Thanks for your comment. Good point. That relaxes me quite a bit. I guess it would still make some difference, but 5800 Kelvin looked quite good for me and for the lighting conditions in my studio. I get quite a good match between my prints and my screen.

You can't shoot for an undefined aim point and everyone other than you viewing images on-screen are mostly undefined.

Thanks for the link to your article. Very good read. When I started this thread I was just interested if others think there could be an ideal starting point (maybe differing from the one I would have chosen for my own prints) when you have to send your files out into the wilderness where other people do unkown things to them in print. Doesn't look like. So I will just go on producing files with colours that are as well balanced as possible in my own setup.

[TylerB]

My display is calibrated using differing calibration targets to match differing output (mostly print).
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

You can't shoot for an undefined aim point and everyone other than you viewing images on-screen are mostly undefined.

You mention a trial and error approach to white point, which is the only way I've dealt with it... would that be our only option, also, for different TRCs (or gamma, depending on software)?

[digitaldog]

You mention a trial and error approach to white point, which is the only way I've dealt with it... would that be our only option, also, for different TRCs (or gamma, depending on software)?

TRC or gamma settings are the least of anyone's worries. Set it to Native or 2.2. ICC aware app's will understand and account for these settings.

[jeffo]

Hello there,
I came across this thread because actually I am in the same situation like Marc; I've read some recommendations, I also watched the Andrew's video why are my prints too dark in order to see the whole picture—thank you for sharing with us—but I still have some concerns.

Screen-to-print chapter it's pretty clear now, (almost) all depends by the environment lighting. After we set the correct working room light, we can set the "right" whitepoint and that's good enough in our microsystem not necessarily good enough for other microsystems setup.

Regarding the other chapter of the color management, when we have a monitor used for viewing photos and web environment, I'll choose to calibrate it and to hope that other people will also have a calibrated and profiled display, it's the best I can do. But ...at this point, I'll kindly ask you an opinion;

Let's have a look at this web color #f1ecd6 used into a project. I choose this color value, with the monitor calibrated at 6500K, native gamma (~2.43). Btw, It's not used into a poster/picture with another profile assigned, but directly as a font color.

If I create another calibration profile in the same conditions except the gamma set at 2.2—also the same room lighting conditions—the color will look much yello/brighter(?). In the end this is something normal due to the gamma adjustment I suppose, being the only modified paramether but It drive me nuts because again, reading in different official sources, (for example here in this book at page 96-97) there are different oppinions telling that the native monitor gamma should stay as is=native=2.43 in my case OR on the other hand, other voices tells that should be set at 2.2; how can approach this, which is the "right" seein color, at native monitor gamma value or 2.2?
Thanks

[digitaldog]

If I create another calibration profile in the same conditions except the gamma set at 2.2—also the same room lighting conditions—the color will look much yello/brighter(?). I

The TRC Gamma setting has virtually no effect in color managed applications, there's really no reason to set it other than Native if that's an option or 2.2. It should have zero effect on the white point to affect yellow/brightness.

[jeffo]

Thank you,
Taking in consideration the web environment only (not print), If gamma value doesn't influence what we see on screen and color temperature could be 6500K, or any other value between 5000-5800K or set by our personal preferences and room light conditions, how can I know, before I choose a color, that what I physically see, represent the truly value on the screen? the same screen could be calibrated at 6500K or 5000K, or whatever according to our preferences right? There is a difference of color at least in perception.

[digitaldog]

Taking in consideration the web environment only (not print), If gamma value doesn't influence what we see on screen and color temperature could be 6500K, or any other value between 5000-5800K or set by our personal preferences and room light conditions, how can I know, before I choose a color, that what I physically see, represent the truly value on the screen? the same screen could be calibrated at 6500K or 5000K, or whatever according to our preferences right? There is a difference of color at least in perception.

Gamma will influence what you see outside ICC aware, color managed applications. Some browsers fall into that camp.
You can't target calibration for the web other than perhaps try to emulate sRGB as close as you can under the assumption others do the same (which is rarely the case). IOW, what you see and what other's see, especially on the internet and mobile devices is all over the planet.