Calibration: How do I know what's real?

[kevs]

I just bought a new Mac 27" and did the Spyder 3 calibration which I had not done in awhile anyway. It's looks fine, but I thought maybe it looks like a warming filter thrown over a cool blue scene. i.e. Seeing it with the with vs. without calibration at the end button.

Here is the question: How do you know it's accurate? Sure I love Datacolor, but there is no consensus tool and says, yes they did a great job, and your monitor is 100 accurate/ calibrated, correct?

Also, isn't it subjective or not?  Honestly, the non calibrated looks nice. It's more neutral tone, but blue, kind of like how I remember shooting at the beach. The "calibrated" is much warmer. They both are fine to look at, and over time my eyes will adjust to either. What is the truth?

[AlterEgo]

Here is the question: How do you know it's accurate?

with Spyder of that old version ? most probably not... https://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

so buy i1DisplayPro

[kevs]

Ugh, hoping not to change the topic about equipment wars.

[AlterEgo]

What is the truth?

if you print then the truth is the match between monitor and what you print, under the same illumination... now if you don't print at all then it gets tricky

[AlterEgo]

Ugh, hoping not to change the topic about equipment wars.

this is not war this is just the fact - DataColor Spyder 3 was/is junk... we hear that with each iteration DataColor makes better and better colorimeters ( 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 )... may be so, but Spyder 3 was properly tested by DryCreek and nowhere else their results were disproven since then.

[kevs]

Good point Alter. I used to print a lot, but sold my Epson and am not printing for myself currently.  As for Spyder, yeah, I'm open to new device, do you have a link to what you would recommend?

[AlterEgo]

As for Spyder, yeah, I'm open to new device, do you have a link to what you would recommend?

not me - but it is quite a consensus that i1DisplayPro is the best option (BasiCColor Discus costs ~5-6 times more)... now if you want to save money, OK with slower process and sure that you are not going to buy/use monitors that are can be hardware calibrated (Eizo, Nec, top models from Dell, HP, LG, Samsung, Benq, etc) you can buy ColorMunki __Display__ colorimeter - precision wise it is the same as i1DisplayPro colorimeter, but the speed is crippled by X-Rite and most (if not all) software from the likes of NEC or rebranded X-Rite will refuse to use it with such monitors...

[howardm]

with Spyder of that old version ? most probably not... https://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

so buy i1DisplayPro

I just bought a new Mac 27" and did the Spyder 3 calibration which I had not done in awhile anyway. It's looks fine, but I thought maybe it looks like a warming filter thrown over a cool blue scene. i.e. Seeing it with the with vs. without calibration at the end button.

Here is the question: How do you know it's accurate? Sure I love Datacolor, but there is no consensus tool and says, yes they did a great job, and your monitor is 100 accurate/ calibrated, correct?

Also, isn't it subjective or not?  Honestly, the non calibrated looks nice. It's more neutral tone, but blue, kind of like how I remember shooting at the beach. The "calibrated" is much warmer. They both are fine to look at, and over time my eyes will adjust to either. What is the truth?

You dont know if it's accurate.  That ultimately requires either multiple different units or a traceable precision unit.  There are any number of semi-lab and lab grade units out there if you want (like the Jeti or Konica).  If you assemble a grouping of >2 units then you start understanding the differences and errors involved.

No, it's NOT subjective at all.  Your biases, vision, and experience may define what you like but that doesn't say anything about accuracy.

[Doug Gray]

What's real?

This really is about two different things in photography. The monitor and the printer.

When I make a new printer profile I often check the profile by printing one of the synthetic images of a Colorchecker. I use Photoshop and print it using Absolute Colorimetric. I expect it to match an actual Colorchecker with no perceivable differences when viewed in sunlight. It's best to use a paper that doesn't have optical brighteners or use a profile that was made using M2 measurements. I trim the white edges and compare the two.

Checking a monitor and profile combination really has to be done with an instrument and software that reads out Lab values. Create a monitor profile that is 100 cd/m^2 and D50. You can use the same Colorchecker image, zoom on patches, and read out their Lab values. Except for the cyan patch which is outside sRGB profiled monitors, they should match within a few DeltaEs. Some instruments have software that will do a patch verify so if yours' does you can skip this. Also, the Argyll CMS has some utilities you can use to do this.

[AlterEgo]

Create a monitor profile that is 100 cd/m^2 and D50. You can use the same Colorchecker image, zoom on patches, and read out their Lab values.

that does not guarantee that your display (physical device) actually display your Lab values properly...

[Mark D Segal]

I just bought a new Mac 27" and did the Spyder 3 calibration which I had not done in awhile anyway. It's looks fine, but I thought maybe it looks like a warming filter thrown over a cool blue scene. i.e. Seeing it with the with vs. without calibration at the end button.

Here is the question: How do you know it's accurate? Sure I love Datacolor, but there is no consensus tool and says, yes they did a great job, and your monitor is 100 accurate/ calibrated, correct?

Also, isn't it subjective or not?  Honestly, the non calibrated looks nice. It's more neutral tone, but blue, kind of like how I remember shooting at the beach. The "calibrated" is much warmer. They both are fine to look at, and over time my eyes will adjust to either. What is the truth?

It could be that there is a mismatch between the measurement capability of the Spyder 3 in terms of its gamut coverage and your new iMac Display, the latter perhaps being wider gamut than the former. Regardless of whether or not the Spyder 3 is a piece of junk (never used one, but never heard anything good about it either) this factor alone could explain an inadequate profile.

Furthermore, the software should include an internal consistency verification test of the profile it creates. This is called "validation" in some software. Whether it validates anything or not has been debated ad nauseum, but at the least, once the profile is created it has the merit of testing whether with that profile the measurements of the patches the test projects on the display more or less equal the reference values for those patches. If it does, at least you know there is internal consistency in terms of the profile correctly returning the references values of its own construction target.

Because your display is your window into the rest of your workflow on which you will probably be expending a lot on paper and ink, it is likely economic to invest in a quality instrument and software.

[AlterEgo]

It could be that there is a mismatch between the measurement capability of the Spyder 3 in terms of its gamut coverage

colorimeter is a like a photo camera (sensor + filters), input device - it does not have gamut in a colorimetric sense...  and then because it can't record the emitted spectrum (colorimeter is not spectrometer) it needs calibration data for the software behind it to work properly for a particular LCD panel

[kevs]

Thanks guys, great info. Ok so for now, being that I am no longer printing, then in a way it does not matter nearly as much?  So this is not subjective, there is ' calibrated monitor', but it takes the best equipment. I just bought a brand new imac 27", so I'm staying with that display.

[AlterEgo]

then in a way it does not matter nearly as much?

if you are not printing then what is your target ? if your target is you using the same display then may be - but if you share with smb then think what they use to view your pictures ? for example if you family are all using "iPads" then consider "iPad" as a "print" 

[kevs]

I will have others print. And I make pdfs for clients.

[AlterEgo]

I will have others print. And I make pdfs for clients.

so you earn money from photo/processing and one can assume you have a business then no brainer to buy a decent device, will be a business expense, no ? ...

[BobShaw]

I found that the Spyder 3 did not calibrate correctly with the iMac. The calibration did not adjust the screen brightness correctly. I bought the Spyder 4 and it was fine. I have since learnt that the Spyder 3 also works with other calibration software, but not Datacolor.
However the Spyder 3 is definitely a lesser product.
What is real? Get 10 people lined up and ask them the colour of a dress and you get 11 answers. That is subjective.
You can only compare the colour of the print side by side with the original.
Does it matter? If you are doing Art Reproduction or product then probably yes. Otherwise usually not.

[Mark D Segal]

colorimeter is a like a photo camera (sensor + filters), input device - it does not have gamut in a colorimetric sense...  and then because it can't record the emitted spectrum (colorimeter is not spectrometer) it needs calibration data for the software behind it to work properly for a particular LCD panel

I've adopted a policy of not getting into discussions or arguments with screen names, so this will be the end of my participation in this thread. All I'm saying is that some colorimeters are capable of measuring wide gamut displays properly and others are not. Perhaps the Spyder 3 is not, as it is several generations earlier than the O/P's iMac. That's all.

[AlterEgo]

I've adopted a policy of not getting into discussions or arguments with screen names, so this will be the end of my participation in this thread.

how is that related to the fact that colorimeter is input device ?

All I'm saying is that some colorimeters are capable of measuring wide gamut displays properly and others are not.

they are all capable - the issue with that Spyder is that it really needs (software that is used w/ it) supplied with proper panel correction based on spectrometer measurements and the OP does not apparently have spectrophotometer to do this... albeit calibration files are available to download (see DisplayCAL database), but then you really need your monitor + your colorimeter for the proper outcome when you are using spectrometer

Perhaps the Spyder 3 is not, as it is several generations earlier than the O/P's iMac. That's all.

wide gamut panels predate Spyder 3 launch... for example NEC 2690WUXi... and then it failed even on standard gamut (see DryCreek test) test miserably... see unit to unit variations in that test

[GWGill]

now if you want to save money, OK with slower process and sure that you are not going to buy/use monitors that are can be hardware calibrated (Eizo, Nec, top models from Dell, HP, LG, Samsung, Benq, etc) you can buy ColorMunki __Display__ colorimeter

For those on a really small budget, I've found that the ColorMunki Smile is surprisingly good. It seems much better than the preceding units that it physically resembled (i1d1, i1d2 etc.).  It's disadvantages compared to the ColorMunki Display are that it is not as good at low light levels (no light capture optics), and doesn't have the display type calibration capabilities (no per-unit spectral curves in it, just two factory matrices). But I have a suspicion that the filters it uses are almost the same as the i1d3.