Monitor Calibration/Colour Profiles

I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles.
I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read, play
with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go straight
over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it's time to grab the bull by
the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.

What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop
they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The
images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high
street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not so
interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued now.
I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the colors were
not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer, etc) and so
uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working space,
it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor profile, or
the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more saturated and the
shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they go, sRGB, Spyder,
Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and the most colour
saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the Dell profile is
mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the saturation looks about
the same, but looks more saturated because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best
results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my monitor
is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For example, I
can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards he
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

"Paul" wrote in message
...

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring
photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). Straight out of
camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:
http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg

Assigned Dell rgb profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

here is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but
its pretty effective -- especially if you use just one lab.

Some people, certainly, but not all.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide
you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand,
you adjust your monitor to their machine -- when the monitor and the
print look the same, you're done. It's pretty simple but incredibly
effective.

This sounds like something I'd like to recommend to people who ask this
question in the future. Do you have a link for this?

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Not a disadvantage - No method works without a reasonably consistent lab.

--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:22:33 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

"Paul" wrote in message
...

Just for info, here is a shot for demonstration (OK, a bit old and a boring
photo, but it shows the colour and shadow differences). Straight out of
camera, just resized and sharpened:

sRGB profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2copmj7.jpg

Assigned Spyder rgb profile:
http://i38.tinypic.com/214tdf9.jpg

Assigned Dell rgb profile:
http://i37.tinypic.com/25src5d.jpg

Spyder and Dell are very nearly the same, as they are on my Dell 24
2408 FWP Ultrasharp.



Eric Stevens

The short and curlies:
Monitor calibration/Photoshop color management does only one thing: try to
ensure that your monitor prints as objectively faithful a reproduction of
your monitor image as possible.
You have zip/nada/zero/no control over how these images will look in a
non-color managed program on your computer. You have no idea at all what it
will look like on someone else's computer, whether they are viewing it in a
color managed program or not. This is an inherent bugaboo for e-commerce
when trying to sell goods like clothing where perception of color can make
or break a sale.
You can tune a monitor to try to display a specified white and black point
(well you can try, it is nearly impossible with most commercial LCD panels
and HDTVs) the purpose of which is to reproduce as faithfully as possible a
specific gamut, like the NTSC standard (which is still tied to the defunt
CRT).

Paul wrote:
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour
profiles. I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I
can read, play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some
reason go straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it's
time to grab the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once
and for all.

What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop
they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The
images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high
street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not
so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued
now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the
colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer,
etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working
space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor
profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more
saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order
they go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest
shadows and the most colour saturation. The difference between the
Spyder and the Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker
shadows, the saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated
because of the shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best
results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my
monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For
example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards he
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.

I recently borrowed "an eye-one" monitor calibration device. I had
calibrated the monitor manually (using the Apple calibration tool.) I
guess I did a good job manually as with the eye one, the only difference
is a slightly 'greyer' look to the monitor. (And I mean very slight).

In your referenced page above I see all the squares, distinct levels
between them and even the webpage 'black' at #000000 v. the lowest
square (1) at #010101. This is a testament to the iMac LCD monitor. It
is great. (On my other monitor (Gateway) hooked to the same iMac,
squares 1 & 2 look the same, but lighter than the BG).

IOW: you Dell monitor is not that great. Don't be surprised, the
monitors bundled with computers are rarely very good.

I'd like to get a printer profiler such as the ColorMunki. Other
priorities include a new body and lenses, however.

I suggest you try:

-Prophoto RGB (which will not correct your monitor)
-for printing, proof on screen with:
View | Proof | Custom | Device: Working CYMK SWOP v2
Preview checked
Simulate paper colour checked.
Relative colorimetric

The above is shocking when you turn it on ... but then you adjust
for what you want on screen and you're much closer in print.

G'luck.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best
results?

I don't know about PS CS3 but I have some experience based on Photo
Paint.

I have a new Dell 24 2408WFP Ultrasharp monitor which I have colour
calibrated with the Datacolor Spyder. http://spyder.datacolor.com/

Unlike my previous Samsung, the color calibration of the Dell was
almost exactly spot on.

I have been using both Nikon D70 and D300 cameras. The calibrated
monitor does a wonderful job of displaying the original colours.

I have used the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter to calibrate my Epson
1800 printer and I have to say that while my prints are improved, they
are still lacking. The reason is made clear by the colour management
system of Photo Paint. When I give it the calibration curve for the
printer and ask Photo paint to display out-of-gamut colours, about 40%
of http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/...31408cb1_b.jpg
appears in red: that is, it's colours are beyond the range of colours
the printer can produce.

So ultimately, I have to produce files for printing which look good on
my monitor and employ colours which my printer can print. I expect you
will have the same problem.



Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:42:40 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best
results?

I don't know about PS CS3 but I have some experience based on Photo
Paint.

I have a new Dell 24 2408WFP Ultrasharp monitor which I have colour
calibrated with the Datacolor Spyder. http://spyder.datacolor.com/

Unlike my previous Samsung, the color calibration of the Dell was
almost exactly spot on.

I have been using both Nikon D70 and D300 cameras. The calibrated
monitor does a wonderful job of displaying the original colours.

I have used the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter to calibrate my Epson
1800 printer and I have to say that while my prints are improved, they
are still lacking. The reason is made clear by the colour management
system of Photo Paint. When I give it the calibration curve for the
printer and ask Photo paint to display out-of-gamut colours, about 40%
of http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/...31408cb1_b.jpg
appears in red: that is, it's colours are beyond the range of colours
the printer can produce.

So ultimately, I have to produce files for printing which look good on
my monitor and employ colours which my printer can print. I expect you
will have the same problem.



Eric Stevens

Since our last go round about the Spyder I acquired the Studio kit. I
ran the 200 plus calibration using the printing calibration meter for
Epson paper, its quite good for a first print. I say the image as
displayed in CSPS3 closely matches the onscreen image.....but maybe the
700 plus calibration would be 100% There will always be a disconnect
though from paper reflected imagery and back lit on screen...just a fact
of life

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

"Paul" wrote in message
...
I am trying to get my head around monitor calibration and colour profiles.
I am not a newbie to Photoshop and most things in Photoshop I can read,
play with and understand, but calibration/profiles for some reason go
straight over my head. Therefore, I have decided that it's time to grab
the bull by the horns and really try to understand it once and for all.

What I want to do is ensure that when I am adjusting photos in Photoshop
they are as accurate as possible. My whole workflow is in sRGB. The
images will be used mainly for web/email use and also sending to a high
street lab for photo printing. I rarely print from my inkjet, so am not
so interested in printer profiles.

I used to use Adobe Gamma, but I have found this has been discontinued
now. I bought a Colorvision Spyder Express2, but I could see that the
colors were not right (just using everyday apps like Internet Explorer,
etc) and so uninstalled it.

If I look at a photo on-screen in Photoshop, which is in sRGB working
space, it looks OK. But, if I assign a profile using the Dell monitor
profile, or the Spyder Express 2 profile, the colours become more
saturated and the shadows become darker. In saturation/shadow order they
go, sRGB, Spyder, Dell. The Dell profile having the darkest shadows and
the most colour saturation. The difference between the Spyder and the
Dell profile is mainly that the Dell profile has darker shadows, the
saturation looks about the same, but looks more saturated because of the
shadows.

So, anyone have any good links or advise on the best way to get the best
results?

FWIW, I am using the following:
Windows Vista
PS CS3
Dell 1707FPV LCD monitor

Also, when I look at sites such as http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ my
monitor is fine with highlights, but struggles to see some shadows. For
example, I can only distinguish from 4/5 onwards he
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php.


A Monitor Profile is a file which a Colour Managed Program uses to adjust
the Colours shown on your Monitor.

After you have Calibrated and Profiled your Monitor using the Spyder the
Monitor Profile should automatically be used by Photoshop to adjust the
colours shown on screen.

You DO NOT assign it to anything. You DO NOT convert anything to it. It is
ONLY for use with your Monitor.

A Working Space Profile is a file which defines the colours used within your
Colour Managed Program.

sRGB is one of a number of Working Space Profiles which you could choose to
use, and is the nearest to the range of colours used in Web Browsers. When
you "Save" an image in photoshop, the Working Space Profile will be "Tagged"
onto it.

Internet Explorer is NOT Colour Managed, so sRGB is suitable.

Most High St Labs expect to receive images with the sRGB profile tagged on.
Except that some of them will send you a Printer Profile, so that you can
"Convert" from the "Tagged" on sRGB to it.

I would suggest you read the Photoshop "Help" files on Colour Management,
because a lot of the information supplied by some posters is more than a
little inaccurate.

Roy G

Mike Russell wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:14:53 -0700 (PDT), Pat wrote:

here is an old-school way to do that that people in this NG hate, but
its pretty effective -- especially if you use just one lab.

Some people, certainly, but not all.

Kodak makes a standard registration print that your lab can provide
you with. They mail you the print and email you the file. By hand,
you adjust your monitor to their machine -- when the monitor and the
print look the same, you're done. It's pretty simple but incredibly
effective.

This sounds like something I'd like to recommend to people who ask this
question in the future. Do you have a link for this?

It really only works, though, for good labs with consistent machines.

Not a disadvantage - No method works without a reasonably consistent lab.



Hey, Mike, long time no see! (This from rpd s-s). Nice to hear from you.

--
john mcwilliams