 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007Calibration - do you practice safe colour management? (O:
I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- personal post or two... (O; Why not get your keyboard working and share your experiences or opinions here, good or bad, about calibration of both monitor and printer, and colour management in general..? Here's my *abbreviated* attempt to explain my rather non-conventional, highly un-recommended approach. If there is sufficient interest, I have a much longer and more detailed exposition I can post... Note the comments here apply to CRT monitors. I have not dealt with high-end LCD's, and have an intense hatred of cheap ones... maybe someone else can address this area? Executive Summary: =============== Having gone down the painful road of colour management, I don't use it any more. (Flame away, C-M purists!) Instead, and in brief, I adjust the *printer driver settings* to get the best results from the printer on known test images. I then adjust the monitor to get good black point and gamma, and tweak it via the display driver to get a *reasonable* match to the prints. I do agonise over black point and gamma, but I don't agonise over getting a perfect print/monitor match. After all, even crappy monitors usually have >500:1 contrast ratio, but your prints are lucky to get anywhere near 100:1. Your monitor is transmissive, your paper is reflective. Your monitor uses RGB additive, your printer uses CMYK subtractive... So who are we kidding - how could they *possibly* match anyway..? (grin) And that's it. My screen gives me a 'good' representation of what the prints will look like. And for anything really important, I will do a small test strip first anyway so I can nail the real thing. The settings are in the printer driver, so they work for all software - for me, still using many legacy non-c-m-savvy programs, that it is a real bonus... Finally, I also suggest that monitor colour temp be set to 6500K or thereabouts, for the best colour performance. Check yours - you may be surprised to find that it is set, out of the box, at 9200K or thereabouts. Don't be too shocked when you change it! - give it a try for a few days before you decide to go back. Interested in all comments, positive or negative. If anyone is interested in the detailed version, let me know. | I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- | personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | point and gamma, and tweak it via the display driver to get a | *reasonable* match to the prints. brilliant! This is the approach I've taken for years.. and one which meets wih much criticism until the open minded critic sits and watches while I calibrate their machine/printer and then .. :) I had one student from a reknown Vet family who has a pair of degrees and a doctorate under her belt as well as an advanced dip of photog sputter that she'd learned more in 15 min watching the process than she'd learned in 3 years at college | monitors usually have >500:1 contrast ratio, but your prints are lucky | to get anywhere near 100:1. Your monitor is transmissive, your paper | is reflective. Your monitor uses RGB additive, your printer uses CMYK | subtractive... So who are we kidding - how could they *possibly* | match anyway..? (grin) AND to top it off - the whole whole concept of colour management (as it stands) is based on the *graphic designers* concept of colour - that iirespective of the viewing light - colour A is colour A. We as photographers have totally different colour perception based ON perception, what the mind recalls NOT what combination of YMCK makes up a colour. We photographers hijacked this and tried to amke it our own, but it failed. I worked with a large graphics/printing mob briefly in the East who were dead keen to develop this concept further as they were gut sick of photographers and colour management. (these guys actually chared canon, epson & ilford to create the profiles for the respective companies so they were not small time) They had no issues with the graphics guys (whove had digital as a professional tool a lot longer than we have) and who understood RIPs, RGB>YMCK conversions etc.. another thing - so few seem to know we're not even working with ymck but mostly ymckpmpc or ympmcpcrgk or ympmcpcklk (!) the graphics guys work with ymck, unless a photographer is printing out of a cheap assed 4 colour printer, we do not. The print driver/RIP makes this conversion.. | And that's it. My screen gives me a 'good' representation of what the | prints will look like. And for anything really important, I will do a | small test strip first anyway so I can nail the real thing. just like with RA4 in wet chemical days ;) Which was in fact what led me to abandon the whole CM thing one day when I was checking the chemistry and rnning test strips through the RA4 at college - we didn't rely on a 'calibration value' at the printing stage, we certainly never dripped a print under the densitometer to see if it was 'right' - you used your EYES to judge the print and a good printer could rely on their *eyes* .. some dodgy ones tried to use densitometers to make prints 'right' but they lacked the skill, he experience and the talent and ultimately it showed. LEARNING to print was the art and the skill. The calibration was to make sure the RA4 processor chemistry was right.. nothing more. It followed that getting the printer right was step 1, the monitor was then adjusted to reflect the print - after all, the print was to be the final output - why complicate things by calibration fom the front forwards when you could start at the end ;) I made up some swatched and a 'shirly', used Irfanview to make a ringaround with a set variations and away I went .. just like printing with chemistry :) Next step was to make an 8x10 ringaround which I send out to labs when I'm anticipating having a print made by said company. When they print it I evaluate it, decide what correction factor is needed for my prints (say +5G -15B -10 contrast) then I bung the files to be printed in a folder, batch process them, burn and send them off. bingo. nothing simpler :) | Interested in all comments, positive or negative. positive. All positive :) Nice to hear someone else is getting it and coming to the same conclusion! I started writing up a 'package' 3 years back about this same thing but was met with hostility and bloody mindedness so much that I abandoned it.. A few people took to it, and a few lecturers wanted to know more about it but I sort of held it close to my chest except for the odd few. had a few wines tonight and should probably have replied to this tomorrow but you got me fired up ;) karl : | I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- : | personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : karl Colour management is a tricky issue. I know how frustrating it can be trying to get a colour correct photo from your home PC but really and truly... There is no substitute for using paper and printer ICM profiles with a printing program able to use them on a properly colour balanced system. This is after all Usenet and anyone can post whatever they want - be it truthful or not. Anyone having problems printing from Photoshop can usually overcome it by switching off colour management altogether until they understand how to deal with it. Using 6500 kelvin colour on your CRT monitor will not help you eventually getting it right. CRT monitors need to be calibrated at a higher colour temperature to offset the effects of natural light falling on the screen which in most rooms will falsify the colours you see on the screen at the lower settings. It is the reverse effect of white balance on a camera. Douglas I would suggest that in maybe 90% of cases, no natural light falls on a computer screen. Most would be used indoors with some form of electric light in the room.  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : CRT monitors need to be calibrated at a higher colour temperature to offset : the effects of natural light falling on the screen which in most rooms will : falsify the colours you see on the screen at the lower settings. It is the : reverse effect of white balance on a camera. : : Douglas :I would suggest that in maybe 90% of cases, no natural light falls on : a computer screen. Most would be used indoors with some form of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: :: Douglas Be pedantic then... Natural room lighting Happy now? > :I would suggest that in maybe 90% of cases, no natural light falls on > : a computer screen. Most would be used indoors with some form of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Happy now? and before we go down this path.... remember the start of the post kiddies... "I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- personal post or two... (O;" > <mark.thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message ... > | Having gone down the painful road of colour management, I don't use it > | any more. (Flame away, C-M purists!) Instead, and in brief, I adjust [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wih much criticism until the open minded critic sits and watches while I > calibrate their machine/printer and then .. Thanks for the support - it's nice to know that I'm not alone.. (O: Your comments and experiences mirror mine.. > I started writing up a 'package' 3 years back about this same thing but was > met with hostility and bloody mindedness so much that I abandoned it.. It's really interesting you should mention this. I too wanted to go down this path and set up something - even if it wasn't salable, just a free how-to webpage.. My idea was to combine this basic approach with a *further* step - namely the ability to refine or speed up the printer adjustment process using any available flatbed scanner to help in the colour tweaking... I bounced the idea off a few folk, and received the same 'almost hostile' response. I still believe it has merit, but have not looked at it any further. If anyone knows of any references on a simple methodology of using a generic scanner in the printer calibration process, let me know... > had a few wines tonight and should probably have replied to this tomorrow > but you got me fired up ;) Well, you made sense to me! cheers, mt > I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- > personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > If anyone is interested in the detailed version, let me know. Interesting you bring this up right now! I am in the process of setting up an ICC colour profile for a frontier.... not because it is the best way to go about it, but because it is expected, and some who know just a little too much to be dangerous demanding it! IMHO, nothing can beat a colour swatch in hand (printed on your prefferred machine)with a decent greyscale for gamma correction), the most regular room lighting you will be correcting under, and the same digital file on screen! every program and profile under the sun can not come close to using a trained eye! I then make a point of allowing for correcting from reflected media vs. a monitor.... and ensure I am correcting against my prefferred print finnish. simple and very effective! as you rightly pointed out... before any significant printing, a small test print confirms the set-up. alas, when all is said and done..... I will still be having to set-up the ICC profile.... just for the sake of having the box ticked! A waste of time in my opinion...... but some people... oh well... back to my headache! kosh : > I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- : > personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] : : kosh Hey Kosh... Obviously you don't have a 16 year old driving your printer. sRGB is actually a very good ICC profile for 95% of digital images, which equates to almost every consumer camera on the market. What profile are you trying to use/develop? You do realize the differences in paper from various batches? On 100% consumer printing with sRGB as the default, it has little effect but if you have client's asking for profiled output, it could have a substantial effect with said 16 yo at the helm. Douglas > : > I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- > : > personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > equates to almost every consumer camera on the market. What profile are you > trying to use/develop? the issue is exporting it and making it as clear as mud for people to utilise ti for a fully colour managed workflow. You do realize the differences in paper from various > batches? of course > On 100% consumer printing with sRGB as the default, it has little effect but > if you have client's asking for profiled output, it could have a substantial > effect with said 16 yo at the helm. have you ever actually shot in AdobeRGB and printed a comparison? chalk and cheese! > Douglas : > : > I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- : > : > personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] : have you ever actually shot in AdobeRGB and printed a comparison? chalk : and cheese! Yes I have and do regularly shoot in Adobe RGB, Kosh... You are right about the difference too of course. I was just curious about why you were doing it yourself when drycreek have some excellent profiles for Fuji printers at (what I thought) were reasonable prices. > : > : > I know it is against the mainstream, but how about an ontopic, non- > : > : > personal post or two... (O; [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > yourself when drycreek have some excellent profiles for Fuji printers at > (what I thought) were reasonable prices. because I am a pedantic bastard who won't pay for someone else to do something when I can do myself and have a sometimes frustrating desire to know things intimately rather than accept something like this at face value! and who knows... I might learn a thing or 2! and finally..... just have a look at how many threads on this newsgroup start whith "Where to get cheap prints" .... at the margins currently being made on digital printing.... paying of a several thousand dollar machine, staff to pay, rent, power wages and oh yeah.... make any form of profit to ensure I still have a job next week,..... I switch the ights of to save a few bucks when I can. running a photo lab can very easily cause your bank account to leak like a siv...... No un-necessary spending! Why do you think so many labs have had to close........ and were left with Hardley Norman drones who don't know what a bloody shutter speed is and think magenta is the latest band! kosh > > Yes I have and do regularly shoot in Adobe RGB, Kosh... You are right about > > the difference too of course. I was just curious about why you were doing it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > kosh Feel better after that? Hardly Normal is the least of your concerns Kosh. Hewlett Packard are about to become the real threat. Snapfish is the new evil. 5x7 for a buck???? Yep. Better switch the processor off as well as the lights mate. Maybe I was lucky, maybe it was just timely but we got into digital and wide format canvas printing just as HN were ramping up their in-store labs and doing the industry over with 27¢ prints. What's in that? About 3.67¢ each? hardly enough to pay $2300 a month in rent, is it? Good luck anyway... It's not pedantic, it's just small business survival technique number 16. >>>Yes I have and do regularly shoot in Adobe RGB, Kosh... You are right > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Good luck anyway... It's not pedantic, it's just small business survival > technique number 16. actually, not such a small business..... hence it's too easy to spring a leak..... and all too easy to have cost blow-outs.... thanks god for film.... and other services! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.