Re: Monitor Calibration and digital negatives

From: Tom Ferguson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/22/05-10:43:07 AM Z
Message-id: <>

I have made posts like this one a few times on various groups. I always
worry that I'll come off sounding rude or snobby......... there are a
small number of people who just "can't" do a good job with a visual
monitor calibrator. It has nothing to do with the quality of vision or
talent. I have a good friend who is a very talented commercial
photographer. Three times a year I would run Adobe Gamma for him, he
simply couldn't do it himself. I would try to teach him, we would both
end up frustrated, I eventually stop trying to teach him. He eventually
bought a spyder.

For MOST folks Gamma/OSX calibrator really does work well. I've found
that "blurred vision" trick really helps. The "trick" with these
systems is to say "the two blocks are now ABOUT the same TONE". If you
try and compare pixel to pixel, you'll fail. The trick "for me" was to
blur my vision and ignore my perfectionist tendencies. If I adjust my
CRTs with the OSX visual calibrator and then with my puck, going back
and forth between the two profiles shows very little difference. The
main thing I gain from the puck based system is consistency. With
Gamma/OSX calibrator I will be "just slightly" warm one month and "just
slightly" bright the next month. Typically I would only notice it if I
did an a-b on the two profiles. The original post in this thread
complained about a 1 1/2 zone error, I'm talking about a 1/3 zone
difference. With the spyder, I usually can't tell the new and old
profiles apart.

The perfectionist in me LOVES that!

If Gamma/OSX calibrator doesn't work for you, then the puck based
systems are great. If you are dealing with "highly" accurate color
jobs, the puck based systems are great. Much of my commercial work goes
to 4 color presses, so I wanted/needed a puck. A photographer working
on final color art prints off of a calibrated inkjet might want/need a
puck based system.

But, in my experience, "most" folks can run Gamma/OSX calibrator well
if they squint. Also, from my experience, it gives that same set of
"most people" more than enough accuracy for alt work and "family
snapshot" type inkjet printing (and it is FREE rather than hundreds of
US dollars). Just how much monitor color accuracy do most alt printer
need, can anyone here really print a 3 color gum repeatedly to 1/3 stop
accuracy..... even Christina or Sam???????

But, Don is correct, it doesn't work for everyone :-(

On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, at 05:16 AM, Don Bryant wrote:

> Tom and all,
>> For monochrome alt work, they may be overkill.
> I've read this comment quite a few times from various sources on the
> internet and I have to disagree at least based on my experience.
> After using monitor calibration hardware and software my monochrome
> display
> was much more accurate than when adjusting the monitor by eye.
>> If you are on a Mac with OSX you have a very nice optical (use your
>> eyes to measure) monitor calibrator built into the operating system.
>> Go
>> to System Pref > Displays > Color > Calibrate. Use the expert mode.
>> If you are on a pc "AND" have Photoshop or Illustrator installed, you
>> also have a small Adobe app called "Gamma" installed on your system.
>> It
>> is very similar to the Mac calibrator. It has been too long since I
>> set
>> up a PC screen, I can't remember where to find this or the setting to
>> use. But, It worked nicely on the PC.
> Again I will say that monitor adjustment using calibration hardware vs.
> using the Adobe gamma program was superior with color and monochrome
> images.
> My 2 cents,
> Don Bryant
Tom Ferguson
Received on Tue Feb 22 10:43:27 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/01/05-02:06:55 PM Z CST