How to calabrate my monitors

GR3Z

GR3Z

Messages
706
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, im after advice on how to cal my monitors, im using a two monitor setup on widows vista

My monitors are a dell 2407WFPb and a cheap AMW M171L

my images look different on either monitor (better on the dell) and look different to when ive had images printed

Id like to cal both monitors to look the same and to print what i see...

:thinking:
 
Have you got a Calibrator?

I doubt you can get accurate colours between the monitors without a calibration device of some kind. :shrug:

I bought a Datacolor Spyder 3 Pro a few weeks ago and my Desktop and Laptop now have the same colour rendition. Whether that will show itself to be correct when I edit my pics remains to be seen. ;)

At least I'm more comfortable to edit with my Laptop. :)
 
Spyder3 is a decent choice. I went with the colormunki as I wanted to do my own printer profiles too :)
 
Unless your video card has dual LUT's ( Look up tables ) you can calibrate both but if you then switch off your pc it's likely your second monitor will loose it's calibration. I use a Spyder system but wnen I switch off my pc the secondary monitor loses it's cal.
 
Check if your card can can support separate ICC profiles for each monitor, then calibrate with the necessary hardware as usual.
 
GR3Z said:
Must admit I've had some 6x4 prints done which had the saturation tweaked in pp and they looked crap, but fine on screen, just need to convince the missus we need one :)
Click to expand...

Not to muddy the water, but over the last few weeks I've had test prints done in Asda, Boots, Jacobs, Jessops and Max Spielmann and no two prints had the same colours or brightness.

Add to that different re-crops of already cropped images when I chose borderless prints, and I'm glad I don't print that often. At some point, when I have access to a scanner, I'm going to do a thread about the variability.

At least by calibrating my monitor I know I'm getting the picture right at my end. ;)
 
ChrisH said:
Unless your video card has dual LUT's ( Look up tables ) you can calibrate both but if you then switch off your pc it's likely your second monitor will loose it's calibration. I use a Spyder system but wnen I switch off my pc the secondary monitor loses it's cal.
Click to expand...

There is software that will do that job for you - I used it with y Spyder 2 although the newer Spyder 3 includes the appropriatre drivers I think.
 
GR3Z said:
Must admit I've had some 6x4 prints done which had the saturation tweaked in pp and they looked crap, but fine on screen, just need to convince the missus we need one :)
Click to expand...

Although the start is to calibrate the monitor, I'd suggest buying paper and using a proper custom profile for the paper.

If you buy paper from Fotospeed or Permajet they will do a custom profile free with their papers and you will probably see a bigger difference.

Colour management is a minefield.
 
redhed17 said:
Not to muddy the water, but over the last few weeks I've had test prints done in Asda, Boots, Jacobs, Jessops and Max Spielmann and no two prints had the same colours or brightness.

Add to that different re-crops of already cropped images when I chose borderless prints, and I'm glad I don't print that often. At some point, when I have access to a scanner, I'm going to do a thread about the variability.

At least by calibrating my monitor I know I'm getting the picture right at my end. ;)
Click to expand...

Your monitor may be fine but what colour space do you save your images? Many labs seem to prefer sRGB. If you save differently then your images will appear different.
 
Unless you have identical monitors then chances are the image will still look different on each monitor. I have a spyder 3 and a video card that supports separate luts. I had two identical monitors but one recently failed so I'm using an unmatching pair. Even though they are both calibrated they appear different, mainly in saturation etc. Still trying to get to the bottom of it though.
 
Andy_S_T said:
Unless you have identical monitors then chances are the image will still look different on each monitor. I have a spyder 3 and a video card that supports separate luts. I had two identical monitors but one recently failed so I'm using an unmatching pair. Even though they are both calibrated they appear different, mainly in saturation etc. Still trying to get to the bottom of it though.
Click to expand...

I too have dual setup. Cheaper monitors are pretty difficult to calibrate accurately. I have a cheapo and a more expensive one - both Samsung. One calibrates well the cheapo however is always brighter! No matter what I do.

Used Spyder and Colormunki - THe latter does a better job but still not quite right.
 
EOS_JD said:
Your monitor may be fine but what colour space do you save your images? Many labs seem to prefer sRGB. If you save differently then your images will appear different.
Click to expand...

I always save to sRGB when I convert from a RAW file. Most internet Browsers read sRGB and shops print in sRGB so I save in sRGB. ;)

Wait until you see the difference in the prints, it's amazing. :eek: I don't know why it's never mentioned. It can't just be my files that don't print out correctly. :shrug:
 
It probably is. Do a search on colour management or printer profiles here or in google. Massive subject.

Your prints will likely not come out right unless you use the correct profile for the paper/ink that you use - no matter whether your monitors are profiled or not.
 
Don't know whether any of this would be affected by the fact you are running a dual-screen setup.

I have managed to get prints to come out satisfactory (to my eye) compared to what I'm seeing on screen. With some caveats.

Caveat 1. What I see depends on the ambient lighting. This is true for what I see on screen and what I see on paper. For viewing on screen, to get the most subtle renditions of gradients and details in shadows I need to dim the lighting in the room. On paper, for the images to seem really vibrant, I need to look at them in strong natural light. Even so, the images on paper (seen with reflected light) don't seem able to match the luminosity of images on screen (seen with transmitted light). That said, the highly luminous screen versions can sometimes look unnaturally bright/vibrant/punchy to me, and there can be something very appealing/special about looking at a well done printed image.

Caveat 2. Even with a calibrated screen, what I see on screen depends hugely on the precise vertical angle at which I view the screen. I use QuickGamma to keep the screen gamma at 2.2, but by raising my head an inch or so from the position where QuickGamma shows as 2.2, I can get the gamma to show as 2.1. The impact of this is easily seen when viewing images - as I raise my head from the optimum position the image "flattens" in its contrast and colours, and if I move far enough up the colours become "washed out". As I lower my head from the optimum position the image becomes "harsher". These are exactly the same effects as I get in Photoshop by changing the gamma of an image.

Caveat 3. The paper finish and reflections from printed images confuse the issues. I find glossy paper gives a more punchy image but glossy prints are very prone to reflections. I find these reflections so distracting that I go for the lower reflection "silk" finish prints despite the loss in impact.

Getting prints to look like the screen version. I use a commercial printer who uses two makes of printer. For the printer they use for images of the size I want (A4 and 16x12 to date), they provide a profile for use in Photoshop. I edit images in sRGB, and then for a printed version the final steps are (a) convert image to the exact pixel dimensions needed for the size of print on the specified printer, (b) print-specific sharpening, and (c) convert the image using the printer profile. (And on the print order, tick the box for "don't auto-adjust the images".) The paper versions produced this way seem consistently to match the screen versions pretty well.

For this to work you need a calibrated screen.

Calibrating the screen. Having tried several free, software + eyes calibration techniques, I settled on QuickGamma. To test that the calibration is ok (or at least as good as I can get it) I use things like the Lagom Calibration Tests, Norman Koren's Monitor Calibration and Gamma page (starting about half way down, at the Gamma and Black Level chart), Imaging Resource's Monitor Calibration: Who needs it? page, and this Web Browser Colour Management Tutorial. Because the results seem ok I have never got round to buying a device.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Don't know whether any of this would be affected by the fact you are running a dual-screen setup.

I have managed to get prints to come out satisfactory (to my eye) compared to what I'm seeing on screen. With some caveats.

Caveat 1. What I see depends on the ambient lighting. This is true for what I see on screen and what I see on paper. For viewing on screen, to get the most subtle renditions of gradients and details in shadows I need to dim the lighting in the room. On paper, for the images to seem really vibrant, I need to look at them in strong natural light. Even so, the images on paper (seen with reflected light) don't seem able to match the luminosity of images on screen (seen with transmitted light). That said, the highly luminous screen versions can sometimes look unnaturally bright/vibrant/punchy to me, and there can be something very appealing/special about looking at a well done printed image.

Caveat 2. Even with a calibrated screen, what I see on screen depends hugely on the precise vertical angle at which I view the screen. I use QuickGamma to keep the screen gamma at 2.2, but by raising my head an inch or so from the position where QuickGamma shows as 2.2, I can get the gamma to show as 2.1. The impact of this is easily seen when viewing images - as I raise my head from the optimum position the image "flattens" in its contrast and colours, and if I move far enough up the colours become "washed out". As I lower my head from the optimum position the image becomes "harsher". These are exactly the same effects as I get in Photoshop by changing the gamma of an image.

Caveat 3. The paper finish and reflections from printed images confuse the issues. I find glossy paper gives a more punchy image but glossy prints are very prone to reflections. I find these reflections so distracting that I go for the lower reflection "silk" finish prints despite the loss in impact.

Getting prints to look like the screen version. I use a commercial printer who uses two makes of printer. For the printer they use for images of the size I want (A4 and 16x12 to date), they provide a profile for use in Photoshop. I edit images in sRGB, and then for a printed version the final steps are (a) convert image to the exact pixel dimensions needed for the size of print on the specified printer, (b) print-specific sharpening, and (c) convert the image using the printer profile. (And on the print order, tick the box for "don't auto-adjust the images".) The paper versions produced this way seem consistently to match the screen versions pretty well.

For this to work you need a calibrated screen.

Calibrating the screen. Having tried several free, software + eyes calibration techniques, I settled on QuickGamma. To test that the calibration is ok (or at least as good as I can get it) I use things like the Lagom Calibration Tests, Norman Koren's Monitor Calibration and Gamma page (starting about half way down, at the Gamma and Black Level chart), Imaging Resource's Monitor Calibration: Who needs it? page, and this Web Browser Colour Management Tutorial. Because the results seem ok I have never got round to buying a device.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to reply with such detailed and valuable response, Ive had a quick look at the links you have posted, just need to fine time to go through them properly... Once again ***
 
GR3Z said:
Thanks for taking the time to reply with such detailed and valuable response, Ive had a quick look at the links you have posted, just need to fine time to go through them properly... Once again ***
Click to expand...

You are very welcome. It took me ages to sort this out and if this helps to make it easier/quicker for you and others, or at least gets you part way there, then that would be great.

I should have given a link for QuickGamma. You can find it here.

There is another "checking gamma by eyeballing" page here. The advantage of this one is that it deals with colour. You have to try to adjust things so the colours pretty much disappear, but FWIW even though the gamma correction on my screen seems quite good by checking against those other links I gave, I have never managed to completely get rid of the colours on this page. Somewhat similarly, the Lagom Calibration tests I linked to seem to be extremely demanding, and I have not achieved the very finest of the shadow and highlight distinctions that those tests present - almost all, yes, but absolutely all, no. I have no idea whether using a hardware calibration device would get me all the way with these tests - quite possibly not though as it probably depends on the screen's capabilities, and while my screen is not too bad, it is not top of the range.
 
Last edited:
You cannot calibrate a monitor using software. Your eye, my eye his eyes are all different. You really need hardware calibration.

We all perceive colour slightly differently
 
GR3Z said:
I'm not sure it's a a nvidia 8800 gtx
Click to expand...

I have the 8800GTX with dual monitors and my spyder in the StudioSR set calibrate both monitors with no problems. Monitor profiles are installed every time the system boots..
 
EOS_JD said:
You cannot calibrate a monitor using software.....You really need hardware calibration.
Click to expand...

Hmm....

From on line discussions of images over several years (including some rather detailed discussions about precisely what one can discern of particular subtle details, colours, textures, noise, detail in shadows and highlights etc in a particular image), I seem to be able to see as much as the folk with whom I have these detailed discussions (if they are using calibrated screens).

The on-screen colours, contrast and micro-contrast look satisfactory to me and allow me to have meaningful on line discussions with others about these aspects of images without running into problems and confusion about what we are actually seeing (when the other person is operating with a calibrated screen).

What I get from prints looks satisfactorily similar to what I see on screen.

All the tests I have run with the patterns etc that I linked to suggest that there is very little room for further improvement. Practical experiments have shown that the rather modest potential improvements would be heavily outweighed by continuously operating factors such as moving my head by tiny amounts from the optimum position and not frequently and accurately enough adjusting the position of the blinds on my windows to optimise the ambient light.

So I'm afraid I don't yet understand why I really need hardware calibration. I would need sufficient benefits to justify the cost, but it seems that the relatively minor potential benefits would be imperceptible within the rather larger operational variability of the setup. And in addition, my setup already operates to my satisfaction for my purposes, my vision, my colour sense, my screen, my PC, my graphics card, and the discussions I have on line about my and other people's images.
 
Last edited:
If you are happy no need to upset the applecart. I'm not saying every monitor will require it - But if you want a consistent output (by that I mean across labs who may print your images) then ideally you want to be sure that what they are getting is consistent.

If you're happy then I agree - don't change.
 
EOS_JD said:
If you're happy then I agree - don't change.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Despite my earlier comments, I wouldn't want to push this software+eye calibration thing too far. I'm sure using a hardware calibrator would be quicker and easier, and it might well produce better results, especially for those who don't have sufficient time, patience, attention to detail, eyesight, and perhaps also a cooperative screen setup.

In terms of screens, something you wrote earlier in this thread gave me pause for thought - "Cheaper monitors are pretty difficult to calibrate accurately. I have a cheapo and a more expensive one - both Samsung. One calibrates well the cheapo however is always brighter! No matter what I do. Used Spyder and Colormunki - THe latter does a better job but still not quite right." Even a hardware calibrator can be less than perfect it seems. I vaguely recall that reading some similar comments were what held me back from finally pressing the button on buying a hardware calibrator and persevering with the software + eye approach.

I seem to recall there are some calibrators that have a sensor that you can leave around (away from the screen) that changes the calibration as the ambient light changes. Now that is something I could be very interested in. Perhaps I should re-research this.:)
 
GardenersHelper said:
:thumbs:

In terms of screens, something you wrote earlier in this thread gave me pause for thought - "Cheaper monitors are pretty difficult to calibrate accurately. I have a cheapo and a more expensive one - both Samsung. One calibrates well the cheapo however is always brighter! No matter what I do. Used Spyder and Colormunki - THe latter does a better job but still not quite right." Even a hardware calibrator can be less than perfect it seems. I vaguely recall that reading some similar comments were what held me back from finally pressing the button on buying a hardware calibrator and persevering with the software + eye approach.
Click to expand...

That is not so much a failing in the "hardware calibrator" as a problem with cheapo monitors with rubbish flat panels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top