Monitor calibration colorimeter advice

footman

footman

Messages
4,695
Name
Laurence
Edit My Images
No
I have a late 2014 iMac with a retina 5K monitor. I've decided to get into printing my own photos and I'm getting a Canon Pixma Pro 100S printer for my birthday next week. I'd like some views about colorimeters please.
 
Hi

I don't print at home, but prefer my i1display pro compared to the spyder3pro I had as it would not calibrated dual monitors correct.
 
I use the iOne display , but you could opt for one of the Colormonki options options. If you want to profile your printer then the Colormonki Photo would be an option. However there is a significant price difference between the straight forward monitor calibrator and the Monitor and printer device. Besides ther are companies that wil profile your printer for a modest cost if you want it. I've also found that a lot of paper manufacturers "canned" profiles are very good.
 
I use the Spyder Pro 5 but don't use their software. I could never get consistant colours with their software and could never match my two screens. the issues is that they only read a small number of colour swatches and calibration is quick.

DisplayCal is free and give a much better calibration but it does take a long time. I can get both of my screens identical (1 x 5k imac and 1 x 2k iMac) but calibration does take around 3 hours per screen but then again is reads 500-600 colour swatches :)

Luckily, I only do it every few months. Actually did one last night and the other will be done tonight.
 
ecoleman said:
I use the Spyder Pro 5 but don't use their software. I could never get consistant colours with their software and could never match my two screens. the issues is that they only read a small number of colour swatches and calibration is quick.

DisplayCal is free and give a much better calibration but it does take a long time. I can get both of my screens identical (1 x 5k imac and 1 x 2k iMac) but calibration does take around 3 hours per screen but then again is reads 500-600 colour swatches :)

Luckily, I only do it every few months. Actually did one last night and the other will be done tonight.
Click to expand...
I tried displaycal on my machine and could not get it to profile both correctly, must be a user error in my case.
 
sep9001 said:
I tried displaycal on my machine and could not get it to profile both correctly, must be a user error in my case.
Click to expand...

It is a very complex bit of software and to be honest I know nothing about it. I pretty much choose the default settings but you have to ensure you choose the correct screen type and correct select your colorimeter.

Once you've set your screen brightness, I leave it to do it's thing.
 
Cheers for that got a pro100s recently and love the results just using the canon paper profiles- had bought an ip8750 but everything had a colour cast so was going to go for the colormunki- however as said results are better since - sent the ip8750 back-so pondering the extra £100 or so for the calibrator...

The Flickr widget thingy works when it feels like it- as a result I've hardly put anything up... Mach loop is the place to go... only in my humble opinion of course...IMG_1489858343.846628.jpg
 
footman said:
Thanks for the comments, I think I'll be going for the ColorMunki Display, I feel it's a good balance between cost and features.
http://www.wexphotographic.com/x-ri...duct=1526087&gclid=CIO0yaDQ39ICFQsR0wod1NMF1g
Click to expand...
After much deliberation I chose the ColorMunki Display and I'm very happy with it.
My projected images at our club look the same as they do on my screen, and my prints from DSCL also match the way they look on my screen.
I chose the Colormunki after reading the review here.

Edit: As per the suggestion in the review, DON'T enable ambient light adjustment when you use the calibrator.
In fact, when I'm done calibrating, I disconnect the Colormunki, since I found the constant blinking of it's pilot LED very distracting.
 
Last edited:
Over the weekend a graphic designer friend lent me his Spyder4Pro to play with. Setup was easy and I allowed it to test ambient light when it asked. After a full calibration of the iMac I was very disappointed, the result was a display much too dark to work with. After reading @Brian G talking about not enabling ambient light adjustment I had another go this morning.
Oddly the dialogue boxes were slightly different this time and I was not asked to make an ambient light reading. I did a full calibration rather than a re calibration (difference?) and this time the result was more acceptable.
The desktop image was very slightly darker but showed more detail in shadows, the overall effect being somewhat less blue and "electric" looking, generally a warmer effect.
I won't be able to test for printing with accurate colours until I get the printer next week. As you're all desperate to know the results I'll post back on here:D
 
Calibrated my iMac today ... only issue was when I tilted the monitor forward to help the spider sit flush with the screen I snagged the power lead... after a restart sorted it ..... all quite quick... the before and after view shows the monitor display is now brighter and slightly more vivid ... had used the ambient light process too...no printing done yet but will come back with an update...!
 
Ok initial prints looking a bit darker than both the display and what I'd like to see.... blues look a bit dark ( clothing) in particular and blue skies are a little grey/ washed out ... but with the shots I'm using it was a little grey that day as I recall... so maybe the backlit display is affecting that but the print is close to what I actually got on the day... went into the iMac display settings and reduced the brightness and that gets a closer result exposure wise but still the blue/ grey issue.... might have a go at re calibration tomorrow....interested to hear how footman is getting on....!
 
Canon brook said:
Ok initial prints looking a bit darker than both the display and what I'd like to see.... blues look a bit dark ( clothing) in particular and blue skies are a little grey/ washed out ... but with the shots I'm using it was a little grey that day as I recall... so maybe the backlit display is affecting that but the print is close to what I actually got on the day... went into the iMac display settings and reduced the brightness and that gets a closer result exposure wise but still the blue/ grey issue.... might have a go at re calibration tomorrow....interested to hear how footman is getting on....!
Click to expand...

Download DisplayCal. It's much more accurate that the 10 minute calibration offered by spyder software.
 
ecoleman said:
Download DisplayCal. It's much more accurate that the 10 minute calibration offered by spyder software.
Click to expand...

Just downloaded and used DisplayCal, it took 1hr 20mins to go through the calibration sequence. Difficult to assess objectively but this profile looks the best to me. As I said I can't print until next week.

Edit: My wife has had a look at a recent photo of us taken by a friend that our daughter wants framed.
She prefers the image when viewed with the 2nd Spyder profile and not the new DisplayCal profile and frankly so do I........aaargh, this is starting to do my head in:confused:
 
Last edited:
1h20. Damn your lucky. My calibration takes nearly 4 hours per screen, i have two.

Remember a calibrated screen is not about what you prefer or what you *think* looks better. It's about what is correct.

If you are not happy with your image then you probably need to reprocess it for the correctly calibrated screen.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Download DisplayCal. It's much more accurate that the 10 minute calibration offered by spyder software.
Click to expand...
OK. Just had a look at DisplayCal. Says I need Argyll CMS because I have no hardware.
Argyll CMS offers me 10 downloads. How do I know which to choose for Windows7?
Presumably not the Allpe/Linux variants, but what are all the rest?
argyll.JPG
 
mickledore said:
OK. Just had a look at DisplayCal. Says I need Argyll CMS because I have no hardware.
Argyll CMS offers me 10 downloads. How do I know which to choose for Windows7?
Presumably not the Allpe/Linux variants, but what are all the rest?
View attachment 98373
Click to expand...

Sorry, i cant help you here, I'm a Mac user and the installation just automatically downloads the correct argyll CMS and installs it as part of the DisplayCal installation.

My guess would be the third link - v1.9.2 main Microsoft Windows executables
 
isn't the idea of calibrating the screen that you calibrate it and then edit the images so that when they print they print as they are on screen? Looking at an existing image and comparing it on screen between profiles shouldn't matter should it since you should just edit it within the most accurate profile to the look that you want?
 
mickledore said:
OK. Just had a look at DisplayCal. Says I need Argyll CMS because I have no hardware.
Argyll CMS offers me 10 downloads. How do I know which to choose for Windows7?
Presumably not the Allpe/Linux variants, but what are all the rest?
View attachment 98373
Click to expand...

Click the Windows link - it takes you to a page to choose 32-bit or 64-bit versions.
 
Jonathan Jenkins said:
Click the Windows link - it takes you to a page to choose 32-bit or 64-bit versions.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Done that. Then I went to the installation instructions. What language is that? Sorry, but I don't understand geek speek. Ah well. Back to the drawing board.
 
Don't worry about the comp!Icated command lines. Argyll CMS is the engine and displayCal is the GUI.

Once installed everything is done through the GUI
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Don't worry about the comp!Icated command lines. Argyll CMS is the engine and displayCal is the GUI.

Once installed everything is done through the GUI
Click to expand...
Not sure about that.
Downloaded Display cal, but the Calibrate & Profile button is greyed out. Trawled through the options and it suggested I had to install the Argyll stuff. I let it do all that for me, but it still won't un-grey the button.
Something seems to be missing in the setup.
 
mickledore said:
Not sure about that.
Downloaded Display cal, but the Calibrate & Profile button is greyed out. Trawled through the options and it suggested I had to install the Argyll stuff. I let it do all that for me, but it still won't un-grey the button.
Something seems to be missing in the setup.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a try on my Windows laptop a bit later. Will have to find it and blow the dust of first.
Mac installation was very straight forward and I was up and running in no time.

This may help
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/learning/digital-darkroom/displaycal-and-argyll-cms-quick-start-guide/
 
Last edited:
footman said:
Just downloaded and used DisplayCal, it took 1hr 20mins to go through the calibration sequence. Difficult to assess objectively but this profile looks the best to me. As I said I can't print until next week.

Edit: My wife has had a look at a recent photo of us taken by a friend that our daughter wants framed.
She prefers the image when viewed with the 2nd Spyder profile and not the new DisplayCal profile and frankly so do I........aaargh, this is starting to do my head in:confused:
Click to expand...

The image might need re editing using the updated display...Wait till the printer comes and see how the print looks - the key is getting the printer output looking the same / similar to what's on your monitor- then when you edit ...if it looks right on screen you know the print will be the same... unfortunately I'm not quite getting that at the mo...!
 
ecoleman said:
Download DisplayCal. It's much more accurate that the 10 minute calibration offered by spyder software.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what you set up is? As in-
Do you use a spyder pro
Are you on an iMac
What's your printer
What's your opinion on the display view versus the print

Sorry to be a pain but it's a bit of a learning curve and tbh I thought the spyder software results would be better?
 
Canon brook said:
Can you tell me what you set up is? As in-
Do you use a spyder pro
Are you on an iMac
What's your printer
What's your opinion on the display view versus the print

Sorry to be a pain but it's a bit of a learning curve and tbh I thought the spyder software results would be better?
Click to expand...

I use a Spyder Pro 5 with DisplayCal. displayCal gives me a better more consistent calibration and makes my two screens identical side by side. I could never achieve that with the Spyder software. The two screens where always slightly different and every time I ran a calibration I got a slightly different result.

I have 2 iMacs (1 x 5K as the mains computer and an older 2012 (non 5K) iMac which I use as the second display.

Printer is Epson SC-P600 used with Marrut ink, Marrut papers and Marrutt supplied paper profiles.

My prints are pretty much spot on. You must remember to look at your print in the right light. Screens are backlit and your image will always appear brighter on screen. Soft proofing can help with this.

What you have to remember is that just because you calibrate your screen does not automatically mean that your prints will be perfect. Screen calibration is just the first step. Certainly with more expensive printers such as the Epson SC-P600/800 and the Canon 10/100 etc come with print profiles specifically for their inks and certain types of paper. I buy my inks and paper from Marrutt and they supply a standard set of profiles which can be installed and these appear to work very well for me. They will also provide a free print profile service if you buy their products where you print a set of colour swatches and post it to them. The will profile the print and send you a corrected profile based on your print.

If you have a cheaper, consumer printer then it not going to have specific colour profiles and will be there or thereabouts which is good enough for the average user.

You can buy consumer print profilers but they are quite expensive and as with screen calibration they will scan a smaller number of colours to build your profile so not as accurate as the commercial profiles which will scan more colours to get a more accurate profile. This is similar to Spyder software and DisplayCal. Spyder only scans a small number of colours, whereas default settings n DisplayCal scan around 660 colours.
 
I now seem to have DisplayCal working. Reinstalled it and kept saying yes to all its questions.
It's now churning away with my Spider 3 Pro and it tells me there is 1.5 hours left.
That means a lot of cups of coffee!
 
ecoleman said:
I use a Spyder Pro 5 with DisplayCal. displayCal gives me a better more consistent calibration and makes my two screens identical side by side. I could never achieve that with the Spyder software. The two screens where always slightly different and every time I ran a calibration I got a slightly different result.

I have 2 iMacs (1 x 5K as the mains computer and an older 2012 (non 5K) iMac which I use as the second display.

Printer is Epson SC-P600 used with Marrut ink, Marrut papers and Marrutt supplied paper profiles.

My prints are pretty much spot on. You must remember to look at your print in the right light. Screens are backlit and your image will always appear brighter on screen. Soft proofing can help with this.

What you have to remember is that just because you calibrate your screen does not automatically mean that your prints will be perfect. Screen calibration is just the first step. Certainly with more expensive printers such as the Epson SC-P600/800 and the Canon 10/100 etc come with print profiles specifically for their inks and certain types of paper. I buy my inks and paper from Marrutt and they supply a standard set of profiles which can be installed and these appear to work very well for me. They will also provide a free print profile service if you buy their products where you print a set of colour swatches and post it to them. The will profile the print and send you a corrected profile based on your print.

If you have a cheaper, consumer printer then it not going to have specific colour profiles and will be there or thereabouts which is good enough for the average user.

You can buy consumer print profilers but they are quite expensive and as with screen calibration they will scan a smaller number of colours to build your profile so not as accurate as the commercial profiles which will scan more colours to get a more accurate profile. This is similar to Spyder software and DisplayCal. Spyder only scans a small number of colours, whereas default settings n DisplayCal scan around 660 colours.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply... and the detail... I'm on iMac with a pro 100 printer , canon paper and using canon profiles... tbh the results aren't that bad at all but dropped on a spyder pro at the photography show ...I'll give displaycal a go...! Appreciate the backlight issue!

Can I ask how you are using soft proofing with your set up... think I've only seen it under print options...?
 
Canon brook said:
Thanks for the reply... and the detail... I'm on iMac with a pro 100 printer , canon paper and using canon profiles... tbh the results aren't that bad at all but dropped on a spyder pro at the photography show ...I'll give displaycal a go...! Appreciate the backlight issue!

Can I ask how you are using soft proofing with your set up... think I've only seen it under print options...?
Click to expand...

I use soft proofing in the print module and just load up the paper profile for the paper I'll be printing to. I must admit that clicking the simulate paper option doesn't seem to work very well and the image on the screen shows a duller, less contrasty image to what is actually printed, but it gives me an idea of the brightness of the print.
 
ecoleman said:
I use soft proofing in the print module and just load up the paper profile for the paper I'll be printing to. I must admit that clicking the simulate paper option doesn't seem to work very well and the image on the screen shows a duller, less contrasty image to what is actually printed, but it gives me an idea of the brightness of the print.
Click to expand...

It will be wrong if you have not calibrated your monitor to your computer, also a print is reflected light whereas a screen it emitted light. Most screen are too bright unless you have set it with your ambient light in the room.
 
I've been playing around all day with this sort of thing.
I found there is a monitor calibration tool in the Control Panel>Display function in Windows 7.
Far from the best, but far from the worst. May be worth looking into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top