Monitor calibration, revisited (Dell u2410+colormunki)

C

coldpenguin

Messages
2,196
Edit My Images
Yes
So the computer I ordered in December has finally arrived.
Dell u2410 with it. However, a photograph that I have already printed out on my Pro 9500 II, and was too dark, does not match what I am seeing on the monitor.

I have calibrated the monitor to the minimum lux allowed (80mcd), and the detail I can see and the brightness is much greater than the darkness that was printed.

I used the correct profile when printing, and followed the instructions well. The colour reproduction on the print is great. The paper is illford lustre duo, and the instructions from illford are clear and easy.

When calibrating the monitor, it asks me to set the LUX level, and reads the value from the monitor (trying to set to 80). The closest I can get (with brightness set on the monitor to 0), is ~91mcd.

Any ideas? A google suggests that the monitor is intentionally bright from Dell. Surely though this should be calibrated out though?
 
Personally I think it is quite matte.
I have noticed that if the telly is facing it, then the colours are distinguishable, but, no objects can be seen.
Calibration was done with the colormunki in its pouch, and the telly off.

(I don't quite see the relevance of your link, I have read the whole thread, but it seems to be talking about a difference in colour readings with a different make?)
It is a pc running windows 7, I have set the system profiles to be those generated by the colormunki (as apparently otherwise windows will forget)
This issue was first seen on my other computer with a samsung monitor. Both monitors are attached to the new computer, and both appear to be the same brightness for this problem image. (although the samsung is not set to brightness 0)
 
Last edited:
Shows the colormunki software is not that accurate or it could just be your monitor is rubbish which is not unheard of. The dell screen I had was useless for print matching
 
I am leaning for it not to be the Dell screen, as both it and the Samsung I originally had are showing a similar issue. Also this is a new computer with different graphics card, so I don't think it can be the graphics card which is messing up.
The original thread shows the image,
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3307417&postcount=1
Is is more probable that the profile on the printer is incorrect instead perhaps? Every other monitor I look at this image on, I can clearly see the tree bark and difference in the elbow of the black suit. However, it seems to me that all monitors are set too bright by default.
 
Have you compared a soft proofed image on the monitor to the print.

Depending on the paper / printer used it's possible to lose detail via the printing process.
Soft proofing is really the only way to see what effect the printer /paper combination will have on the final print.
 
Via, view->proof setup->custom, Device to simulate, Ilford blah blah
With simulate paper colour, black point compensation and Relative colorimetic

Image on the screen doesn't change at all (have previously converted the image to the profile space, I assumed that this is suitable if it is only ever going to be printed on that paper/output device)
 
It's possible that even with a well calibrated and profiled system that i may not be possible to get an exact match for highlights and shadows. This is down to the fact that your monitor is transmissive, and the print is reflective.

I've found that on some images with deep shadows what you see on the screen is sometimes missing from the final print. You may need to lift the deepest shadows with maybe a small curve lift, so that the shadows aren't all at zero but start around 10 on the curves scale. It's a lot easier in Lightroom as you have sliders that can be used on the tone curve.

If you are using the Ilford canned profiles I've found these in general to be very good. Not as good as making your own, which you can with the Colormonkie.

However as a final test I would use a conventional colour space for the image such as sRGB or Adobe RGB rather than the printers profile. I'd then soft proof and see if there is any correlation between the screen and the soft proofed image.

As far as screen brightness is concerned I've had problems in the past getting Dell monitors to get to a reasonable brightness level , although I've never needed to get to 80Cd/m2.
 
Are you suggesting that I convert back to Adobe RGB, then use the View->proof to select the paper/profile I intend to print on?

I created a new profile for the printer and paper combination this afternoon. If anything, with the simulate paper options in proof the black now looked a washed out grey compared to the ilford profile. :(
I guess I am going to have to just print out some proofs and see.
 
I'm looking to see what the results are using a more conventional route. I'd also suggest that rather than convert the current image , which is using the printer profile as it's colour space you simply reprocess to either Adobe RGB or sRGB. This way any error that may have been induced are eliminated.

It may also be worthwhile doing a simple test to see if the printer/paper combination is capable of resolving the tones you are having problems with. In Photoshop or similar make a new small document. On this document make a small selection and fill it with 0,0,0 black. make another selection and fill this with 5 black. Make similar selection filling each with 10, 15, 20 black. I would do these on separate layers, so that you can slightly overlap each one. Now print this document, using the Ilford profiles as you say they give the better result.

Now look at the printed result. At what point can you see the gradation change from one tone to another. This is the point where you need to have the darkest tone that you need to see gradation. Compare this with the image you are having problems with and see how it compares with this test. Bit of a pain I know but it's a way to see what tones the printer / paper can reproduce.
 
You could be right there :) . I tried opening the RAW up directly in Photoshop. It was defaulting to sRGB/8 bit, instead of being at least 16bit (my assumption being that I thought I was working in 16bits, so changing from one profile to the next, the conversion calculations should have less error introduced).
When I use the proof setup for the Ilford supplied ICC, the image goes greyish in the black areas, and if I then use proof setup for the profile I created, it turns /slightly/ blacker. So mine would appear to be more accurate perhaps, but still nowhere near as dark as it appears in reality (from my original print).
Thanks for the suggestion on the black squares, I will have to try this. I think what I will do, as I have an A4+ sheet that I created for a proof (cutting an A3+ in half), is I will print a proof image out, and down the side put in the black squares (bit like on a newspaper for checking alignment I guess), as it will give me a true view of what the image is currently looking like, and a 'scientific' measure for determining the variability/capability of the blacks (I guess a 1cm square for each should be enough?).
What might also make a difference (although minor), is that previously I was using the 8bit driver instead of the 16bit driver for the printer. In theory as I had converted to the profile and made the edits in the profile colour-space I shouldn't have seen a difference, but if Photoshop did decide to do any mods as the (8bit) image went through there would be more chance of it getting it right.
(I have put in some time and effort into this image, it is for my own interests, but I need to weigh up myself whether it is worthwhile starting from scratch again. Unfortunately I think I scaled the image up as I imported it, so I can't even just copy in the workflow and masks if I did start again, they may not line up perfectly)
 
Last edited:
Haven't had a chance to do a proof print yet. I did find out something interesting though.
Today I turned the new computer on, and noticed that one monitor was warmer than the other. So I recalibrated. I did the samsung first, and just for fun, set the white to be D50. This came out as being warm, and the same brightness as usual. I then calibrated the Dell. This time at the 'normal' D65, (80mcd also). It turned out much darker.
I then recalibrated the samsung, at D65, and it also turned out quite nice and dark. (Giving me the impression that if I loaded the problem picture, it would look like the print-out).

The computer then blew up, so I couldn't test anything else though. So it could as simple as the profiles generated for the monitor from the colormunki are not being stored/loaded correctly, even immediately after the program runs (other people have said it is on a reboot etc.)
 
Looks like you may be getting somewhere. Bummer about the computer though
 
Thing is it is new, windows 7 installed, relatively clean with photoshop CS4 and colormunki the only real programs that should have been playing with the monitor settings. I had set the OS profiles to be those of colormunki (which I had read somewhere else).
I couldn't find adobe gamma running, so I can't think what else could have been making the monitor bright.
Unless of course, it went dark as a side effect of the machine blowing. I am semi-considering returning components of the machine back to the company that built it, and attempting to keep the disks monitor and OS intact.
 
When you get your machine up and running again, You can check which monitor profile PS is using by simply clicking on the working colour space tab in the colour management options. In the drop down box that appears you'll see a heading "Monitor" and the name of the profile that is being used. Usually the default profile. This is quick way to check if the ColorMunkie profile has been selected, or maybe a reboot is needed.

Hope you get things up and running soon !
 
Under the colour management, it shows display2_d65.icm, which is the profile for the Dell monitor I am using as the primary display. So hopefully some good news there.

I printed an A4 proof, with a black bar down the side. This was set at B=0%, I then created some vertical bars across this, filled with b=5%, b=10%, b=15%, b=1%, b=2% b=3%, b=4%. Hopefully I got this kinda right. I selected the fore-ground colour, ensured that the RGB were 0, then set b to be the above.

I could definitely see the difference between b=0% and b=2%
I think I could see the difference between b=1% and b=0%, but that could just be because I know it is there.

Then I printed at A3+
To make doubly sure of a good print, I added a brightness layer of 10%
I am now happy and impressed by the picture. It shouldn't need to be done, but if I add a 10% layer to any output until I can get a perfect match, at least it is a 'solution'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top