Reading mode: Light Dark

Colorvision Monitor Spyder showed me the light!!

Go to last post
C

clkgtr37

Well-known member
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
scottsdale, US
Well I finally got my monitor spyder and spent all day kickin myself for not buying it earlier. Never before had I seen accurate colors with details in the shadows and also in the highlights. Here is a before and after comparison of a picture that I edited yesterday with an uncalibrated monitor and today after calibration.
Before calibration:



After calibration:
http://www.blairbunting.com/ASU/21%20 (2) std.jpg
--
http://www.blairbunting.com
 
clkgtr37 said:
Well I finally got my monitor spyder and spent all day kickin
myself for not buying it earlier. Never before had I seen accurate
colors with details in the shadows and also in the highlights.
Here is a before and after comparison of a picture that I edited
yesterday with an uncalibrated monitor and today after calibration.
Before calibration:



After calibration:
http://www.blairbunting.com/ASU/21%20 (2) std.jpg
--
http://www.blairbunting.com
Click to expand...
Thats quite a difference, I am too pondering on color management issues & will soon be getting one.
--
Ranjan
Professional photographer.
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=11993
 
Ranjan said:
Thats quite a difference, I am too pondering on color management
issues & will soon be getting one.
Click to expand...
I can see the difference and I don't have a spider, I just did a manual calibration.

If you are now able to match your print output to what you see on screen then I agree it is worth it.
--
G. Shashte
 
I found that all the manual calibrating that I did never even got me close to the color management I have now. I tried Adobe Gamma alot ond thought my computer was perfectly on target, but was way off. As far as the printing goes, there is software that you can get that will set up your monitor and printer to be right on.

--
http://www.blairbunting.com
 
Ranjan said:
clkgtr37 said:
Well I finally got my monitor spyder and spent all day kickin
myself for not buying it earlier. Never before had I seen accurate
colors with details in the shadows and also in the highlights.
Here is a before and after comparison of a picture that I edited
yesterday with an uncalibrated monitor and today after calibration.
Before calibration:



After calibration:
http://www.blairbunting.com/ASU/21%20 (2) std.jpg
--
http://www.blairbunting.com
Click to expand...
Thats quite a difference, I am too pondering on color management
issues & will soon be getting one.
--
Ranjan
Professional photographer.
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=11993
Click to expand...
I like the first one better for it´s natural skin color and lower contrast.
--
Waldemar
D60, lotsa glass
http://www.pbase.com/haak
http://www.photo-haak.com
http://www.images-of-tuscany.com
 
Waldemar said:
I like the first one better for it´s natural skin color and lower
contrast.
Click to expand...
Same here !!! When I first saw the 2 photos at my monitor at work (which definitely is not well calibrated) I was thinking that the monitor was the reason why (and would indeed plead for using a Spyder).

But now that I see it at home, where my monitor is -albeit manually- callibrated, I still think the first image is a lot better although a little bit overexposed. That Spyder is then definitely not the Holy Grail !

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
[email protected]
 
at least to me since it looks natural and has mroe detail. The after picture has too much contrast ... but that might be since my Monitor is not SPyder Calibrated. ?;-)

christian.
clkgtr37 said:
Well I finally got my monitor spyder and spent all day kickin
myself for not buying it earlier. Never before had I seen accurate
colors with details in the shadows and also in the highlights.
Here is a before and after comparison of a picture that I edited
yesterday with an uncalibrated monitor and today after calibration.
Before calibration:



After calibration:
http://www.blairbunting.com/ASU/21%20 (2) std.jpg
--
http://www.blairbunting.com
Click to expand...
 
Christian Knoll said:
at least to me since it looks natural and has mroe detail. The
after picture has too much contrast ... but that might be since my
Monitor is not SPyder Calibrated. ?;-)
Click to expand...
Of course, it might not look good on your monitor. Get yourself a spyder.

However, it doesn't really matter if it looks good on your monitor or not. What matters is that it looks good on HIS monitor, and prints on his printer in the same color space.

It does look more saturated on my calibrated monitor.

If you do get a spyder, you will be shocked when you compare the "before" and after color gamut curves... My monitor looked good to me, but it was totally out of whack. Even though it looks good on your monitor, it's probably not correct. Just print a photo and hold it up to your monitor. How does it compare????

The entire reason to do this stuff is to get better color matching. Even if what you have now on your uncalibrated monitor looks good to you, it might not be accurate.
 
The first one has better detial, it just needs a bit more contrast.

I have a DVI digital LCD. When I calibrated it, not much changed. However when I tried this on a CRT there a noticeable difference. But it is my opinion that if you are an advanced amateur like me who prints for themselves and does occasional internet postings on these forums, these spyders etc. are a waste of money.
]

I also tried their new spectro for reading papers...garbage! All it does is waste paper and ink and make prints look horrible. I configured the epson color managment sliders manually and now print exactly like the screen every time.

--
http://www.jamilabbasy.com
 
I have to agree with the others, as the top one looks more natural (albeit needs littl emore contrast) to me, but it could be the bottom one is how the user likes it.

I have just gotten the Spyder with Optical. After profiling my LCD moitor, I cannot say the difference was as extreme as this. In fact, I cannot really discern that much difference. Perhaps my monitor's old profile got me close enough.

Waste of money - still debatable.
Jamil Abbasy said:
The first one has better detial, it just needs a bit more contrast.

I have a DVI digital LCD. When I calibrated it, not much changed.
However when I tried this on a CRT there a noticeable difference.
But it is my opinion that if you are an advanced amateur like me
who prints for themselves and does occasional internet postings on
these forums, these spyders etc. are a waste of money.
]
I also tried their new spectro for reading papers...garbage! All
it does is waste paper and ink and make prints look horrible. I
configured the epson color managment sliders manually and now print
exactly like the screen every time.

--
http://www.jamilabbasy.com
Click to expand...
--
Zero my hero
 
I'll have to "triple agree" with the others too. We needn't waste our time and money trying to get perfect color matching but rather spend our efforts attaining predictable, consistent color. Any monitor calibrating and profiling device will make great strides in that direction.

A print from your printer will never match your monitor so don't bother trying. It can get close but eventually the laws of physics take hold.

"match" and "perfect" as used above are subjective words. Just as subjective as those of us saying which of the two photos look "better".
Zero said:
I have just gotten the Spyder with Optical. After profiling my LCD
moitor, I cannot say the difference was as extreme as this. In
fact, I cannot really discern that much difference. Perhaps my
monitor's old profile got me close enough.

Waste of money - still debatable.
Jamil Abbasy said:
The first one has better detial, it just needs a bit more contrast.

I have a DVI digital LCD. When I calibrated it, not much changed.
However when I tried this on a CRT there a noticeable difference.
But it is my opinion that if you are an advanced amateur like me
who prints for themselves and does occasional internet postings on
these forums, these spyders etc. are a waste of money.
]
I also tried their new spectro for reading papers...garbage! All
it does is waste paper and ink and make prints look horrible. I
configured the epson color managment sliders manually and now print
exactly like the screen every time.

--
http://www.jamilabbasy.com
Click to expand...
--
Zero my hero
Click to expand...
 
I don's have a spyder but I am very happy with the printed results printing on my Epson 2200 ... looks like expected.

christian.
Lynda Botez said:
Christian Knoll said:
at least to me since it looks natural and has mroe detail. The
after picture has too much contrast ... but that might be since my
Monitor is not SPyder Calibrated. ?;-)
Click to expand...
Of course, it might not look good on your monitor. Get yourself a
spyder.

However, it doesn't really matter if it looks good on your monitor
or not. What matters is that it looks good on HIS monitor, and
prints on his printer in the same color space.

It does look more saturated on my calibrated monitor.

If you do get a spyder, you will be shocked when you compare the
"before" and after color gamut curves... My monitor looked good to
me, but it was totally out of whack. Even though it looks good on
your monitor, it's probably not correct. Just print a photo and
hold it up to your monitor. How does it compare????

The entire reason to do this stuff is to get better color matching.
Even if what you have now on your uncalibrated monitor looks good
to you, it might not be accurate.
Click to expand...
 
The main point of color calibration is to be able to get prints to match the monitor as close as possibly and you would be using different ICC profiles in Photoshop presumably, depending on the printer. I dont think putting them on web really shows anything.

However I agree with others here who think the top one looks better but a little underexposed.

I use Adobe Gamma and some of the calibration charts from the aim site.

--
http://www.pbase.com/galleries/sasc
 
that doesn't mean you shouldn't calibrate your monitor.

I use Optical & my monitor is more accurate than it used to be using Adobe Gamma.

-John
 
Few browsers are capable of rendering a true color. The only one I know does is Explorer 5.x for the Mac. That said, I'm viewing it on Safari, and I can REALLY see a difference.

If you have Explorer, look under preferences for Colorsync. This will read the embedded color profile and render it accurately. Otherwise, forget about judgeing accurate color with your browser.

As it was explained to me, it's like being given an unmarked, undeveloped roll of film and told to process it. While you may take a pretty good guess, it will never be as good as having specific development instructions. That is what a profile-savvy browser will do for you.

p
--
http://www.paulmbowers.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top