this may seem like a crazy question re:monitor calibration but...

ok so like I said this may seem crazy but I was wondering, everybody wants their prints to match what they see on their screen, so they profile the monitor, paper, printer etc... Now what I have done because I have not yet put out the money for a spyder system or something similar is after I got my prints coming out the way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard, I used the print as a reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor (brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Hi,

I think you have the horse pushing the cart, but if it works, it works.

I use the Monaco monitor calibrating system, and their EZColor II profiler. This system works good for me. Although, I want to try a Cathy's profile for my Epson 2200 and compare it to the Monaco profile. I just haven't had the time to make the prints and send to her.

--
Lawrence

pobodysnerfect said:

ok so like I said this may seem crazy but I was wondering,
everybody wants their prints to match what they see on their
screen, so they profile the monitor, paper, printer etc... Now what
I have done because I have not yet put out the money for a spyder
system or something similar is after I got my prints coming out the
way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard, I used the print as a
reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor
(brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way
I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this
seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be
working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Click to expand...

pobodysnerfect said:

ok so like I said this may seem crazy but I was wondering,
everybody wants their prints to match what they see on their
screen, so they profile the monitor, paper, printer etc... Now what
I have done because I have not yet put out the money for a spyder
system or something similar is after I got my prints coming out the
way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard, I used the print as a
reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor
(brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way
I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this
seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be
working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Click to expand...

I think the key is in your words -- "after I got my prints coming out the way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard" -- is it really not hard, or was it done after a lot trial and error and tones of paper and ink?

It will work as long as you only give out paper copies of your photos. You've essentially set up the monitor as a printer proofing device. If you give someone the electronic version of the image which is then displayed on a properly calibrated monitor things might look not as good. But if it works for you, great, don't change a thing.

pobodysnerfect said:

ok so like I said this may seem crazy but I was wondering,
everybody wants their prints to match what they see on their
screen, so they profile the monitor, paper, printer etc... Now what
I have done because I have not yet put out the money for a spyder
system or something similar is after I got my prints coming out the
way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard, I used the print as a
reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor
(brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way
I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this
seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be
working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Click to expand...

Chris said:

It will work as long as you only give out paper copies of your
photos. You've essentially set up the monitor as a printer proofing
device. If you give someone the electronic version of the image
which is then displayed on a properly calibrated monitor things
might look not as good. But if it works for you, great, don't
change a thing.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think what pobodysnerfect does is

1. He/she tries various printer setting to produce "perfect" prints. This is equivalent to printer profiling.
2. He/she then uses the prints as a reference to "calibrate" his/her monitor.

This is putting the cart in front of the horse in a sense. But if everything goes as expected, he/she would have both printer and monitor profiles/calibrated.

Chris said:

pobodysnerfect said:

ok so like I said this may seem crazy but I was wondering,
everybody wants their prints to match what they see on their
screen, so they profile the monitor, paper, printer etc... Now what
I have done because I have not yet put out the money for a spyder
system or something similar is after I got my prints coming out the
way I wanted them to, which wasn't very hard, I used the print as a
reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor
(brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way
I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this
seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be
working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

pobodysnerfect said:

... I used the print as a
reference card essentially, and then adjusted my monitor
(brightness, contrast, color temp etc) to match my print. This way
I know that what I see on screen will be what prints out. Does this
seem logical or does it seem ludicrous anyway it seems to be
working for me, my prints are spot on with my monitor... opinions??

Click to expand...

This can work for you, but only up to a point. What you now have is a closed loop system, where your monitor only matches your printer and vice versa, within the limits of your ability to make visual adjustments. There is no gaurantee, or even expectation, that they will match anyone else's monitor & printer. If you try to view your images on a properly calibrated monitor, or print them on another printer, there is no telling what the results will be. i.e.: If you ever use a spyder-like device to calibrate your monitor and/or you buy a new printer, you will probably find that all your current images need to be adjusted all over again.

Calibrating your monitor with a hardware device and editing in a 'standard' workspace will enable you to adjust your images and still be able to view them as they should appear on other calibrated/profiled monitors.

Image adjustments, preferably profiles, can then be used to print your images on specific printers.

• Andy

I also am blessed with an old 21inch Nokia professional monitor which just seems to display every thing perfectly. With an i950, and Qimage, everything set default, the photos just seem to be perfectly on color.

However in my limited experience, I have seen demonstrations where the human eye will actually correct for color differences and even add color where there is none.

To test further, I printed out a 48 chip "off white color chart" ( from Peter Inova's Nikon Ebook) and compared the results. Three chips where off, Dark blue, dark magenta ( both barely noticable) and dark blue magenta was too blue. I was not supprised because I don't ever remember seeing those particular colors on any of my photos. However, now I know that if I went to photograph and print a custom car show, my "candy apple" would look like "candy plum". I truly don't want to spent $300 plus to calibrate my monitor , then more for printer profiles. Since my monitor seems somewhat acceptable, I am buying ProfilePrism ($79) to at least get my printer and camera in synch. Hopefully that will be enough for my needs.

DK

Leon Hu said:

Chris said:

It will work as long as you only give out paper copies of your
photos. You've essentially set up the monitor as a printer proofing
device. If you give someone the electronic version of the image
which is then displayed on a properly calibrated monitor things
might look not as good. But if it works for you, great, don't
change a thing.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. I think what pobodysnerfect does is
1. He/she tries various printer setting to produce "perfect"
prints. This is equivalent to printer profiling.

Click to expand...

This isn't profiling, a better term would be printer calibration. Profiling is just the recording of a particular color response, nothing more.

Leon Hu said:

2. He/she then uses the prints as a reference to "calibrate"
his/her monitor.

Click to expand...

When you calibrate a monitor to another physical device you are not calibrating it to display according to the monitor's own capabilities, but are setting it so that is resembles what the printer is doing. This is setting the monitor as a printer proofing device.

So effectively the monitor's primary function (as a display unit in its own right) is bypassed to assist in producing excellent images on paper. So it will work, provided that is what you stick to; paper.

Leon Hu said:

This is putting the cart in front of the horse in a sense. But if
everything goes as expected, he/she would have both printer and
monitor profiles/calibrated.

Click to expand...

No, he/she won't. Using color profiles is not equal to magically setting all your devices to reproduce color in the same way. It is simply not possible due to the physical differences between devices. Calibration is about getting one device to perform optimally (for a monitor: best tonal range, best rgb mix across that range), profiling is about recording the result. When color profile aware software encounters different profiles it transforms the data from one profile to another (using a 'mother of all colorspaces' colorspace). The main purpose is to predictably manage any incompatibilities between the spaces, how this is done is controlled by specifiying the rendering intent in the software.

So calibration is about setting one device to perform optimally, not setting it to perform as something else. If it was just simply a matter of calibrating all devices to reproduce all colors (which isnt' possible) then we wouldn't colorprofiles, just device calibration; one colorspace would suffice.

Hope that clarifies some.....

Chris

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "calibrate" as:

1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.

Thus calibration is not to make a device perform optimally, but to make it match (within the device's capability) some standard frame of reference.

Chris said:

So calibration is about setting one device to perform optimally,
not setting it to perform as something else. If it was just simply
a matter of calibrating all devices to reproduce all colors (which
isnt' possible) then we wouldn't colorprofiles, just device
calibration; one colorspace would suffice.

Click to expand...

Dominic.Chan said:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "calibrate" as:

1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard
(the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate
a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make
corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure
objectivity.

Thus calibration is not to make a device perform optimally, but
to make it match (within the device's capability) some standard
frame of reference.

Click to expand...

Any electronic device has an optimal setting, or if you will; a implicit reference point. Depending on the device this setting is approached or achieved (the latter costs more, a DVM off the shelf is cheaper than having one that is calibrated. Same for Hifi stuff). In fact, the optimal setting is nothing other than achieving the designed reference point. I mean, a car has an optimal setting (workplace manual are very specific about what that setting is). It is just that for some you can improve on the factory setting, with others you can't (because it already so close that you can't improve, or it is so complicated that it is inpractical).

I see nothing in your AHD quote that really contradicts this.

BTW, the Oxford dict has this:

calibrate
kalibrayt

• verb 1 mark (a gauge or instrument) with a standard scale of readings. 2 compare the readings of (an instrument) with those of a standard. 3 adjust (experimental results) to take external factors into account or to allow comparison with other data.

Which fits rather nicely.

So if I define 'optimal setting' as 'performing to original design specification' would that help you what I meant to say (even if that meaning stated explicitly, but conveyed implicitly)?

Cheers, Chris