No experience with color profile

[flykiller]

Hi Guys,

my macbook pro 15inch 2015 has a display calibrator software built in (like yours) and I am wondering if there are any tweaks I should do to get more accurate colors?

I am shooting with a Sony A7riii and use capture one for photo editing.

Many thanks,

 

[Schrodingers_cat]

Hi Guys,

I am wondering if there are any tweaks I should do to get more accurate colors?

• Except for more specialized uses, most people are interested in pleasing color as opposed to accurate color.
• The software to which you refer relies on eyeballing some stuff to establish your corrections. It's easily reversible, so the best thing to do is just fool around with it and see if you get some results you like.
• If you actually want to do the best job of this sort of thing, you really need to do it with a hardware device such as one of the X-rite products.
• Research the difference between calibrating a monitor and profiling a monitor. They are distinct procedures.
• Calibrating (and also profiling) your monitor is only a portion of the procedure for establishing a color managed workflow. You also need to profile your camera and your printer.
• Take a look at Andrew Rodney's site at this link . He makes a living doing this sort of stuff and is very knowledgable.

 

[graybalanced]

The built-in calibrator is OK for very casual use, but can't come close to the precision of even a low end hardware calibrator. The more you spent on your camera and lenses, the less you want to rely on the built in calibrator. It was good when it was all we had, but that was in like 1996...ever since the USB calibrators came out, the built-in one had essentially no value.

 

[jimkahnw]

I could mistaken, but the display on your MBP can only produce 73% of sRGB. sRGB is a limited workspace, compared to AdobeRGB and even smaller when compared to ProPhotoRGB. It is the standard for the web. I'm not sure when Apple started shipping iMacs and MacBooks with P3 screens, which is a video standard and close to AdobeRGB, the print standard.

As stated elsewhere in this thread, see Andrew Rodney's article. So even if you use hardware calibration, the recommend method for color-critical work, your images may not match your prints. If you're only processing images for the web, you'll be fine. But, you'll waste a lot of paper and ink trying to get a hard copy right.

As a pre-press professional, I have to disagree with Andrew, and many others, about the necessity of calibrating cameras and printers. I do calibrate my color workstation using Eizo display and calibration with a DataColor Sypder5 colorimeter. My display matches closely the 4-color offset printing returned from our press. We use a Xerox laser printer to proof, also calibrated with EFI hardware and software, and the output matches.

Calibrating your camera is difficult given all the different lighting you will encounter. Now, if you were shooting fashion or products in a studio with controlled lighting and MUST nail your color, then calibration makes sense. Unfortunately, you can't match the press--unless the press provides a profile. And if you're shooting for print and the ad runs in many publications, they all have different presses. Profiling is difficult--you have to use a standard like SWOP.

You have to train yourself to acquire a good eye for color, density and contrast.

If you hook your MBPro to a color workstation-quality monitor, such as an Eizo or NEC and calibrate it with hardware, you'll enjoy the accuracy. Not so great for gaming, as they are slow and have limited contrast and brightness. Nor for video playback. But, you'll make keeper prints the first try. If you're sending prints to a lab, they'll never miss. Oh, and btw, they are expensive. The price of producing professional-grade images. Don't skimp.

JimK

It's not the camera; it's the photographer.
--Anonymous

 

[Ellis Vener]

I could mistaken, but the display on your MBP can only produce 73% of sRGB.

yes you are mistaken about that.

sRGB is a limited workspace, compared to AdobeRGB and even smaller when compared to ProPhotoRGB. It is the standard for the web. I'm not sure when Apple started shipping iMacs and MacBooks with P3 screens, which is a video standard and close to AdobeRGB, the print standard.

Agreed.

As stated elsewhere in this thread, see Andrew Rodney's article. So even if you use hardware calibration, the recommend method for color-critical work, your images may not match your prints. If you're only processing images for the web, you'll be fine. But, you'll waste a lot of paper and ink trying to get a hard copy right.

Agreed.

As a pre-press professional, I have to disagree with Andrew, and many others, about the necessity of calibrating cameras and printers. I do calibrate my color workstation using Eizo display and calibration with a DataColor Sypder5 colorimeter. My display matches closely the 4-color offset printing returned from our press. We use a Xerox laser printer to proof, also calibrated with EFI hardware and software, and the output matches.

Calibrating your camera is difficult given all the different lighting you will encounter. Now, if you were shooting fashion or products in a studio with controlled lighting and MUST nail your color, then calibration makes sense. Unfortunately, you can't match the press--unless the press provides a profile. And if you're shooting for print and the ad runs in many publications, they all have different presses. Profiling is difficult--you have to use a standard like SWOP.

mostly agree. The Xrite ColorChecker Passport software with a recent xrite 24 patch target improves color, you just have to be careful about the lighting angle so there is not glare.

Getting truly accurate color profile for a camera does take much more work and different tools (a ColorChecker Digital SG target and a lot of care about how it is illuminated for starters).

You have to train yourself to acquire a good eye for color, density and contrast.

absolutely.

If you hook your MBPro to a color workstation-quality monitor, such as an Eizo or NEC and calibrate it with hardware, you'll enjoy the accuracy. Not so great for gaming, as they are slow and have limited contrast and brightness. Nor for video playback. But, you'll make keeper prints the first try. If you're sending prints to a lab, they'll never miss. Oh, and btw, they are expensive. The price of producing professional-grade images. Don't skimp.

i absolutely agree.

JimK

It's not the camera; it's the photographer.
--Anonymous

 

[jimkahnw]

My 2013 MBP, with Retina display, will only reproduce 73% of sRGB. This according to the report generated using DataColor software and the Sypder5 colorimeter. With what model did Apple start producing laptop displays with the wider gamut?

 

[Ellis Vener]

You need an external colorimeter and profiling software. For commercial work The Xrite i1 Display Pro and i1Profiler software combination is a standard choice especially if you use multiple monitors or displays.

 

[Ellis Vener]

My 2013 MBP, with Retina display, will only reproduce 73% of sRGB. This according to the report generated using DataColor software and the Sypder5 colorimeter. With what model did Apple start producing laptop displays with the wider gamut?

CDavid Tobie says that the gamut of the 2015 15" Retina MacBook Pro is better than earlier unibody MacBook Pro models and measures it at 99% of sRGB : https://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography/


Lloyd Chambers visually compares the 2016 15" Retina MacBook Pro to the Adobe RGB(1998) gamut here: https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2016-display.html

 

[flykiller]

Many thanks to everyone

 

[lightandaprayer]

It's fine that you are happy with the responses to your post but could we have some information about what exactly helped you? Since there was is little information in both of your posts I'm left wondering what is the point of this thread. . .?

 

[graybalanced]

My 2013 MBP, with Retina display, will only reproduce 73% of sRGB. This according to the report generated using DataColor software and the Sypder5 colorimeter. With what model did Apple start producing laptop displays with the wider gamut?

It was the 2016 generation of MacBook Pro, the one that only has USB-C /Thunderbolt 3 ports.

It was hard to miss that it happened, the switch to wide gamut P3 displays was widely publicized and marketed by Apple. From that model on, the Pro line of Mac laptop was wide gamut, markedly larger than sRGB.

I'm not going to state what percentage of Adobe RGB that P3 is because it's a trick question and irrelevant: P3 and Adobe RGB are roughly the same 3D volumes, covering mostly the same colors, with only minor differences at the edges. P3 might not cover all the colors as Adobe RGB, but by the same token, Adobe RGB doesn't cover all the colors as P3. Which one is better depends on which is a better match for your output device and typical colors you need to reproduce. Either way you are doing a lot better than sRGB.