Help me calibrate my monitor

So yesterday I set up my first decent photo quality printer--an HP B9180. I've never been interested in making inkjet prints before, but we needed to replace our 12-year-old laser printer anyway, and the tabloid format is useful for some of the work my wife does, so I figured it was a good time to get something with photo quality output.

So I made a few test prints and the B&W's looked like silver prints with major drydown! I figured the main issue was monitor calibration, so lacking a calibration gizmo for now, I adjusted the monitor gamma visually using Adobe Gamma, so the screen image better matches the print output.

Then I looked at my website, and everything looked like crap, so before I adjust all the images on my website, tell me what you think of the three attached images on your monitor, and maybe say a few words about your monitor calibration (i.e., uncalibrated, visually adjusted gamma, or gizmo adjusted and what gizmo you use). I'm thinking I may have overshot the monitor correction a bit, because images posted on the web by other people who I know use calibration devices look too dark on my monitor. Just out of curiosity, I also tried the Monitor Calibration Wizard recommended in another thread, and the difference I'm getting between MCW and Adobe Gamma is almost imperceptible. The first one is the version currently on the website in greyscale mode; the second is pre-calibration converted to sRBG; and the third one is sRBG post-calibration.







Thanks in advance.

David,

One other thing that should be taken into consideration is the browser. Not all are color managed. I believe that newer versions of Safari are by default, at least on the Mac. Firefox 3 has color management available, but as shipped, it's not enabled. I'm not sure about Internet Explorer and its various incarnations.

Here's a brief note on enabling color management in Firefox 3: Dead Link Removed

Your post-calibration sRGB version looks "best" to me, running Firefox 3 with color management enabled, on linux+gnome. It has more local contrast and visible detail on the bottom of the deck, but still retains contrast and detail everywhere. The higher end of the scale is also a bit lighter. But it's hard to say what looks exactly right without knowing your intentions.

Hope this helps. BTW, the .png format has a built-in gamma index that can be adjusted by the viewing platform to suit the local screen. I've been using that for several years for posting online where gamma was a concern. Of course, this too assumes that the viewing platform/software behave appropriately with .png files, but you can never guarantee that your viewers have the right stuff in place at their end. And of course their awareness of the issues is another matter entirely. All you can do is give them the best file to work with from your end.

You've probably already been there, but Norman Koren has a good page on gamma and calibration here: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

Lee

Thanks, Lee. It sounds like you're seeing what I want you to see in the last version--more shadow detail and more luminosity particularly off the steel beams facing the light on the right side of the frame.

David A. Goldfarb said:

Thanks, Lee. It sounds like you're seeing what I want you to see in the last version--more shadow detail and more luminosity particularly off the steel beams facing the light on the right side of the frame.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm seeing in the shadows and also on the sunlit steel on the right. The building in shadow at the middle under the billboard is also lighter and with much more local contrast. The brickwork patterns there are much more apparent.

Lee

Thanks. I checked the monitor gamma again, and I think I did overcorrect a bit, so I backed off a bit, and other things are starting to look better.

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

I've adjusted the third version slightly to reflect the latest monitor recalibration.

I also realized that it's easiest to compare the different versions by opening the three images in three different tabs so they're all in the same location on the screen, and toggling between them. If you want to try it that way, here are the three URLs--


http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/viaduct.jpg

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/temp/Viaduct.jpg

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/temp/Viaduct--adjusted.jpg

mkochsch said:

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

Click to expand...

I was looking for one earlier today and couldn't find a cheap one that could work with LCD monitors (saw a CRT-only one for $26 buy-it-now, though), but I'll keep looking.

mkochsch said:

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

Click to expand...

I bought a Spyder and found that it consistently produced a monitor profile that was too magenta. I eventually dumped it for SuperCal http://www.bergdesign.com/supercal/ which works perfectly. It's shareware ($19) so you can download it and try it for free. It's Mac only however.

Keith.

Picked up a box of Harman Gloss FB AI and printed the original TIF at the maximum printer resolution with the ICC profile from Harman, and after even a visual calibration with Adobe Gamma, the improvement is enormous. The shadows are much more open, highlights still there, and there's a nice glow off the steel. The look is different from my Azo print from the same neg, but the inkjet is still a perfectly respectable print.

So for the moment, I don't feel I have to rush out and buy another gizmo.

buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo.

jd callow said:

buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo, buy the gizmo.

Click to expand...

Oy, I feel like I'm already on the treadmill. $600+ printer, and then I'm thinking, well, to get the most out of it, I need a new scanner, which will surely make my computer feel too slow, and I just bought 50 sheets of 8.5x11" paper for $70+, and I'm watching those ink levels go down at $27 a cartridge (there are 8), and now I've got to buy a gizmo? Price of gold be damned, albumen prints are cheaper.

Buy a good gizmo, but a good gizmo, buy a good gizmo!

In other words something from Xrite is my suggestion, maybe the hardware software bundle from http://www.integrated-color.com/

Please do me a favor and do not buy the Spyder hardware, I have a long standing grudge with them, and just read about what ICC says of the Xrite DTP-94 sensor, it is the best.

Okay, so I've been updating my website, and image #1 is approximately the same as image #3 now.

borrow a gizmo.

xrite i1 is good and 'cheap' at around 200.00 and can be upgraded to include printer profiling for about 1k (much later if at all I know). The xrite (41 or 42 if I recall correctly) monitor calibration device was about 2k and thier reflective densitomerter and profiling software strated at about 4k only a few years ago.

The spyder has recieved mixed reviews, but I like it just fine.

I doubt many have or would be willing to lend an xrite, but i'd hope we'd have an APUGer or hybrider who has the spyder they'd be willing to lend.

The one issue is that calibration should be done every month or so and before any important work. Borrowing would give you a taste.

I've been looking at the Eye-One Display 2.

Eye-one Display (old model) or Display2 would be good, especially if you use the Coloreyes software. If I was able to get down to the city I could help you set this all up (including printer profiles), but I never get down that way.

One thing about lending devices...Technically it is beyond the user agreement (licensing) to do this. Personally I don't care, but it has come up is discussions in the past and been determined to be against the license. Besides it is really best to own the stuff so that you can deal with it when needed.

And as was stated, many internet browsers are not color management aware, you would be best off converting all web images to sRGB as that should match most closely what people we see. if they have a color management aware browser, then it will read the tags and get it correct, if not the approximation to system color (sRGB) will do the job. Images on the web are a crap shoot at best still.

Thanks for the advice.

David,
I recently picked up the Huey pantone system as a promotion when I bought my S-5. I was using the Monaco system with the sensor. That I got bundled with my 4990 scanner. The Huey sensor continuously monitors room conditions and adjust automatically. Seems to do as well as the Monaco. Bottom line, the monitor needs to be calibrated to an ICC standard, period. Making monitor adjustments to match print will guarantee that you will end up pulling any hair left out. It would be like making a pair of glasses with color correction filters to correct for bad color balance in a print on your wall. Nobody wants to spend the money for calibration stuff, but throw boxes of paper, and ink at the printer to try and get something decent. The pantone unit sells for under $150.00 new at Fry's. The payback will be extremely fast when you consider the cost of paper and ink. At one time I had an epson 1270 which is a dye printer. When first printed the color was a lot more saturated than I get with my pigment printer, till it started to fade. A lot like printing on matt when you are used to glossy. Softproof you image on the screen to see what it will look like on the print. I have to admit that the eye one would be a better option though. I remember Jeff Schewe saying that the eye one was the best on the market if you use an LCD monitor. Till you have your monitor calibrated to an ICC standard you truly are, just pissin' in the wind.

lending was suggested as a trial toward a solution. It may be against the eula, and I'm sure to roast in hell for worse -- so my sugestion should only be followed if you wish to take the same hard worn path that I've followed. I'm renting an M1 scanner this weekend. I plan on seeing how it does with regard to crossproccessed negs. I rather doubt that microtek is getting their ounce of flesh form the rental, nor do I think they care.

David I have a spyder if you wish to borrow it, but the shipping may wind up costing a fair % of what they sell for on ebay.

I stand corrected. The M1 rental came only with the crap scan wizard and not the silverfast software. Maybe they do care.

I'm still going to hell.

Thanks folks. I'll get the gizmo and will report back when I've sorted it all out, probably in a couple of months, because we're looking to move soon.

Well if the move takes you up to the Syracuse area, let me know and I'll get you sorted.

Thanks, Greg. I think we'll be staying close to NYC, though. Syracuse would be a bit of a commute!

Okay, I just found an Eye-One Display 2 gizmo at a reduced price from a guy who bought one and never used it on the LF forum.

I have to say, though, the visual calibration seems to have been good enough to give me consistent results these past several weeks, as long as I have an ICC profile for the paper and printer combination. However, other people's images and videos often look too dark on my monitor, so I suspect I don't have it quite right.