Is calibration must?

[rustyair]

Hi all,

I have an year old imac 21" and have a few questions.

1. Is calibration must ? (I send out digital files to online printers and sometimes the color does not match.)
2. Is imac monitor good enough? or Do I need to get a photography purpose monitor?
3. Is it worth to calibrate an imac monitor?
4. What are my options for calibration? I've heard calibration hardware such as Spiders etc doesn't really work well on glossy imac screen.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Pioneer]

I assume you are asking about monitor calibration. If so, it is the only way I know to ensure that what you are looking at on your monitor is going to be somewhat similar to what you see from your printer.

If you edit your work and send it out for printing, ask your printer what kind of calibration you should consider. I use the Spyder Pro and I like it.

Not familiar with your monitor.

 

[Dan Quan]

As far as I know, yes, calibration is a must. I know of no way to get around it.

 

[tkamiya]

I don't know about Apple displays but LCD panels in general will drift adjustment slowly. Mine, higher end Dell kind, stayed very steady for the first year and after that, it tends to drift off a bit - enough to need re-calibration every 6 months or so.

Even IF you calibrate, color and density will never match between your display and the printed media. It's just that if you don't calibrate, you won't know how far it's different and it may change from time to time.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

as I am officially a Southerner now, I'll say:monitor calibration is a bunch of huiand , You'll be just fine with your standard iMac settings.set it to 1998RGB and call it a day.that will save you all kinds of moneyand avoid major headaches.I haven't found anybody yet who was able to claimto truly understanding color calibration.it seems to be a black art,designed to confuse us and get our money.I tried the Spider without much successand now stick to Apple's and Epson'sdefault settings without much of aa problemright out of the box; and I'm a pretty picky guywhen it comes to photographic quality. I will not invest any further money or effort and do more shooting instead.

 

[pschwart]

Calibration is not *required*. But if you want your images to display consistently on other systems using color managed apps like Photoshop or (some) browsers, or use printer profiles created in a calibrated environment, or submit your work for contests or publication, then you will benefit from calibration. Luminance calibration is critical for B&W, and even if you are only printing B&W, you will want color calibration to provide a consistent workflow for tasks like channel mixing for converting digital captures to B&W, even creating digital negatives. With enough experience you can edit using the RGB numbers alone, but it's far easier to edit using a color managed setup. I profile my monitor and printers; I don't worry about scanners or digital cameras.

 

[toyotadesigner]

If you want to print yourself or have your images printed, monitor calibration is a must. As well as film or scanner calibration or both. Or printer and paper calibration.

Well, almost. If you happen to have enough funds to order the same print 25 times in a row until the colors are correct, you definitely don't need to calibrate anything. Simple as that.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm with kamiyacolor calibration doesn't even work.I stop at custom made luminance calibration.that's all I need for B&W.

 

[Richard Boutwell]

I'm with kamiyacolor calibration doesn't even work.I stop at custom made luminance calibration.that's all I need for B&W.

Calibration works if you do it properly. It gives you the piece of mind that if you see what you thing is correct on your monitor, with your eyes, and then EMBED the correct profile (for the appropriate circumstance) it will be translated as more or less accurately when another user views it.

Telling people things to the effect of "I don't see a difference so it must not be important" is 1) not helpful, and 2) irresponsible. For black and white printing, need a constant luminance setting, but you also need a corrected gamma setting and corrected rgb setting. Otherwise the contrast in your file won't match what is displayed or printed.

If calibration didn't work there would not be an entire industry devoted to it, and the millions of users who implement color management correctly must be delusional. The point is making the translation of tone and color from one system/user to another be as accurate as possible. Can it be confusing to some people? Yes, obviously. Is it necessary? No, not if you don't care how it looks when displayed (or printed) anywhere other than on the monitor you originally viewed it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The monitor calibration device isn't too expensive compared to paper and ink, and I've found I've gotten more consistent results since I started using it, so I don't see any particularly good reason not to calibrate.

 

[lenny]

If you want the print to be a certain way, don't bother with online printing. Find a custom printer near you and bring your image there. Have him mask it up properly and print with you right there. Then you can have it exactly the way you want it...

Lenny

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I still think ,a simple luminance calibration will get you very close to the monitor image on paper,especially for B&W

 

[RalphLambrecht]

industry has a habit of creating a need if there isn't one to make money.that's all thet need to be devoted.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I wouldn't edit on any monitor that wasn't color managed, based on the ICC standard. Without a color managed monitor, at best, it'll be hit or miss on predicting the outcome of an edited color image. At worst, color editing can be a nightmare. While one can color manage printers, scanners, cameras, etc., the biggest advantage will come from color managing one's monitor.

As for a tool, I use X-Rite's I1 Display Pro. It consists of an excellent software and hardware combination that provides one with a broad range of options to color manage just about any monitor. I think that I paid about $150-$175 for mine; but, I see the price has increased quite a bit. I've also used one of the later Spyder versions, and that also appeared to be quite good. I've not used Color Monkey.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

in the day before there was color calibration we used what was know as "color by the numbers" we would find what should be a neutral color in the image and set an eyedropper there. then make a curve to set the RGB values equal. of course there were no printer profiles as well so printing was still hit or miss. standard practice was to print, evaluate and make another curve ignoring what it looked like on screen and repeat till happy. once you had a print curve it would work for most but not all images. Mr Goldfarb above is correct and a calibration device is worth the investment.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

I have an year old imac 21" and have a few questions.

1. Is calibration must ? (I send out digital files to online printers and sometimes the color does not match.)
2. Is imac monitor good enough? or Do I need to get a photography purpose monitor?
3. Is it worth to calibrate an imac monitor?
4. What are my options for calibration? I've heard calibration hardware such as Spiders etc doesn't really work well on glossy imac screen.

Thanks in advance!

I'm afraid monitor and printer calibration are a must for accurate work.I had the best success with the Color MunkiPhoto from XRite but others may work too

 

[Alan Klein]

I assume 90% of people take their picture (JPEG?) out of the camera and send to a printer that pints them pictures. Even if you crop and adjust, who changes the color hue etc in post? So I guess my question is what colors are changing? I know there may be an issue with darker prints, but how to most printing services deal with that and the color issue since so many people don't do anything to change the out of the camera files?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

As far as I know, yes, calibration is a must. I know of no way to get around it.

I didn't always agree with that but now I do.I used a color Munki photo to calibrate monitor and printer and now I haveWYSIWYG

 

[PerTulip]

It's not a MUST, and you may be doing fine without it. But for really accurate and consistent results, no way around it. I have worked on enough photos without calibration and it was OK. But for my most important photos, I rely on a fully calibrated AdobeRGB monitor and there's a difference. Just click from the standard profile to the calibrated profile and you will notice a difference. Ok, it's not a "make or break" difference (huge color cast), so factory calibration of the monitor was pretty accurate (EIZO), but it's there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Calibration is not a must but is highly necessary if you are going to print anything or send it out to be printed.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

If you do any editing of your photos on the computer, then monitor calibration is non-negotiable. It must be done. It is a complete waste of time to edit images when they will look nothing like what you saw when you print them.

ALL screens are too bright from the factory. Most WAYYYYYYY too bright. So, your prints will be too dark. Many don't display color correctly without calibration, too.

As for the iMac screen: its ok, better than most general purpose screens, but it was not made for graphics work. A good screen costs as much as an iMac. I'm really disappointed in Apple introducing the overpriced "iMac Pro." I use an older Mac Pro with an NEC Spectraview screen, which is one of the best photo editing screens. All in one systems with 'ok' screens are good for kids to surf the web on, they're not for serious photo work.

Calibration does make them much better, though, and must be done.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm drifting towards yes these days. My prints have been coming out OK but lately everything looks too yellow, so I'm going to need a spiderman at some point. For B&W I couldn't care less, histogram puts me in the ballpark and that's close enough for me.

 

[wiltw]

I still think ,a simple luminance calibration will get you very close to the monitor image on paper,especially for B&W

I agree. I set my monitor Brightness and Contast to set the full range from black to white, to not get an overly bright monitor (the way they adjust them from the factory so that they look good when displayed in retail stores!), and I have gotten very low scores (= very high accuracy of visually detecting subtle color differences) even without color calibration...scored '4' on multiple successive tests. Try for yourself...

https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

 

[ced]

There are many colour/B&W stepwedges on the web or made yourself that can be displayed on your monitor (I put them on my desktop screen as a permanent diplay).
I think the main thing is the luminosity adjustment so that the highlights are not blown away and the shadows bunged up with no info shown in the dark areas.
Then that the greys are neautral throughout. This I would say is the minimum, if you can do that without a calibrator great! So yes a minimum of calibration is a must.
See attached screen grab from my monitor and note when it was last calibrated (it has held up very well so far).

 

[GRHazelton]

While I don't know the type of monitor used by the IMac, the average LCD monitor's brightness varies drastically with changes in viewing angle. My understanding is that an IPS monitor or better is essential. Here's a quick guide: https://www.cnet.com/topics/monitors/buying-guide/ Prices have come down dramatically on IPS monitors in the last few years - since I bought mine - and the difference is worth the cost. I've used the X-Rite calibration device in several iterations; the difference it made in my prints really justified its cost. And of course if you send files out for printing ask what color space, etc, the printer uses. Before our local Costco went to a "business center" their printing service was excellent, aided by a staff member who really knew her stuff.