Monitor Calibration Pointless if only used for digineg Pd/Ziatype prints ?

[Timothy]

This point has confused me for some time, and I now need to resolve it. The time has come to get a new computer and I am considering the biggest most powerful iMac that I can get. The reason for this is that it will be the most affordable option to offer the largest monitor/working space, and RAM combination with processor power to run Photoshop files of really large size. I am only scanning black and white silver negs in 4x5, but I am trying to get the best scans possible and then use PS to tweak the files for digi-neg printing on Pictorico. Therefore, I do not understand what difference colour accuracy will make in the monitor. As most of you know, the process of making digi-negs for any black and white "alternate process" involves a lot of calibrating of the printer and the profile of the density levels that it will print at, but the colour accuracy of the monitor seems to me to be irrelevant. The reason I am asking for advise is that I have been told that the colour space of the iMac monitor is limited and therefore impossible to calibrate adequately for "Digital Photography". I do not think that I am doing "Digital Photography" and fail to grasp the relevance, but sure don't want to spend $2500.00 on a new iMac only to find out that I can not get optimal prints with it.
Please advise ...

 

[gmikol]

I am only scanning black and white silver negs in 4x5, but I am trying to get the best scans possible and then use PS to tweak the files for digi-neg printing on Pictorico. Therefore, I do not understand what difference colour accuracy will make in the monitor. As most of you know, the process of making digi-negs for any black and white "alternate process" involves a lot of calibrating of the printer and the profile of the density levels that it will print at, but the colour accuracy of the monitor seems to me to be irrelevant.

Keep in mind, that the process of calibrating a monitor involves not only color accuracy, but also luminance accuracy. Mind you, I have no experience with the iMac, but many monitors, as-shipped from the factory, often have white levels that are far too high (making shadows appear too open), and could have a native gamma that's different than the gamma of your editing space. IMO, it is important to have a calibrated monitor so that all the work you put into editing your photos so they look "just right" on the screen gets translated onto the print.

The process of calibrating the digital negative / printer is the is the process of ensuring that the luminance values in the digital file are printed at the desired (optimum, ideal) levels in the print. But if your monitor isn't representing the luminance values correctly, you will have a much more difficult time in getting a print that accurately represents what you're seeing on the screen.

The reason I am asking for advise is that I have been told that the colour space of the iMac monitor is limited and therefore impossible to calibrate adequately for "Digital Photography". I do not think that I am doing "Digital Photography" and fail to grasp the relevance, but sure don't want to spend $2500.00 on a new iMac only to find out that I can not get optimal prints with it.
Please advise ...

Go ask the folks on APUG whether you're doing "digital photography."

In all seriousness, since you're scanning and doing editing steps on the computer, prior to making your output with a digital component, you are subject to many of the same considerations for editing and output that any other digital photographer would be subject to. If color gamut is the shortcoming of the iMac, then it's not really relevant to you, but one should ensure that there are good (hardware) controls for setting white point and black point on the monitor so that you can get an optimal luminance level and range.

With all that being said, if you are currently using an uncalibrated monitor in the workflow you describe, and are happy with the results, then you *may* not need to worry about calibrating your new iMac. Just keep in mind that the images you have will likely look different on the 2 monitors. And if you're going to go through the effort of making your new monitor look the same as your old monitor, you might as well calibrate the monitor to a known standard instead (typically, D65 white point, 100-120 cd/m^2 luminance, 2.2 gamma).

Good luck--

Greg

 

[Timothy]

Thank you so much, Greg. Most importantly, it seems you have understood the question and answered it directly. I get the impression that the other people I have tried to ask this question simply do not get it. As I anticipated the critical question is Luminance, not colour. The specific parameters that you have given me should be very easy to check before buying by simply looking at specs.

Thanks again,

 

[gmikol]

Tim, I'm glad to help. I suspect there are a lot of people out there who have purchased and used calibration software, but may not understand how or why it's done or exactly what benefit it confers (other than that it makes the monitor "right"), but rather just do it because someone said they were supposed to do it.

The published specs of a monitor will likely far exceed the 120 cd/m^2 luminance value (some may have max. luminances in excess of 1000 cd/m^2). The key is whether there are hardware controls that allow the backlight level to be dimmed to the appropriate level, as opposed to a software adjustment, which just tells the OS that some level of gray is "white" because it is at the appropriate luminance level. In this latter situation, you will be more likely to see banding on the screen. Keep in mind that a "hardware" control may not necessarily mean a dedicated "brightness" or "contrast" button on the case. i.e. many laptops have a hardware backlight control through a keyboard shortcut or a dedicated control panel applet (but not, typically, through the video card utility). Hope that makes sense...

--Greg

 

[Neil Poulsen]

You don't have to spend that kind of money for digital negatives, under any circumstances. I'm sure that there are far less expensive systems that can give you everything that you will need.

Be careful about Pictorico and make sure the edges curve down versus up. It's a plastic material, which if it curves up, can strafe the underside of your print head. I had this happen to me.

 

[RonaldFat]

Monitor Calibration Pointless if only used for digineg Pd/Ziatype prints

Is there a way to verify accuracy of created ReShade 3DLUTs via HCFR Calibration?

 

[ced]

I think the main thing for you is the Luminosity and Neutrality. Make a nice RGB Grey scale and display it on the monitor you want to use.
PM me and I can send you a file I use if you want it...
I tried to attach it but it displsays as black (some restriction from the site...)

 

[Doyle Thomas]

back in the day before monitor calibration all printing was trial and error. what you want to do will work fine.

"Make a nice RGB Grey scale and display it on the monitor" black may not be the best choice, there is a magenta color that is more opaque to uv light for increased contrast.

 

[Doyle Thomas]

yes

back in the day before monitor calibration all printing was trial and error. what you want to do will work fine.

"Make a nice RGB Grey scale and display it on the monitor" black may not be the best choice, there is a magenta color that is more opaque to uv light for increased contrast.

 

[ced]

My reference to the RGB greyscale is to get an idea of the monitor's situation & not about the output regarding printing Pd/Ziatype prints...