LCD Monitor Color Temperature

<p>Hi,<br /><br />I got a ColorEdge monitor now. which is set as 5500K color temperature and the screen looks warmer than my older monitor. <br /><br />Now question is , for photographic world what is the correct monitor setup for accurate output ?<br /><br />thank you in advance for your time. <br /><br />thanks,<br />Dwija</p>

<p>The monitor calibration standard is generally 6500k (D65) for color temp and 120 cd/m2 for brightness, but that's not set in stone.</p>

<p>Sheldon is correct. But both my experience and others is that around 90 cd/m2 at 6500K is optimal assuming that you have no direct sunlight coming in onto the computer, actually your screen should be protected from direct light. There is so much talk about 5500 and 5800K, really it is endless. Unless you have a screen in a cellar or attic or windowless area and you use a light booth to view your freshly printed images - Use 6500K at all times. There is ample information on why on the net from authoritative sources, but really you don't want to get into that unless you want to investigate colour management in detail. The key word is always "Consistency", between print and monitor screen, while the object of the colour calibration software is NOT too give you print screen matches but to KEEP the consistency between what you KNOW you will get from the printer with what you SEE on the screen.</p>

<p><tt>Dwija<br />I have never understood why the accepted "norm" for colour temperature on <br />monitors seems to be 6500k.<br />The fact of the matter is, there is no "correct" colour temperature. The colour <br />temperature is meant to reflect conditions in our real world lives. This can never be correct for every one. You will, in fact, find that 5500 <br />is far more "normal" relative to where most humans live on <br />this planet, than 6500 can ever be. The higher your elevation, the higher the <br />average colour temperature affecting your life will be.<br />On a mountain top in the under a clear blue sky, yes it could easily be 6500k or <br />higher. At sea level under a blue sky it will be <br />considerably less, because the same level of blueness is much less likely.<br />5500 k is far more correct or normal under conditions where most humans live. In <br />fact 5200 is even more "normal", but again, this can <br />vary so much virtually everywhere, depending on atmospheric conditions wherever <br />you are.<br /><br />Setting your display to 6500 for editing your photography will , in the end, <br />result in warmer looking prints . . . (you may have to think about that).<br />Leaving the monitor as you found it, at 5500k, will yield more natural looking <br />images in print (assuming outdoor photography).<br />In the studio, all bets are off, as You control the environment. You set <br />"daylight".<br /><br />Like most things in life, Everything is relative. I might suggest, you try <br />working with your monitor set to different colour temperatures and <br />see which prints you interpret as more "correct" for yourself. If you only look <br />at your images on your monitor, then it is not an issue where <br />the colour temperature is set.<br /><br />Everyone will have a different opinions on this, these comments are just mine.<br />Derek.<br /></tt></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone will have a different opinion on this, these comments are just mine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very much what I'd have said too, Derek. Good answer..!</p>

<p>There are at least two applicable standards, D50 and D65. There is considerably more to either of these than simple color temperature, but I'll leave the details to those who want to do the research and find out.</p>

<p>As to which to use, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are calibrating your monitor so that you can achieve more of a WYSIWYG approach to color correcting photographs for printing, it's largely a question of matching the lighting for the prints.</p>

<p>If that's what you're trying to do, then D50 is your best bet. Why? Because D50 is a good mid-point. D50 is about the color of full sun on a clear day. D65 is about the color of light from a fully overcast sky. D65 is considerably bluer than D50, which in turn is considerably bluer than, say, household incandescent lighting which is orange in comparison (around 2700-2800K).</p>

<p>If you decide on D65, and find that all your prints look blue to you under your viewing conditions, consider moving to D50.</p>

<p>Your display's white point should match the white of overcast clouds backlit by noon day sun-that's 6500K. See below a shot of my editing workstation environment to show how your display's white luminance should match closely to white paper lit by a light you view your prints under. My light is (2) 18" 5000K Philips Natural Sunshine T8 fluorescent tubes.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow .. thank you so much for all valuable replies. I have set my monitor at 65K now. Seems ok to me. <br>

Let me give little background on where the question comes from.<br>

Camera auto white balance can run off depending on video light/surrounding light (please do not take the discussion into white balance), hence during post processing need to adjust back to natural look, by adjusting correct white balance. At this point I refer the display in monitor. Hence monitor should be set at right white balance. <br>

Once again .. thank you every one for your input. <br>

Regards,<br>

Dwija</p>

<p>Display should look neutral. That's all. You shouldn't be able to detect any color cast in whatever white balance you choose through calibration/profiling the display. </p>

<p>Your display is suppose to be set this way as to not influence your eyes into applying edits to correct for a cast that isn't there as defined by R=G=B data neutral reference lit by neutral looking light like a WhiBal card lit by full spectrum light source like flash or sunlight. </p>

<p>My camera's Auto WB is pretty good at doing this most of the time especially when shooting under controlled full spectrum lighting like in a studio. However, there are some flash and tungsten lighting that will influence the color tables of an image that may make for instance skin tone look red or pinkish due to the light's mercury content even though a neutral target reads R=G=B. This requires creating a camera profile of that light to correct for this OR just using HSL panel in a Raw converter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now question is , for photographic world what is the correct monitor setup for accurate output ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The value that produces a match to your prints, viewed next to the display:<br /> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml<br /> Also, Display 1 calibrated to CCT 5000K may look quite different than display 2 calibrated to the same aim. If you want to know why, we can go there. But the bottom line is, CCT numbers describe a large range of possible colors and YMMV. Otherwise, we'd just have one setting. <br /> <br /> Lastly, and importantly, <strong>ANYONE</strong> who tells you what settings to use (luminance, WP, you name it) <strong>without</strong> having a clue about your actual display, enviromental conditions, colorimeter or measuring instrument and print viewing conditions is confused about the idea of display calibration and misunderstand that YMMV (a lot). <br /> <br /> Now IF you had the same NEC SpectraView II as I do, and the same viewing booth and no ambient light, and we were using the same instruments with the Spectraview (or it could be a pair of Eizo's), we'd get very close. That's because we are both using a very high quality <strong>reference display system</strong>. The idea behind such products is the ability to collaborate and view the same images remotely and see the same color (within human visual limitations).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The fact of the matter is, there is no "correct" colour temperature.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely correct (statement)! </p>

<p>I have a real challenge myself. I used to use a Samsung SyncMaster 243T, it had VERY limited ability to do any adjustments and zero color temp choices.</p>

<p>Further complicating things - I'm partially color blind. Combine the monitor and my color blindness, and I would rarely get the right color printed.</p>

<p>About a year ago, I got an Eizo ColorEdge CG245W, which has a calibration device built into the monitor frame, it swings down and completes the process. Eizo Color Navigator software 3 profiles you can calibrate to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Web Design - 6500K</li>

<li>Printing - 6000K</li>

<li>Photography - 5500K</li>

</ul>

<p>My printer is an HP Z3200ps 24", it too has a built in photospectrometer allowing it to validate icc profiles and to create it's own icc profiles.</p>

<p>With the combination of the Eizo Monitor set to 5500K and the HP printer - I get great color accuracy.</p>