Spyder2 calibration too dark?

[kng]

I just calibrated my Viewsonic VX2025wm LCD monitor with a Spyder2express on OS X 10.4.6 (and

GeForce FX 5200) with the following monitor settings:<p>

 

factory default of 6500K<br>

factory default of brightness 100<br>

factory default of contrast 70<p>

 

The monitor does not have a selectable 'native' white point, so I left it at 6500K. The other options are

sRGB, 9300K, 5400K, and User Color (selectable RGB values). Not like the latter would be useful anyway,

since this Spyder version doesn't do RGB tuning.<p>

 

All four shadow patches are visible in the wizard, as are all four highlight patches.<p>

 

After calibration with the Spyder2express, which calibrates to a Gamma 2.2 and 6500K (this is the lowest-

end Spyder2 so this is the only gamma it will profile to), I find that the monitor is too dark. Not excessively

dark, but enough for me to question whether I have a properly working colorimeter.<p>

 

Viewing gamma patterns <a href="http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm#menu">here</a>, I find

that the pattern for gamma 2.4 looks much more neutral than the gamma pattern for 2.2, which is what

<i>should</i> appear neutral (but doesn't.) After looking at the gamma applet <a href="http://

www.tsi.enst.fr/~brettel/TESTS/Gamma/Gamma.html">here</a>, it seems it might even be somewhere

around 2.7.<p>

 

Any ideas as to what's the problem here?

[phoneguy]

How is the ambient light in the room? I calibrate with a spider too. When I calibrate, I close all the blinds, but let in just enough light to seem like it's evening. (That's when i do most of my work)

 

I've also tried it with a black cover over the monitor to eliminate all ambient, but keeping the room dim has been the best results so far. The low end Spyders aren't that great to begin with (IMHO).

 

Mike

[kng]

Ambient light is low. Desk lamp off, blinds closed. Just for the heck of it, I also tried turning

the lamp on and opening the curtains, but that didn't change the results...

 

I decided on the Spyder2express because a) it was affordable and b) I read that the hardware

part (i.e. the actual spyder) was the same as the higher end models; it's just that the software

is more elaborate and has more capabilities in the more expensive packages.

[phoneguy]

you could be right. Occasionally I have to calibrate a second time because of a magenta tint. I'm going to upgrade from the spider to a Monaco, or Greytag...I haven't decided which one yet. I also got the spider for cheap, but I'm not overly happy with it. Not bad for $70 though. Good luck...I'm stumpped.

 

Mike

[serge c]

First - Mac people not happy with Spyder2 can always try Coloreyes . It's a very highend software from Integrated Color that works with Spyder2 (and most other) colorimeters (it still does not work with Spyder2 on PCs). You'll see if you benefit from advanced calibration options.

 

Now what do you consider "too dark"? Do images in Photoshop and other applications look too dark? You can't see the buttom part of the greyscale ramp? If images in colormanaged applications (like Photoshop) look too dark then it's a problem. (Safari color management is a somewhat complicated issue and I don't know much about it, so if web images are a problem I can't help).

 

First - there's nothing wrong to set backlight (usually labled as "brightness") higher at the beginning of calibration. Just don't blow out the differences between the light part of the greyscale ramp.

 

Second - there are currently two versions of Spyder2Express software. The older one (2.2) has a Native white point target for LCDs. Personally I'd recommend using that version. In any case I'd try it to see if it solves the problem. And, if you have the older version, there's no reason not to try the newer one to see if it solves your problems.

 

There is no reason to adjust RGB buttons while calibrating an 8 bit LCD, so it's good you don't have that option. Most calibration software would mislead you into doing that.

 

http://www.colorvision.com/sup_dl-upgrades.shtml

[thomas_sullivan]

sounds like you're doing things correctly. The following is actually a printer test, but it's got some pretty dark shadows with detail in them, plus the explanation of what you should be seeing. after you download the file, bring it into photoshop........leave the website open so you know what to look for. It should give you a fair idea if you are too far off.<br><br><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/black_and_white_test.html"><u>northlight-images black and white test</u></a>.......of course there should be absolutely know color in this image at all.

[serge c]

I'm always confused how to look properly at those test images to come to conclusions about calibration. On my monitors the datails in the checkered pattern image are not visible in non-colormanaged applications but are visible in Photoshop.

[thomas_sullivan]

Judging by all the references in the explanation of the chart, I firmly believe that this particular test chart was meant to be viewed in Photoshop.

[scottpope]

I am having similar problems, I posted this to fred miranda forum earlier today...maybe somebody here can help. Thanks, Scott

 

Hello all, I am trying to calibrate my monitor with Spyder2 and am having some problems. My initial problem with wanting to calibrate my monitor was because my prints were always coming back a little to dark. Previous to trying to use the Spyder I was using some free tools that I found on http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#gamadjust

 

My problem with calibration is that when I adjust the brightness and contrast and gamma on my monitor to be able to see a difference in all four dark grey/black squares (i don't have a problem seeing a difference in seeing the light grey/white squares) I have to make my overall monitor very light/bright which when I measure the gamma now using the free tools it says it is around 1.5....(I am calibrating it to 6500/2.2) which I think is making my initial problem of the darkness of my prints worse. Am I missing something? Is my monitor to crappy to be able to be at the correct gamma and show all the dark shades of grey?

[kng]

Serge: By "too dark" I mean the blacks have been crushed. Perhaps I'm simply not used to

having my blacks so dark.

 

I've spent the last few hours trying out the free demo of ColorEyes which you

recommended, and it seems to be quite the software. Much more thorough and quite

powerful. I've tried many different combinations of settings, and all yield slightly different

results. I've calibrated to 6500K (instead of D65), maximum luminance, and gamma 2.2.

I've also tried L*, which provides a slightly different rendering of the blacks.

 

Now, how is one supposed to choose between these slightly different results anyway? I

can't just choose the profile that looks the 'best'...isn't calibration supposed to be an

objective process? The profile from the spyder software is perhaps slightly warm and

green. The ColorEyes profile with gamma 2.2 is cooler, perhaps on the verge of magenta.

The ColorEyes profile using L* (which the program recommends) is similar, save for the

different black rendering (almost like it's extending the toe, if you will.)

 

Thomas: I've downloaded that test file you linked to and opened it in photoshop. Profiled, I

see that the blacks in the top right small image have been crushed; there's very little detail

visible. That prompted me to just make a new image in photoshop and make some test

swatches. I can just begin to see the difference between 6,6,6 and 0,0,0. How does this

compare to what you guys can see, or what I should expect?

 

I've noticed some interesting behaviour with photoshop, however. Let's say I've got a

photoshop document open with my swatches of 3,3,3 4,4,4, etc up to 9,9,9 on a 0,0,0

background. When I'm in the displays control panel with the profile I've made with

ColorEyes (gamma 2.2) selected, I can't see any of the swatches in the photoshop

document. However, when I click into the document, some sort of adjustment occurs and I

can see some of the swatches. This change isn't as visible with the L* profile. Does

photoshop do some sort of internal gamma management?

[serge c]

See - the reason they sell software without options is that it's hard to explain those options to people new to the concept.

 

The main thing about color management is measurment (I can't emphasize this point more - it's usually misunderstood). The software measures the output of your monitor using the colorimeter, records this information in the profile and then colormanaged applications like Photoshop and Safari use this information to adjust colors they display.

 

 

This obviously requires an accurate colorimeter. The reason Coloreyes supports Spyder2 is that they think it's accurate enough (they did not support the original Spyder).

 

Photoshop and other colormanaged applications adjust their output depending on the profile selected for the display in the control panel (cause they know how the output looks like so to speak). So when you change the profile Photoshop has to change the colors it displays. The reason you don't see it with the L* gamma (I suppose) is because it's close to the native gamma your monitor already displays.

 

Also, when you choose a profile with other than Native white point and Native gamma settings in the control panel your OS changes the colors displayed on the monitor using videocard LUTs (things are more complicated for windows users at this point...).

 

 

You can also choose to adjust your display's output to a certain target. There are several standard targets that are used for calibration (D65/2.2, 6500K/2.2, D50/1.8, whatever...). If you have a reason to make your monitor look like one of them - go ahead. However for a single 8 bit LCD there's a reason not to do it - this sort of adjustment degrades image quality. Like any kind of 8 bit color adjustments it drops RGB values. So Native target is recommended (meaning just measuring the output without adjusting).

 

To sum up - Spyder2Express version 2.2 has very reasonable settings of Native white point/gamma 2.2. You should be able to use it for a single LCD with good results. :)

 

But color management is more fun if you have more options.

[serge c]

"Does photoshop do some sort of internal gamma management?"

 

That's a pretty good way to put it. It does. All colormanaged applications do. That's the best thing about them.

[serge c]

Hey Scott - I haven't noticed your post. Which monitor do you have and which version of Spyder (or Spyder2) do you use?

[scottpope]

I have a NEC MultiSync 95 and Spyder2 PRO 2.2.

 

Thanks for your help in advance. I know my post got buried but I didn't want to start a new thread that was closly related, hopefully people will notice me :)

 

Scott

[thomas_sullivan]

regarding the image in the upper right hand corner. The horizontal shelf looking thing has a completely black shadow (if you open the info tab, K will be 100% and occasionally 99%)just below it, that extends below the brighter ledge thing approx 2/3's the thickness of the ledge. Then there is a noticable change in shade, and a pretty straight line of it, where it goes slightly gray (in the info tab K is approx 91% to 97%). The 97% is just ever so barely noticable on mymonitor, the 91% is clearly noticable. Below the ledge there is "some" texture", but above the ledge is a lot of texture. Mind you, all of it is between K of 86% and 100%.

 

You will NOT see this with a white background...you have to shrink the photoshop image window to just only have that small image in it, and your photoshop background, all around the image window, is the default gray. That bright white will flood your eye with light, and you'll never be able to discern those small changes in deep black or deep dark gray.

 

Your example of 0,0,0 to 6,6,6 is maybe a little wide. Again, if I make two bars 0,0,0 and 4,4,4 inside a background field that is pretty big of 128,128,128 I can just start to see the difference......but I do see it.

 

I might add that all of this is in a room with the lights off, but I have a second monitor where I keep the photoshop tools....it's background is relatively dark........ummmmm, probably an average of 80

[thomas_sullivan]

80,80,80............not 80%....to make that clear.

 

One other thing, your eyes do have to adjust to all this for a few seconds.........you can't expect to look at a bright white on your monitor and then expect to see smal difs in black immediately. Your eye has a memory, or something like that.......

[serge c]

According to Google that's a CRT monitor. What do you adjust during calibration? Do you use RGB buttons? Which targets do you set for white and black luminance and how do you achieve them? If you don't set Luminance targets just set them to "measured", leave the fields blank.

 

Do a validation after the calibration (File/Validate...), then print info (file/print...). See what it reports in white point, black level and white intensity fields.

[serge c]

My previous post was adressed to Scott and Spyder2 Pro.

[serge c]

Come to think of it Scott - post a separate question. It's a different software (although the same colorimeter), different type of monitor, different issue. It will just confuse people. I'll post a reply.

[kng]

Okay the upper right hand image, with the ledge: I don't see essentially no detail

underneath it, but I do see some above the ledge. Between the ColorEyes 2.2 and L*

profiles, the 2.2 reveals more in that regard. The Spyder2Express profile is similar to the

L* in terms of black rendition, but it's overall brighter in the highlights and warmer.

 

Now, subjectively, the profile that I get after using the visual Apple Display Calibrator is

easier on the eyes in that it's brighter and the blacks have opened up. I can see rock detail

above the ledge, rather than vague patterns.

 

Now, if the display appears too dark overall but anything I work with in Photoshop will be

adjusted so that I can see those shadows, I can live with that. But outside of Photoshop,

even 10,10,10 is identical to pure black (sRGB PNG viewed in Firefox, for example.) Safari

is fine since it's colour managed (4,4,4 is visible), but in Preview, not even 12,12,12 is

visible. This inconsistency is really bothersome.

[kng]

"I see essentially no detail underneath it", rather.

[serge c]

If you had Coloreyes trial runs left try calibrating to 1.8. Essentially when you use the OS visual "calibrator" you adjust videocard LUTs to change RGB gamma in noncolormanaged applications. This is not a recommended procedure, it just gives you visually pleasing results. It is also not recommended to adjust a monitor to 1.8 via colorimeter (adjusting videocard LUTs is a lossy procedure). However based on your description this may make you more pleased with your noncolormanaged applications appearance. For colormanaged applications it will not make a difference.

 

Note that adjusting to gamma 1.8 is not recommended by Apple for photographers:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302827

[thomas_sullivan]

I'm no expert at all this, Serge seems to know more about it then I do, I'm just trying to tell you what I see using Spyder on my monitor.......oh, and it's a PC based machine.

 

Personally, I would worry ONLY about what Photoshop gives you. The only thing you ultimately care about is if what you see in Photoshop proper (the space where you edit pics.......not Image Ready or save for web or any of that) and what your printer puts out are as close to identical as is humanly possible. I really don't worry about any other program.......picasa, IE, the web in general, or any other method of image viewing. PS is the one that matters as that is where you are going to print from.

 

but yes.......it is a shame that there is no consistency to all of this. Wait until you go to show Aunt Ruth a pic you uploaded to your hard worked on website, sweating to get all those jpegs looking beautiful..............and she's got the contrast turned up to MAX and the blue color cast is frightenning and you start explaining to her how to fix it..........and she says "but I like it this way, I can see the words much better this way".......arrrrgggggghhhhhh!.......and then of course you go upstairs to Uncle Harry's computer in his office, and the contrast is MAX, the brightness is low, and it's got a really nice warm shade of red to it......heh.......and he says, yeah, I tell her all the time she sets it up wrong.......hehe

 

....but, again, if you feel you need to fix what you have......and I am not really sure if you do or not.....you "seem" to be pretty close in Photoshop), I would listen to what Serge says. I'm only about 6 months ahead of you in all this monitor cal stuff..

[kng]

The reason I started this thread was because I was concerned about whether I had a

hardware problem with my colorimeter or not, because the profiling results I got from it

were so far off from visual calibration. I just tried the visual calibrator SuperCal (with

gamma 2.2), and so far I've had the most neutral grays and whites with this. As I said, the

Spyder2express profile is green, and the ColorEyes profiles are magenta. Now, with

ColorEyes, I can fine-tune the white-point afterwards to match what I "see" as white, but

I'm still doubtful as to whether the blacks for any of the hardware-calibrated profiles are

as truthful as they're supposed to be.

 

To further illustrate the disparity between the hardware and visual calibrations, this is

what I did: I made a photoshop file with a black background, and made swatches ranging

from 2,2,2 to 26,26,26. Serge, you're saying that the visual calibrations change the

videocard LUTs so it affects all applications, whether they're colour-managed or not?

Because this appears to be the case: with the SuperCal profile, the image looks identical in

Photoshop and Preview, and I can see down to 4,4,4 with both.

 

However, with either the Spyder2express or ColorEyes profiles, the first swatch I can see in

Preview is 24,24,24, where it is mapped to 5,5,5 (according to DigitalColor Meter).

Everything below 24,24,24 is pure black. Accordingly, the rest of the OS and UI is darker

than I'm used to.

 

So why can't I get a hardware calibration that has the uniformity of the visual calibrations,

where I don't have this huge disparity between colour-managed and non-colour managed

applications?

 

Thomas, although Photoshop accuracy is important, to me it's not the only one that

matters. If I'm posting images to the web for a client to review, and if everything below

24,24,24 is pure black with a hardware profile, but I can see down to 4,4,4 with a visual

profile, then I really have no clue what the client is going to see.

 

I appreciate everyone's help on this so far. Much appreciated!

[kng]

Something funky is going on, because stuff appears fine in Preview now. Using Firefox,

however, (which I know is NOT colour-managed), 12,12,12 is the first visible swatch with

Spyder2Express profile, 10,10,10 with ColorEyes.

 

So what I'm leaning towards is using ColorEyes with a custom white point adjustment to

remove the magenta, and accepting the loss of detail below 10,10,10 in non colour-managed

apps.