Macbook Pro 17 - Calibration Problem

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>sandy, I got your email concerning this so I'll answer it here so others who have this model can use the info if needed.</p>

<p>My Dell settings are as follows:<br /> Graphics-not Video<br /> Brightness: 20<br /> Contrast: 50<br /> R:100<br />G:96<br />B:93<br /> See the actual measured response below as recorded by i1Match 3.6.2.</p>

<p>It was done in Easy Mode using the older original i1 Display. What this mode does is just measure the actual response of the display with regards to Kelvin color temp, black point, gamma and luminance and writes it in the profile including tweaks to each RGB tone response curve to take out all the color cast errors in the entire black to white gradient so all the grays match in color cast to the measured white color temp cast.</p>

<p>In my case my iMac's native color temp, due to it being 5 years old, has gone down to 5900K. It used to measure 6500K when I bought it used about 3 years ago but to me 5900K looks more neutral than the 6500K which looked brighter and a bit bluer. My eye still adapts quickly to this color cast difference compared to my single slightly reddish yellow T8 5000K Sunshine fluorescent tube positioned about 3 feet to the side.</p>

<p>Due to manufacturing differences your Dell settings may be different from mine by an unknown degree. Using the Easy Mode won't force the software into manipulating the 8bit video card LUTs except for getting the color cast kinks out of the grays so you utilize as much of the 8 bit video signal to reduce banding in gradients.</p>

<p>The Easy Mode is really the hard way of calibrating a display if hooked to a VGA connect because you have to keep tweaking the display's OSD buttons to reach a target like 6500K, black point=.1 and luminance 120 and then remeasure the response with the calibrator to see if you nailed it. Any other way by choosing targets in i1Match forces the software do it through the video LUTs.</p>

<p>If on a DVI connect I would set your brightness and contrast and try both Multimedia and sRGB Standard to see what measurement you get between the two because on my Dell the Multimedia looked very close to my custom RGB tweaks which measured at 5900K but the Multimedia setting looked more neutral. My custom RGB tweaks makes my grays look a bit on the green side compared to Multimedia. sRGB Standard is noticeably brighter and a tinge bluer. I do believe just using the sRGB Standard would get you closer to ideal target of 6500K without doing it through software.</p>

<p>You need to set proper contrast and brightness to achieve native 2.2 gamma viewing 21 step grayramp (look it up on the web on how to make it or download it from somewhere) loaded as your desktop pattern so that color management is not influencing the appearance of actual gray densities. Adjust the B/C so that a white page is at the same brightness of your paper viewed under the lights you judge color by and your black is as dense as you can get it.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>sandy, here's some info to give you an idea why you have to trust your calibrated display over your print mismatches from online printers.</p>

<p>http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/news.47.html</p>

<p>http://web.ncf.ca/jim/photography/photofinishers/index.html</p>

<p>Go to DryCreekPhoto.com's minilab profile database and try to find one you can temporarily assign to an sRGB test image you've had printed from these online printers. What this will do is locate a profile that mimics how off their print is from your test image. Once you find one that's the closest, that's the one you convert your images to before you have them print it. You'll still need to do a test print to see how close you come.</p>

<p>The only other alternative is to have a custom profile made from a target image provided by the one making the profile printed off the online printer of your choosing. </p>

<p>Or buy ColorMunki and make your own custom printer profile.</p>

<p>These are currently the only solutions I can think of at the moment.</p>

[sandy_w1]

<p>Quick update: I think I have finally got my monitor to match the prints. First, I adjusted the RGB settings on my Ultrasharp monitor. I just eye-ball and try to match the colors as close to the prints as possible. Then, I used Eye-One in Adv Mode, selected "Native White Point" (instead of any specific temperature) and let it do the rest. It never asked me to adjust RGB and I got a profile temperature at 5900K. I must say, the prints are pretty darn close to my monitor. I'm not sure if it's because of my manual adjustment or if Eye-one actually did calibrate something.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Sandy,</p>

<p>Glad the calibration worked out for you. Did converting to the printer provided profile give you a good match?</p>

<p>I would suggest you set the Dell to its optimum color temp of 6500K which has all three RGB adjusts set to 100 or set it to Standard preset mode which does the same thing then recalibrate while still using Native White Point in Eye-One Match.</p>

<p>My settings of 5900K are from an aging 2004 iMac, but if you like the look of 5900K use that. Do you get a straight line seen in the final Eye-One Match graph where you should have all three RGB lines close to being on top of each other or does it look like what's shown in the Eye-One graph I posted above? Those results above aren't too bad, so if you can get that, you're good to go.</p>

<p>Just remember the more out of wack from being a straight diagonal each RGB line is including the entire combined set, the less bits within the video card are going to your display. This may create banding only seen in gradients. It's no biggy, but if it's very severe, it can mess up edits of deep blue sky gradations to horizon and other types of broad gradients in an image. You may see banding where it doesn't exist in the file.</p>

<p>Just FYI.</p>

[sandy_w1]

<p>Thanks Tim!</p>

[gina_jo]

<p>Sandy, glad you're posting here with the 2209WA. I'm just as anal as you about getting it to match.... and I use WHCC! I have been fooling with this since Wednesday myself, back and forth, read, read, read... adjust.... recal....adjust....LOL<br>

I have read in many places that contrast should stay at 75 and brightness around 10, although I got good readings having it differently. I was able to see level 1 on this test here:<br>

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_black.htm<br>

Also, have you ever use HCFR? Check out this review and LCD tests here and also the program link. Let me know what you think or what you come up with. I will do the same. Or shoot me an email. Would be great to talk with you. You're a photographer I'm assuming? Me too :O)<br>

Here's that link:<br>

http://www.richardlovison.com/?p=571</p>

 

[gina_jo]

<p>btw, do you all have your sharpness at 50 or 40? I've read many reviews that say to put it at 40. Going by the following test, I would agree with that.<br>

Any input on this?<br>

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php</p>

[sandy_w1]

<p>Hi Gina<br>

I have my contrast at 50 and brightness at 5. I don't use Spyder so not sure if HCFR will do anything with my config.<br>

I have sharpness at 50. I'm not techie enough to tell you the difference between 40/50.</p>