Spyder 3 Pro and iMac

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>I just installed Spyder3Pro on my iMac (Intel 2008)</p>

<p>I'm very unsure about one of the questions it asks. It asks if the monitor has controls for brightness / backlighting / contrast. My inclination was brightness as that's what I have in the system profiler, but in reading more on the the datacolor help files, I'm a bit confused.</p>

<p>1. It talks a lot about physical buttons on the monitor for brightness, contrast, etc. I do have a brightness button on my old Cinema display, but not my newer iMac. Are they only concerned with the external buttons or the system controls as well? Can't figure it out.</p>

<p>2. It says it's important to set the brightness to the factory default. I have no idea how to do that!</p>

<p>3. It says that most modern LCD displays actually use backlighting even if it says brightness.</p>

<p>I have no idea if I've set this correctly for my display. I just left the settings as they were and picked brightness. The calibration looks very slightly magenta to me now, but maybe I'm just not used to it - my uncalibrated monitor, it seems was very bright and warm.</p>

<p>I've also opened up a help ticket to datacolor, but if anyone else knows the correct setting, I'd appreciate the help.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>1+the button you have are on the keyboard normally F1 and F2 those with the little sun on it. no physical button on the imac.</p>

<p>2_put the brightness to the maximum to start</p>

<p>3_doestn really matter for the imac, use brightness and all will be fine.</p>

<p>The Imac out of the box is blue and wayyyyyy too bright.. so depending of the setting you use (i use 6500k 2.2 gamma and 120luminance) you should be now OK but yes the screen could look warmer to the red side a bit vs before.</p>

<p>Just be aware that the Imac 2008 until late 2009 havea *problem* so to speak as they cant have a low luminance level, not below 135 or so.. too high for the normal viewing condition... so your print could look darker than your monitor, but it is not a printer problem.. i mean your printer dont print darker .. it is your monitor that still too bright.. follow me?</p>

<p>The new Imac late 2009 model (22 inch and 27inch model) dont have this problem anymore.</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>I've never even noticed the sun on the f keys. LOL.</p>

<p>Actually, my uncalibrated monitor was too bright - but way too yellow. Perhaps varies monitor to monitor.</p>

<p>I was watching the Kelby training videos yesterday that mention the problem of monitors being too bright. He had a tip that for printing to Epson printers (as an example) he duplicates the layer, sets the blend mode to screen at 20% and labels it as the printing version. Write an action for this. Cool, huh?</p>

<p>Well, I'll keep you updated how all this pans out. Thanks.</p>

[marlon]

<p>For iMacs... if I'm working on another computer I put the brightness to maximum, and then go 3 down from that. Seems to work. </p>

<p>For the color calibrator I've tried the calibration by deliberately putting wrong answers to the questions... I still end up with the same result, so don't worry too much about that. The hardware does it's job and then makes the profile for you.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>And to answer the original question directly, I believe that one and only control is for the intensity of the backlight.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> was watching the Kelby training videos yesterday that mention the problem of monitors being too bright. He had a tip that for printing to Epson printers (as an example) he duplicates the layer, sets the blend mode to screen at 20% and labels it as the printing version. Write an action for this. Cool, huh?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually no, pretty dumb IMHO. Why alter the RGB values when the display calibration is simply too bright and the prints look darker by comparison? Talk about not fixing the issue and causing issues elsewhere. IF the monitor is too bright, lower the luminance! Or raise the print viewing conditions:</p>

<p><img src="http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Andrew, I see what you're saying, but I think the point is that even with your monitor calibrated, one image may be output several different ways. When you print to an ink jet printer or even off-set, there is dot gain. The different setting would be to compensate for THAT output. In that scenario, it would not make sense to change your monitor. Kelby and the Epson rep were saying there is no way a backlit monitor will ever look like a print on fine art paper (in particular) <em>that</em> plus ink spread (dot gain) often requires an adjustment to compensate. The same image for web or another output wouldn't need to be lightened. They did say - DO A TEST PRINT - to see if adjustments are needed. :-)</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>I think the point is that even with your monitor calibrated, one image may be output several different ways.</blockquote>

<p>Shouldn’t. You should soft proof the image, if the profile and display calibration are good, you’ll get a very close print to screen match. Altering the RGB values as suggested because the prints are darker than the display is just idiotic. The profile accounts for dot gain (which on modern ink jets is rather small). There is no way to get an exact match between an emissive display and reflective print but you can get 95% there. Not enough to warrant altering all the images with this adjustment layer. So yes, do a test and if you are using sound color management, you’ll be darn close the first print and the adjustments necessary for your goal for the final will probably never be anything approaching the adjustments recommended. These adjustments are suggested because those suggesting it don’t understand how to properly calibrate their display to the print viewing conditions next to the display! There is no correct cd/m2 value other than one that produces a match. And a very close match is achievable without resorting to altering the RGB values this way. Adjust based on viewing the soft proof properly configured (with the simulate check boxes on, with the calibration aimed at producing a visual match). </p>

[chas_frady]

<p>Leslie, you could have spent a little more and gotten the Spyder3 Elite. The new Elite software adjusts the brightness/luminance of most Macs automatically, based on the target values you set. You wouldn't have to search for or touch ANY buttons.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p><a href="http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pu-s3ps3e.php">The upgrade to Elite is $99</a> (same hardware device).</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-pu-s3ps3e.php" target="_blank">The upgrade to Elite is $99</a> (same hardware device).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can’t understand why both DataColor and X-Rite provide the identical software with crippled software. Silly. Not being able to control the luminance is not providing a product that allows for proper calibration. Silly. </p>

[brad_smith8]

<blockquote>

<p>Not being able to control the luminance is not providing a product that allows for proper calibration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fortunately the Spyder3Pro does allow you to <em>measure</em> luminance in advanced (RGB control) mode. So it is easy to get the luminance you want by adjusting brightness or back-light.</p>

<p>I understand that some iMacs do not allow adjusting for a lower luminance. On my Dell U2711 a brightness setting of 14 (50 is default) coincides with my preferred luminance of 90 cdm^2 using the Spyder3Pro.</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<blockquote>

<p>Adjust based on viewing the soft proof properly configured (with the simulate check boxes on, with the calibration aimed at producing a visual match).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, interesting as Scott also says that soft proofs just don't work. Although I'm not new to the idea of color management - it's my first time employing it for myself. I tend to think that Scott Kelby and an Epson pro probably have at least some experience at all this, but I'm still gathering information and open to learning. I value your input.</p>

<p>For this thread, I just want to make sure I'm calibrating my monitor correctly with the hardware / software that I have.</p>

<p>Chas, et al.</p>

<p>I will look into upgrading to the elite. When I bought the pro - it was based on recommendations by sites I read much more experienced than I that the Pro would be sufficient for most people. Could be that was wrong. What target values would you be setting?</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Could you guys explain setting the luminance, please? I'm not sure I'm following you on this.</p>

<p>Could you help me see what the Elite will do for me? I had read on some other sites that most of what the Elite offered over the Pro were not essential things. What is interesting is that in looking over the Datacolor site, almost all the tutorials and manuals are for the Elite.</p>

<p>BTW, Datacolor responded to my query and said just set the brightness to a reasonable level and proceed with calibration. Also replied that the brightness refers to backlighting.</p>

 

[gooseberry]

<blockquote>

<p>Patrick Lavoie wrote:<br /><em>put the brightness to the maximum to start</em><br /> <em>i use 6500k 2.2 gamma and 120luminance</em><br /> <em> Just be aware that the Imac 2008 until late 2009 havea *problem* so to speak as they cant have a low luminance level, not below 135 or so.. too high for the normal viewing condition...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm on an iMac (2008, Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard) + Spyder 3 as well, so this discussion certainly is of great interest to me. However, having read about iMac displays' "feature" described by Patric, I got my colorimeter bundled with <a href="http://www.integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html">ColorEyes Display Pro</a> (as they figured out a work-around). Mind you, they strongly suggest manually turning the brightness down to get it as close to the target as possible before profiling (which, in case of older iMacs, means all the way down.)</p>

<p>There is some contradictory information, which keeps bothering me.</p>

<p>re Gamma, <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3712">Apple states</a> that <em>Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard uses a gamma value of 2.2 by default. In earlier versions of Mac OS X, the default system gamma value was 1.8 </em>[so the latter applies to my computer]</p>

<p>re White Point, as per the <a href="http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Aperture_2_User_Manual.pdf">Aperture 2: User Manual</a> (refer Glossary section on p.669), <em>native white point for a Mac computer is D50 (5000 kelvins); for a Windows PC, it is D65 (6500 kelvins)</em></p>

<p>re setting both, <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2026">Apple advises</a> to <em>select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point.</em></p>

<p>Now, while I do understand why they are suggesting that, I'm a bit concerned about possible banding issues that could arise due to changing both parameters.<br /> <br />In one of his contributions to the <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00Q7TT?start=20">Mac calibration at 1.8 or 2.2?</a> thread, Andrew said that <em>color managed applications [...] don't care if you use 1.8 or 2.2, they compensate (Display Using Monitor Compensation). The difference is, you're introducing more banding in the display because the native TRC of most displays is much closer to 2.2 than 1.8 and more compensation has to be applied to the LUTs which are 8-bit. All you're doing is adding more banding to the display system and gaining nothing useful in return. Note however that Apple Cinema displays are using a native 1.8 TRC gamma!</em></p>

<p>Similar message comes from ColorEyes re White Point:<br /><em>'Native' is the best choice when you have an LCD display that is not Direct Digital Communication (DDC) compatible and does not have a 10-bit or higher internal LUT. Video cards that output only 8-bit color to your monitor, provide 256 tones from white to black for each channel (RGB). For instance, if you have an LCD monitor whose native color temperature is about 6700K but you want 5000K, some substantial adjustments need to be made, and if you cannot adjust the monitor, all adjustments will have to happen in the video card. In the process of trying to hit 5000K, you'll be turning the blue output down by 20% or more, so you </em><em>may end up with only 230 or less tones of blue. This is a common source of banding. Monitors with high-bit internal LUTs provide more latitude for adjustment. For instance, a monitor with a 10-bit internal LUT actually has 1024 tones for each channel, leaving much more room for adjustment. So making your color changes in the monitor instead of the video card increases color precision and eliminates banding.</em></p>

<p>So the question is, <strong>are iMacs DDC-compatible, and how high is their LUTs' bit rate?</strong> I could find nothing on this in the System Profiler, and only the following under Graphics/Displays in the profile generated by Onyx, but it doesn't explicitly answer the two questions, so I'm still clueless -- do these specs tell you that:</p>

<p>Chipset Model: ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro<br /> Type: Display<br /> Bus: PCIe<br /> PCIe Lane Width: x16<br /> VRAM (Total): 256 MB<br /> ROM Revision: 113-B2250L-259<br /> EFI Driver Version: 01.00.259<br /> Resolution: 1920 x 1200<br /> Depth: 32-Bit Color<br /> Core Image: Hardware Accelerated<br /> Mirror: Off<br /> Quartz Extreme: Supported</p>

<p>So far, I had White Point set to 'Native' (which is D50, I believe) and gamma to L* (strongly recommended by ColorEyes, which apparently they pioneered; there is no 'Native' option.)</p>

<p>I also wanted to ask about the mismatch between working color space's and display's gamma -- ProPhoto RGB has 1.8 Gamma, and I use it a lot -- but found my answer in the other of <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00Q7TT?start=10">Andrew's posts</a>...<br /><em>> Labs [...] almost universally expect you to use a 2.2 gamma</em><br /><em>Which has nothing to do with the TRC (gamma) of a display. The TRC of a working space and that of a display don't have to, often don't "match". In some cases, a TRC of 1.8 for those rare few working space's is useful independent of the display</em><br />...so I gather that's not a problem.</p>

<p>And to finish on a less technical note, does the provided suction cup work for you? -- mine was never able to hold the device "glued" to the screen, so I removed it. Should you have similar experience, how do you attach the instrument to the screen?</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Tomek, i am not a technical guy regarding delta E and L* and cie whatever.. sorry ; ) Andrew is far more able to help you there.</p>

<p>What i can say is, i stop using gamma 1.8 when calibrator arrive 10years ago or so... i have use 2.2 for everything MAc or PC, whatever OS they use.</p>

<p>As for the color temp, again, i never like D50 or 5000k as i alsways find it way too yellow and warm for my taste, but also way too warm for the reality period.. many people tell me that i should just get use to it.. but i cant. So i have always use 6500k.</p>

<p>As for the suction cup thing.. it is a really bad idea to make it work on a LCD monitor, you should never even tried it because the risk of sucking the coating of your LCD is too great. On the new glass window Imac this is not a problem of course.</p>

<p>The best way of using it is to make sure that the weight they give with it fall behind the moniotr, and that you give a slight 30-45 degree angle or so to your monitor, that will make sure that the device is set correctly on the screen.</p>

<p>And yes, on a old Imac, setting the brigthness to is lower value is a good idea to start since it is way too high at that level anyway.</p>

[digitaldog]

 

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that some iMacs do not allow adjusting for a lower luminance. On my Dell U2711 a brightness setting of 14 (50 is default) coincides with my preferred luminance of 90 cdm^2 using the Spyder3Pro.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I don’t know why your preferred luminance is 90 cd/m2 unless you have a pretty dim print viewing booth and can’t raise it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, interesting as Scott also says that soft proofs just don't work. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>He may be a master Photoshop wizard but someone needs to show him first how to properly calibrate a display and then how to properly soft proof! We’ve had soft proofing in Photoshop since 1998. I don’t think the Adobe engineers are blowing smoke up you know what and the vast number of users working every day with proper soft proofing feel the same way as Scott. He’s simply using the tools incorrectly. He is misinformed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could you guys explain setting the luminance, please? I'm not sure I'm following you on this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are at least three calibration targets you must specify with the host software. Luminance is the measured intensity of the backlight of the display using a metric (scale) called Candelas per Meter Squared. The next is the white point (color of white) of the display. Usually defined in Kelvin (which is a range of colors) or better, using a Standard Illuminant (an exact color spec). Lastly there is a Tone Response Curve, often incorrectly called just Gamma. </p>

<p>There is no one right set of values to pick for this calibration other than the one that produces a visual match to the print in the viewing booth or viewing area next to the display as shown above. If one value worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be asked to specify these targets. Since everyone uses different ways to view prints, its simply impossible to tell anyone what values to select without defining the print viewing conditions (something Scott appears to have missed). </p>

<p>I’m actually finishing up an article about all this and the reason so many are reporting their prints are too dark. It is intended to show up on Luminous Landscape. Spoiler alert, the biggest reason people report their prints are too dark is the huge disconnect between display luminance and print luminance. As most to take the print into another environment and 9 times out of 10, they report the print isn’t too dark. The issue is caused by improper use of the calibration tools! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, Datacolor responded to my query and said just set the brightness to a reasonable level ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ask them WTF is that supposed to mean! <br>

Brightness is our subjective perception of the display backlight intensity. "Luminance" is what you describing in terms of the surface of a radiating object like a display. </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>The iMac is not DDC compatible and even DDC compatibility is a can of worms. <br>

Native White Point and Gamma are ideal for displays who’s panels are only 8-bit (the majority) because as you move farther from the native behavior, you introduce banding into the previews much like the effect of doing radical editing on 8-bit per color data instead of high bit. Its useful to know that when you see banding on your display, the banding is in the image itself, not the display. So unless you have a high bit panel, moving farther from Native will produce more banding. But (there is always a but), what if using Native White Point produces a severe disconnect visually between display and print (all this being affected of course by the print viewing illuminant)? You have to decide if you wish a bit of banding and a better match. Or just get yourself a decent display that has no such issues in terms of bit depth AND control over the panel (something like an NEC SpectraView or if you just won the lottery and have money to burn, a Eizo). Now you have a full DDC like “smart monitor” that controls the entire behavior of the panel, in high bit for the target calibration you ask for (including and quite importantly, contrast ratio). </p>

<p>Native Gamma is fine or just pick 2.2 for Mac and Windows (as pointed out, later Mac OS’s are now thankfully 2.2 in terms of their assumption outside ICC aware apps). </p>

<p>As for the rest of the target calibration aim points, I’ve addressed this above. </p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Andrew, I agree about Datacolor's response about setting it to a reasonable level, Uh, thanks? LOL.</p>

<p>I don't even remember Spyder Pro asking me about luminance. Do you mean when you tell it to use Gamma 2.2 and 6500 K? Perhaps I'm just not up on proper vocabulary.</p>

<p>Btw, on the Kelby site, there is a video that Matt Kloskowski does (Mastering Color in Photoshop) that shows soft proofing and the Spyder Elite. Just watched a very interesting video with John Paul Caponigro on "The Art of Proofing".</p>

<p>Looking forward to your article.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't even remember Spyder Pro asking me about luminance. Do you mean when you tell it to use Gamma 2.2 and 6500 K? Perhaps I'm just not up on proper vocabulary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s the white point. We’re looking for the area where you specify a value in cd/m2 (or nits). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Btw, on the Kelby site, there is a video that Matt Kloskowski does (Mastering Color in Photoshop) that shows soft proofing and the Spyder Elite.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Showing it correctly or incorrectly? Matt is as guilty as Scott based on this post to his blog:<br>

http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/video-the-trick-to-getting-brigher-prints/#comment-14876<br>

Note my post there in the comments (nothing back from Matt). And it appears you are a NAPP member as am I, you may want to go to the NAPP forums, sign in and read this series of posts (which is why I decided to write my article to defuse the color management misinformation from those at NAPP I thought knew better):<br>

http://www.photoshopuser.com/members/forum/showthread.php?t=34478<br>

On Page 3, Matts shows up, you can read his comments (it works for me). He is unwilling to discuss why his prints are too dark in the first place (are they?) and what he’s doing to calibrate the display. Ignorance is bliss. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just watched a very interesting video with John Paul Caponigro on "The Art of Proofing".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JP’s approach is different! He’s telling us correctly that at some point, you need to make a print to judge stuff you can’t judge from a soft proof (sharpness is one). He shows how to bracket proof which is a great technique for minimizing ink, paper and time to nail a tweak. He’s not suggesting that prints are real dark compared to the display, so add some arbitrary layer to fix an issue that could be fixed by proper display calibration. He’s working at getting past that 94% visual match between display and print. </p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<blockquote>

<p>That’s the white point. We’re looking for the area where you specify a value in cd/m2 (or nits).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea what this means. I need to be educated. Can you suggest a good source for learning this better?</p>

<p>Yes, John Paul's video reminded me of things we used to do in the darkroom. (I worked for 8 years at a professional B&W lab.) Using test strips, writing notes, bracketing - and yes, it's for fine tuning the print output to a highly professional level.</p>

<p>I'm not a NAPP member yet - plan on it. I do subscribe to the Kelby Online Training - which, color management aside ;-) has excellent videos and I learn a lot from it. Worth the money.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I have no idea what this means. I need to be educated. Can you suggest a good source for learning this better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200512_rodneycm.pdf<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200410_rodneycm.pdf<br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Leslie, short answer; put gamma 2.2, 6500k and the luminance 120/cdm2.. if you dont see the latest it is because you cant set it.</p>

<p>If i remember correctly theres effectively no place to set it in the spider3 pro software. This 120cdm2 number is, lets keep thing simple, where you will be able to produce a monitor / print match on luminosity.</p>

<p>Since your Imac is too bright, the print as for now look too dark.. but its not. So playing with curve set to screen will only make the print ligther to accomodate you for what YOU THINK its suppose to be.. by the way, you dont need to copy the background to do this as it double the size of your file for nothing.. just use a adjustment curve, dont touch anything, press OK, set this curve to screen and set tit to whatever % you need.. dont know why people who create tutorial still tell people to double the background for this operation.. master or not, they are not working properly for sure... or with real day to day things to deliver.</p>

<p>Good source for the long answer..</p>

<p>Color Management for Photographers: Hands on Techniques for Photoshop Users by Andrew Rodney ; )</p>

<p>keep your money and join www.lynda.com for better real life and to the point knowledge .. in my oppinion. NAPP is good, but as you see, old technique or bad advice dont cut it for me.</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<p>Thank you Andrew. I've downloaded the PDF's and will read them thoroughly. Hmm. Will look into your book as well.</p>

<p>Patrick, I don't think I have the option to set the luminance in the Pro version. I don't remember seeing anything asking me about that. Perhaps I need to buy the Elite version after all.</p>

[leslienicolephoto]

<blockquote>

<p>keep your money and join www.lynda.com for better real life and to the point knowledge .. in my oppinion. NAPP is good, but as you see, old technique or bad advice dont cut it for me.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've already paid for a year. I used to subscribe to Lynda for InDesign, Illustrator, etc. They do have good courses. Perhaps when my Kelby subscription runs out I'll look into Lynda again.</p>