Questions before I calibrate my monitor:

[lorraine_smith1]

<p>Since my print lab is sending me prints that seem darker than what I see on my monitor, I have decided to go with the Color Munki Display to calibrate my LG LED IPS monitor. But before I do that, I had thought of:<br>

1. Will I need to adjust any settings on the monitor (like, resetting to the factory defaults) prior to calibrating?<br>

2. What happens to all the existing digital files I have in LR4 and on my <a href="http://www.RozinaSmithPhotography.com">website</a>? Will they all need to be post-processed again and re-uploaded? (Please say "no" :)<br>

3. If my monitor is calibrated to an "industry standard", and the lab's printers are calibrated to an "industry standard", will I still need to get the lab's ICC profile?<br>

4. Many people say that it takes time for their eyes to get used to the monitor once it has been calibrated. How long are we talking? minutes, hours, days?<br>

5. I am running Windows 8 64-bit. Is the x-rite Color Munki compatible?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</a></p>

[peter_cohen]

<p>I can only respond to #5: yes.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>See this thread I posted some photos demonstrating of my setup and what exactly is causing the dark print issue...</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79948.0</p>

<p>What LG model do you have? I have the LG 27ea63v-p I bought at Best Buy and it was calibrated at the factory by a much more exacting and expensive Minolta Color Analyzer 210 than the Colormunki Display which I also have and used to confirm the validity of the accuracy of my LG. If you have the higher end LG 27ea83, that was calibrated at the factory as well.</p>

<p>You will need to get an ICC profile of your Lab for best color matching but you can try printing an sRGB target and see how it matches the target on your display. </p>

<p>You will not have to re-edit your LR4 files getting a newly calibrated monitor.</p>

[lorraine_smith1]

<p>I have an IPS235. Thank you, Matt, I have been to that page and have read the beginning, but then my eyes glaze over and I start twitching when I get to the part about Gamma. Gonna have to read it again. And again. :)</p>

[Dave410]

<p>I have the ColorMunki and I calibrate my monitor every month. I can help with a couple:</p>

<p>#1 Yes, but it's easy. Just follow the instructions during the calibration.</p>

<p>#2 Maybe, but probably not. If your monitor was seriously out of calibration before, you will notice your photos look much different after you calibrate it and you may want to fix them, but they will probably be close enough. It all depends on how close your monitor was before calibration.</p>

<p>#3 Don't know. I've never sent an image to a lab for printing.</p>

<p>#4 Seconds. There is a known bug in ColorMunki for Windows 7 and sometimes the gamma doesn't load on startup. It may take me a minute or two to realize something is wrong and then I manually load the gamma. Big change to the monitor and I say "Wow, did I really want to do that?" A second or two later I realize it's much better and all is well. But it really doesn't matter -- calibrating your monitor is so important that you just have to do it if you're serious about photography. No way to avoid it.</p>

<p>#5 No idea. I'm using Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>3. If my monitor is calibrated to an "industry standard", and the lab's printers are calibrated to an "industry standard", will I still need to get the lab's ICC profile?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing (Industry Standard). The URL on dark prints is where you need to go instead of thinking there's some magic set of aim points that will produce a match from display to print. Further, you need to soft proof using a good profile from a lab that <strong>will</strong> allow you to use it! IF they suggest you use the profile for soft proofing but will not allow you to use it (they demand sRGB), you're out of luck. That's not how color management works, despite their attempt to make you think they are doing everything correctly. </p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>OP: 1. Will I need to adjust any settings on the monitor (like, resetting to the factory defaults) prior to calibrating?<br>

Dave: #1 Yes, but it's easy. Just follow the instructions during the calibration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so fast.</p>

<p>Some but not all monitor adjustments are "easy". Some adjustments may not even be supported. Most (lower end) monitors do not have adjustable internal LUTs. OP should find out whether the LG LED IPS monitor in question has such a support.</p>

<p>http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's often several LUT's along the imaging chain — not just with the video card. The other LUT that is most relevant to monitor calibration is your monitor's <em>internal</em> LUT (as discussed later). If your monitor supports modifying its own LUT (few do), this will usually achieve more accurate calibrations than using your video card's LUT. However, unless the calibration software is designed for your particular monitor, it will likely end up using your video card's LUT instead.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/calibrating.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some models offer further enhancements such as a extended internal Look Up Tables (LUT's) where an even wider colour palette is available to choose from. These can help improve gradients and colour rendering capabilities and are often used in higher end profressional grade monitors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Depending on OP's budget and needs, all the gibberish in this thread may have no pragmatic meaning. Why not go ahead and calibrate the monitor with the application you already have and see if it fixes the dark print problem?<br /></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Some but not all monitor adjustments are "easy". Some adjustments may not even be supported. Most (lower end) monitors do not have adjustable internal LUTs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In these cases, one may wish to use a Native Gamma and Native White Point assuming the later produces a decent screen to print match (not too warm or cool). That's IF the software calibrating the display has such settings. </p>

[lorraine_smith1]

<p>(in the corner, lying in the fetal position, crying)<br>

Thanks! I will looks into those suggestions :) Even though some of this is way over my head!</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>I use a lowly Sony laptop and I print to a Canon MP810 and the prints come out exactly the same as the image on the monitor. I also have never used a lab. </p>

<p>Surely it can't be this hard, but I suppose if one wants to produce fine art level prints, its necessary? This is all harder than film processing. It looks like the digital image industry have yet to go beyond the sRGB/Adobe standards.</p>

<p>The controversial photographer, Bill Henson, told a seminar that he takes a week in post to get gallery quality prints he is happy about. I suppose thats par for the course and it would have been the same with film.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Lorraine, it's not as complicated as it has been portrayed in this thread. </p>

<p>My settings on my LG27 which cost me $330 at Best Buy are posted in the image below. All I did with the Colormunki Display is choose LED backlight in the preferences, Native White Point, 2.2 gamma and chose a 100 cd/m2 luminance target which the Colormunki software let me adjust the Brightness before it did the measuring of color patches. </p>

<p>I'm not familiar with your LG model so I don't know about how well its calibrated state at the factory was set but the straight line of the RGB LUTs seen on the left of the image below indicates the Colormunki didn't have to do much correcting from the target points.</p><div></div>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Make a gradient in Photoshop and check for banding. I didn't have much after the Colormunki calibration/profile seen below which is why I bought the Colormunki as well as for their color math they write to the profile for color managed apps like Safari and Photoshop to render correct hue/saturation.</p><div></div>

[Dave410]

<p>Tim -- why did you use a 100 cd/m2 luminance target? </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim -- why did you use a 100 cd/m2 luminance target?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it matches the brightness of white of my Epson Ultra Premium Photo Glossy paper lit under my (2) T8 5000K flotubes shown in reply #3 in that Luminous Landscape discussion I linked to above. In addition the brightness level of that light also allows me to see the separation in each steps of the grayramp test target print also shown in that link. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>And since Colormunki Display doesn't show current measured color temp after selecting Native after calibration, you can go into Photoshop's Color Settings and select your newly named ICC display profile in the RGB Working Space drop down menu and then scroll up to CustomRGB which will show the Color Temp X,Y coordinates. </p>

<p>Mine shows how well I nailed 6500K adjusting the RGB gains in the LG27" OSD menu shown in the screenshot below. For those who may get a different X,Y set of numbers that don't exactly match 6500K/D65 you can enter them into the "Chromaticity Calculator" here:</p>

<p>http://www.markhunter.com/writings/articles/chromaticity.asp</p><div></div>

[Dave410]

<blockquote>

<p>Because it matches the brightness of white of my Epson Ultra Premium Photo Glossy paper</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Makes sense if that's your target output. I usually follow the herd and use 120. Cheers.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p><em>LED backlight in the preferences, Native White Point, 2.2 gamma and chose a 100 cd/m2 luminance target....????</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

My eyes are bleeding. Please tell me I don't have to learn all about this stuff. We mortals read all this and go into despair. Why is it necessary? Why is it that my $600 laptop display matches the print straight out of the box?<em><br /></em></p>

<p>At his work in a digital agency, my son uses a 30" iMac printing to a big HP colour laser printer that outputs A3 colour prints perfectly. Is it a case of fiddling around too much or that the op's image was not taken with the correct settings in the first place? Anyone want to comment and help a geezer like me understand a bit better? </p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>(in the corner, lying in the fetal position, crying)<br /> My eyes are bleeding. Please tell me I don't have to learn all about this stuff. We mortals read all this and go into despair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Think of, and treat, color management as you would your physical appearance, perhaps you can wipe away your tears/blood and crack a smile.<br /> <br />In our society, a body of beauty is defined as certain body height, with proportional weight, chest, waist, hip, etc., etc., etc. In beauty contests, these criteria would be scrutinized to the extreme. There would be "winners" to prove that "ideals" do exist. Manufacturers would push their products as "must haves" to achieve such "ideals". Sadly, many would succumb to such foolishness and die trying. The few wise ones would maintain a healthy body, put on sensible clothes/makeups suited for their professional/social environments, and focus on their INNER beauty.<br /> <br />Color management is very similar in many regards. Manufacturers, technologists, gurus, and geniuses would preach "ideals" and how to achieve them with $$$$$ and incomprehensible gibberish. Yes, they can be achieved, by a few with deep pockets, technical Phds, and the need to do so. But for the vast majority of the photographers, there is a huge middle ground that can satisfy their needs with reasonable budget and effort well within reach. Yet few books and tutorials will tell them that is the case, and how to do it. The wise ones would come to realize that they are not competing in beauty contests. Those "ideals" are beyond their reach, and are not necessary for their purposes. They are satisfied once their images can achieve a certain technical quality suited for their purposes. Instead, they are free to focus on their images' INNER beauty, such as themes and esthetics, etc.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I usually follow the herd and use 120.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just don't follow them over a cliff <g>. There is nothing magical or special about 120cd/m2 and in fact, many new out of the box LCD's can't hit that low a value natively (so you introduce this into a LUT). The correct value is the one that produces a match to the print viewed next to the display! If you move the print from the display, it's out of the equation, you can't determine if it matched or not. WYSIWYG doesn't apply any longer. That isn't to say you shouldn't target the print to it's viewing environment. It means you don't have the display to match any longer and most people want that assurance the two are in sync. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Color management is very similar in many regards. Manufacturers, technologists, gurus, and geniuses would preach "ideals" and how to achieve them with $$$$$ and incomprehensible gibberish.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Color management is <strong>absolutely</strong> <strong>unnecessary</strong> if you are happy making print after print until you get what you desire! That cost $$$ for most. You could work on a grayscale display and eventually end up with a superb print without a lick of color management. Most users want to nail the output after the first test if not the very first print output. Your call. <br>

Incomprehensible gibberish would be what, any language one doesn't understand? Like Aperture or reciprocity? </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>" Why is it necessary? Why is it that my $600 laptop display matches the print straight out of the box?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> With you, Francisco. I've been fortunate all these years. I plug my spyder in and when it's done, there is hardly any difference in the before and after. Everything I send out for print, to my epson or even Costco, comes back WYSIWIG. Yet I have other friends, mostly Mac friends actually, that always have had issues with printing green on epsons. I just shrug and feel lucky. I think it might have to do with good video cards as I've always bought premium ones and that seems to be the variable</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Yet I have other friends, mostly Mac friends actually, that always have had issues with printing green on epsons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OOG (Out of Gamut). Especially egregious for those who love sRGB! Big differences between it and Adobe RGB (1998) (which is still smaller in gamut in many areas of color space to a modern Epson) is greens! Got nothing to do with the OS. OOG is OOG. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>My eyes are bleeding. Please tell me I don't have to learn all about this stuff. We mortals read all this and go into despair. Why is it necessary? Why is it that my $600 laptop display matches the print straight out of the box?<em><br /></em><br /> At his work in a digital agency, my son uses a 30" iMac printing to a big HP colour laser printer that outputs A3 colour prints perfectly. Is it a case of fiddling around too much or that the op's image was not taken with the correct settings in the first place? Anyone want to comment and help a geezer like me understand a bit better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My eyes bleed, too, when I see so many "My prints are too dark" threads started on what basically is the OP's inability to understand the basics of lighting characteristics not only within their editing environment but the photography setup which I thought I outlined thoroughly in the Luminous Landscape thread which I provided images to help make this understandable.</p>

<p>When someone says their prints are too dark, we don't know if it is caused by their lighting and the brightness of their display to get them to edit them dark or maybe (and rarely) the Lab is causing this which from my 10 or so years experience dealing with local one hour photo lab outlets sending sRGB image print targets that include a grayramp I don't seem to be getting dark prints.</p>

<p>I mean do you think these labs spend over $10,000 on equipment and calibration processes just so their customers can go back for reprints at 20¢ a 4x6 because they print a grayramp where half of it is totally in black? I don't think so!</p>

<p>And no, you don't have to know all this technical stuff. If your digital imaging capturing, editing & output work station processes all work together to deliver WYSIWIG then don't bother learning how any of this works. However, when it stops giving you WYSIWIG results how are you going to know where the process chain went wacky? This really isn't that complicated once you understand the basics on how all of this works.</p>

<p>In fact I don't know if you're aware about the HDtv industry but I found out recently researching for my first model in order to get the best bang for the buck that this thread's level of complexity is nothing compared to what I found discussed at AVSforums where many contributors spend thousands of dollars for a 60" HDtv and then another $400 to have a technician spend 3 hours calibrating the darn thing. Miles and miles of screenshots of complex mapping graphs outlining gamut and color tracking analysis adorn pages and pages of threads for what seems every HDtv model in existence. My little screenshot calibration/profiling analysis of my LG27" looks like child's play by comparison.</p>

<p>And remember, the HDtv guys aren't making a living creating content, they just spend tons of money so they can watch content made by others in all its glory.</p>

[Dave410]

<p>Quick question - When I calibrate my Dell U2410 monitor with my Colormunki, what monitor preset should I use? I've been leaving the monitor set at Adobe RGB, but I read a couple of websites that said to use Custom. </p>