Calibrating a Dell U2412M monitor with i1 Display 2

[pat_cahir]

 

<p>Hi all,<br>

<br /> I recently got some prints done and they are not matching my monitor.<br>

I have tried to calibrate my monitor several times but I have failed to improve the profile.<br>

The colours on the monitor look pleasing to me. However, the prints are too dark and there is a colour discrepancy between the monitor and the prints. The colour cast varies depending on the image. I previously got prints that closely matched my monitor. At that time I was using a different monitor and lab. The lab I am now using is supposedly colour managed.<br>

My old monitor was a HP 2475w which used CCFL lighting. Is the i1 Display 2 capable of calibrating LED monitors? I did read this article by Andrew Rodney (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml) and I do plan to purchase a Solux Halogen blub.<br>

Settings:<br>

Native: white point<br>

Gamma: 2.2<br>

<br>

</p>

<p >Luminance: 120</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

You ask a good question:

 

" is the i1 Display 2 capable of cal bating LED (backlit) LCD displays?"

 

I think it is not. An i1 Display Pro with i1 Profiler software does a much better job for me.

[howard_m]

<p>also, the i1Display2 may have fading filters at this point (as they are plastic).</p>

[custom film holders for fl]

<p>>>Luminance: 120<<<br>

I think some points of his article are ready for updating. Many of today's better quality LCD monitors can, and need to, be calibrated at a much lower luminance level than 120. I am running my NEC at 90 and it calibrates just fine. Did you try to calibrate lower than 120 and have an error? If you haven't tried calibrating lower, that is where I would start. Try 100.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>However, the prints are too dark and there is a colour discrepancy between the monitor and the prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you follow the outline for a match at:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The lab I am now using is supposedly colour managed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The key word here is <em>supposedly</em>! Do they provide the output profile of the printer for you to <strong>both</strong> soft proof and use for conversion? If not, they are not color managed! </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Many of today's better quality LCD monitors can, and need to, be calibrated at a much lower luminance level than 120.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A very few can <strong>natively</strong>, very few below 100cd/m2. There's <strong>no</strong> reason why one has to work with low backlight intensity when one can and should control print viewing conditions. The ONLY advantage to lower backlight is that backlight will last longer and use less electricity but with modern LED backlight, that's not an issue at all. The old farts from CRT days (myself included) do not have to work with low backlight intensity as we did years ago and for many LCDs, you'll never get a native backlight intensity (which you do want) anywhere near a CRT nor is it necessary. New, out of the box, a CRT might be able to output 100cd/m2 but not for very long. IF prints are appearing too dark (they are not really too dark), lower the backlight as much as you can <strong>natively</strong> for a match but don't ignore the print viewing conditions which by design should have the ability to increase output to match a print too. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I have that same monitor, and use a Spyder 4 Pro with it, which works fine. The software guides me to use a lower luminance level (I have it in a low-light room), and typically I have it around 90 cd/m2 (as measured by the calibration device). My own printer has only very crude manufacterer-supplied profiles (as it's a very simple device), but the prints really do look very close to my screen (certainly no luminance problem at all). So empirically, I'd say calibrating the monitor shouldn't be a problem.<br>

Does the print service deliver their colour profiles so you can at least preview?</p>

 

[pat_cahir]

 

<p>Hi,<br>

Thanks for the responses. Andrew, what are your thoughts about the suitability of i1 Display 2 calibrator? I'd rather not have to buy a new device unless necessary.<br>

I only have it a few years so I'm not sure about fading filters. I did run idiagnostics and the device passed so the hardware seems to be okay.<br>

I'd rather not lower the luminance as I use my monitor for other things where 90 or 100 would be quite dark.<br>

The thing is with my previous setup I got a good match without much fuss. (the whole point of colour management).<br>

I have paper profiles which I soft proof with. I don't have output profiles for conversion or is that the same thing?<br>

Many thanks.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I did run idiagnostics and the device passed so the hardware seems to be okay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's good news. I'd try tweaking the calibration options to get closer to a match. The issue is that depending on the software, you're given crippled 'tools' if I can be so kind, for setting the critical aimpoints; white point and backlight intensity. You don't need to force a low backlight onto the process as long as you can control print viewing conditions. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have paper profiles which I soft proof with. I don't have output profiles for conversion or is that the same thing?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It <strong>is</strong> the same thing unless a color management cluless lab provides the profiles only for soft proofing and not for producing the output values (they don't allow you to convert the data). If they force you to send them sRGB, the alarms should go off. </p>

[pat_cahir]

<p>Yes, the lab does recommend srgb and RGB 1998 for their other printer.<br>

So if I convert my file to their paper profile it should be provide a good match? Previously, I was only using the profile to soft proof but converted the file sRGB. Is that the problem? <br>

Thanks.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>The problem is they are giving you a profile but not letting you use it, making it very questionable if they are too. With what rendering intent? With Black Point Compensation? It's just a kludge, half baked workflow that doesn't embrace color management fully or correctly although the lab's doing this would like you to think they are color managed. Personally I'd just say: <em>Send us sRGB or Adobe RGB and you're done.</em> Or <em>Here's a profile, soft proof and use it to convert the data</em>. But nothing in between. It's just dumb. </p>

[pat_cahir]

 

<p>What happens if I convert to paper profile and then sRGB?<br>

I could try converting the file to their paper profile next time and see if print matches any better.<br>

It's not so easy to find a lab that details it process in the recommended manner.<br>

What about profiling the LED panel? Is that part of the problem?<br>

<br /> Thanks</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What happens if I convert to paper profile and then sRGB?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bad things <g>. You don't want to do that. You have to send them sRGB or better, Adobe RGB (1998). But you can forget about the profile, it's useless. You convert the data using the profile that respects those output conditions of which it was built. The lab isn't providing that profile. </p>

[pat_cahir]

 

<p>Andrew,<br>

One last question. Can you recommend a good lab that follows colour management best practices?<br>

I am based in Vancouver but a lab in the US that does mail order would be fine. Most labs don't detail their work flow in the manner you recommend.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

 

 

[digitaldog]

<p>I used to use Pictopia who did the real, full CMS path but alas, they are out of business. Maybe NancyScans? http://nancyscans.com/2d-printing</p>