incy wincy wishy washy spyder

[michael_shuttleworth]

Subject: incy wincy wishy washy spyder

 

Have just got a spyder with optical...have calibrated my monitor

(sony gsm-400ps) using precal and optical,have verified the

calibration and looked in the curves box and all seems well and good,

managed to get the luminence levels to 30 for black and 85 for white.

Thing is the images look very washed out...blacks not that black, it

looks like there's a layer of film over the screen image This gets

even worse when i soft proof in photoshop.

 

When i print out, the results look more like the un-soft proofed

images, still lacking any punch, also there is a big difference

between the standard and soft proofed image (this was not the case

before i used the spyder.

 

I've also tried using imageprint 5.6 although the prints match what i

see on the screen, they still lack any punch. Before using the spyder

my prints had real depth to them (although the colours were slightly

out) hence the purchase of said wishy washy spyder. Can anyone shed

any light on my problem Cheers Mike

[john_gill]

Just a thought but you haven't got a screen filter attached have you?

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

>Before using the spyder my prints had real depth to them (although the colours were slightly out) hence the purchase of said wishy washy spyder.

 

Then if I were you I would ditch (return or sell on) the spyder. You will never get a *perfect* match between your screen and your prints, because you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

The only effective strategy for color correcting your prints is to make the print, give it adequate time to dry (if necesary), study it in the same lighting conditions under which you anticipate it will be viewed, then go and make your color corrections to the digital file (preferably using adjustment layers, with layer masks again as needed) and print again. Rinse, repeat. (er, that last bit is just a figure of speech)

 

Calibrating your display will help get you in the ballpark, saving some time and consumables. Don't expect to go beyond that.

[michael_shuttleworth]

No John.

[steven_clark]

Maybe you should just ignore the precal and set the monitor so it has a proper black point before calibrating.

[steve_swinehart]

You've tested the computer's graphic card with the software using the graphic card test file (should be included with the software), and verified that the graphics card is compatible with the software? It should run, test the card, and give you a "Yes" or "No" answer that the card & software are compatible.

 

Then, I will assume you've setup the monitor's brightness & contrast as directed prior to doing the calibration? After calibrating the monitor and having it write the calibration file, you rebooted the computer and made sure the calibration file loaded properly & is referenced correctly in Photoshop?

 

If so, now you may have to adjust the printer's color space and it's color calibration reference. This should get you about 90-95 percent at the point of WYSIWYG between the screen and the printer.

 

The final 5 - 10 percent can only be accomplished by profiling the printer with the paper you are printing on - or using a RIP with paper profiles. You can also setup a "custom" setting in the printer controls to give more contrast, saturation, etc. When you print, you would then choose the custom setup through the printer control prior to making the print.

 

If everything is setup correctly, loading correctly, and referenced correctly - there should be absolutely NO need to "tweek" the color. My system is calibrated, and profiled, and what you see on the screen is 100% duplicated at the printer --- given the caveat that the display is transmitted light and the print is viewed by reflected light. The difference is the same as I would expect between viewing a transparency on a lightbox and viewing a print (of any kind) made from the transparency.

 

If you still have problems, CALL the manufacturer My experiences with Optical (the system I use)have been very good for technical support.

[chip]

Hi Michael,

 

The suggested black luminace level for a CRT is 0.30 not 30. You should also make sure that all of your calibrations and profile runs are done in a dark room.

 

Make certain that the Spyder has the soft black rubber skirt attached to the bottom around the sensor (not the LCD attachment), and that the Spyder remaing fully stuck to the CRT face. During the PreCAL and OptiCAL calibrations you also need to be sure to wait at least 15 seconds after making any changes to the monitor to allow monitor electronics and CRT tube phosphors to settle, this makes a big difference.

 

HTH

[andy_piper2]

If your print matches your screen, is there any chance the image is just - too light? If it's a picture you processed back before you calibrated with the Spyder, perhaps you just bumped the levels up too high to compensate for the uncalibrated monitor "back then". This doesn't apply if you're getting different prints from the exact same file and haven't changed it in between.

 

Also - what profile are you using as your printer profile? Not, I hope, "same as source" or the Spyder-generated monitor profile?

[michael_shuttleworth]

Hi, the graphics card is ok. matrox g400,spyder is fitted ok, room pich black,i'm waiting 20 secs between re-tests.

 

have recalibrated several times getting rid of all traces of previous calibrations inbetween.

 

Have tried calibrating in standard and precision mode, in precision mode managed to get 0.30 for black but only 81.0 for white though i think this should not matter to much. my rgb levels in precal are spot on.

When i calibrated in standard mode i.e judging the brightness by eye then verifing the calibration in the info window the luminece levels were 0.16 and 90 respectivly.

 

This was slightly better but still not that great i.e when softproofing ang viewing the image (this is a new well exposed image)in photoshop and imageprint 5.6 it still looks milky and things like hair are even suffering from posterization.

 

I've tried lowering the brightness levels on the monitor (optical left me with a setting of 74 of 100 on the sony...seems high to me) to 25 and this solves the problem....milkyness gone, crisp images.

 

When i print the the images look like the monitor when the brightness is set to 25...WEIRD.

 

Any more takers...Also i thought that photoshop reconised the monitor profile by itself, do i have to tell it where the profile is?

[michael_shuttleworth]

Just one more thing, when it's calibrated and i start up the pc even the windows intro page (which should be black) looks washed out because the brightness is up so high or so it seems..

 

Cheers mike

[frank_dzambic]

"when it's calibrated and i start up the pc even the windows intro page (which should be black) looks washed out"

 

Did you let your monitor warm up for a good half an hour before calibrating it? And also, when you start up your PC, do you let the monitor warm up for a good half hour before doing any serious photo-editing?

 

My Sony monitor acted similarly after calibration, with the blacks more of a light grey resulting in a washed out look. However, they gradually return to a dark deep black as the monitor warms up. This is normal. Use the warm up time to read Photo.net, or check your email.

[michael_shuttleworth]

hi Frank, yeah always let the monitor warm up, has been on for a few hours before calibrating.