charles_beasley1

<p>>>>"The 2nd white patch is recommended."<<<<br /> IIRC in some of those earlier posts you were referring to the CC Passport, so to be clear,I have the full size Color Checker, not the Passport. Are we talking about the same square when I say "the lightest gray square" and you say "the 2nd white patch? On mine, I'm talking about square #20, "Neutral 8"<br /> I reread an admittedly old article of Jeff Schewe's where he talks about not using a "gray card" for this and I understand him to mean something like the old 18% cards, and says >>>"Camera Raw includes the White Balance tool (it looks like an eyedropper) to enable users to custom white balance on known neutral samples. To be clear, this tool is designed to be used on light, nonspecular neutral tones, such as the second brightest patch on the ColorChecker.t is not designed to be used on a gray card sample. A gray card’s tonality is too far down the luminance scale."<<<<br> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/ps_workflow_sec3.pdf</p> <p>so if we are talking about the same square (Neutral 8) for "white balancing" raw, then what square are you talking about to "gray balance" already rendered images?<br /> I have been using theNeutral 8 for both raw and out of camera jpegs (which I rarely shoot) for years and wanted to know if the collective wisdom has changed to using patch #19 " White."</p>

<p>Andrew-I spent half the night reading posts of yours on this and still didn't find exactly the one I remembered seeing before, but this is close: <br /> "Even in Lightroom/ACR, WB on a raw is a completely different story than on a rendered (baked) JPEG or TIFF. IF you capture raw data, WB first, then move to other tools to correct the color's you feel need editing."<br> <br /> Let me ask a hypothetical the answer to which hopefully will clear this up for me. <br /> <br />Say I have an image I capture with my Canon 5D using raw + Large fine jpeg (with Stabdard picture style) and auto white balance of a scene that includes a Color Checker. The image is close to correctly exposed with the CC white square in the low 240s and the lightest gray patch is close to but not exactly reading R=G=B. I bring the two files into LR , and although the image looks pretty good. my curiosity wants to see if it looks any better so I want to export copies out of LR.<br /> <br />Are you saying it would be best to "white balance" the raw using the white CC sqaure, and "gray balance" the jpeg using the lightest gray patch on the CC?</p> <p>PS-I'm not sure about the etiquette of high jacking one's own thread, so if I need to repost this as a new topic, will happily do so.</p>

<p>Thanks again Andrew. After reading that section of the manual it looks like that isn't possible on this particular monitor. I do now have a better understanding of how this works, so time well spent. Im anxious to see how my prints look under the Solux compared to the monitor.<br> May I ask one other unrelated thing- do I recall correctly reading here where you said something to the effect that gray balancing is preferable for raw images and white balance better for jpegs? If so do you have something written somewhere on that?<br> <br />TIA.<br> Charles</p>

<p>BG-because I want to be able to get an idea what my customers are seeing on their non-color managed. non-wide gamut screens when they look at their proofs online. I don't get that with my monitor set to a wider gamut.</p>

<p>Andrew-If I choose "sRGB Emulation" then the contrast ratio target is locked at "Monitor Default" and Intensity "Maximum. I get a contrast ratio of 1171:1. (Luminance 219 cd/m2, bp 0.19 cd/m2) I guess that is what you mean by "If so, then it's forcing a different contrast ratio on that calibration to hit the sRGB spec."<br /> If I go to "Photo Editing" I can then change the gamut to Adobe RGB, set a Luminance target of 120 cd/m2 and a contrast ratio of 300:1. I get a nice calibration with a contrast ratio of 261:1 and a delta e of 1.32 (black point .45 cd/m2)<br /> <a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/user/cwbeas1/media/ADOBE%20300-1_zpskkwguudp.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/cwbeas1/ADOBE%20300-1_zpskkwguudp.jpg" alt=" photo ADOBE 300-1_zpskkwguudp.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /> If I go back and change the gamut to sRGB it will still let me set a contrast ratio target of 300:1 (unlike "sRGB Emulation) but the claibration will not set the necessary black point to reach a 300:1 ratio. The result is a blackpoint of .11 cd/m2 and a ratio of 1096:1.<a href="http://s780.photobucket.com/user/cwbeas1/media/SRGB%20300-1_zpsb1wovofv.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/cwbeas1/SRGB%20300-1_zpsb1wovofv.jpg" alt=" photo SRGB 300-1_zpsb1wovofv.jpg" border="0" /></a> So I guess my question is why won't it set the black point somewhere closer to .45 cd/m2 like it does when the gamut is set to Adobe RGB?</p>

<p>Hi Andrew, thanks for the quick response. I had already read your article and that is why in fact I was trying to reach the 300:1 contrast ratio, as you seem to imply might be a good place to start in the article. If you re asking me what the target values I put into the Spectraview software, D65, 100 cdm2, 2.2 gamma, srgb gamut.</p> <p>the calibration hits all those reasonablyclose, but does not reach the necessary black point to provide 300:1, whereas it will reach the necessary black point if the wider gamuts are selected instead of srgb.<br /> the monitor has no problem reaching a much higher luminance.<br /> As far as does it match the print? I'll let you know when my Solux Gooseneck with 50watt 4700K 38degree with plano-convex diffuser gets here! (ordered yesterday)</p>

<p>I searched and didn't find this exact question addressed, and looked to find a place on the NEC website to ask support, but couldn't find one. So forgive me if this has been beat to death and I'm just too stupid to find it!<br /> I have been using my NEC P221 for a few years after reading its praises here, mainly for the unique feature set, price point, ease and quality of profiling hardware/software, and the supposed ability to "dumb it down" to srgb. (I send any print work to various labs that require srgb and I am concerned with how the images look on client copmuters, and don't do any landscape prints inhouse on inkjet printers, so no need to try to convince me I don't want to be in srgb.)<br /> Using the Sprctra Sensor Pro, the latest Spectraview software, if I calibrate and profile choosing either Native or Adobe RGB gamuts, gamma 2.2, I am able to obtain a low luminance (say 100 cdm2) and low contrast ratio (300:1,) and low delta e (.30.) setup is able to reach a black point that is necessary for the 300:1 ratio @ 100 cdm2.<br /> However, when I try to calibrate and profile choosing 100 cdm2 luminance, 2.2 gamma, 300:1 contrast ratio, and sRGB gamut, while the desired gamut, white point, and gamma are reached, the desired black point is never reached, the results are somewhere around a 1,000:1 ratio and a delta e of around 6. The same results occur if I raise the luminance to 120 cdm2.<br /> Is there something wrong with my monitor, or is this a harware limitation when choking the gamut down from native to srgb?<br /> TIA,<br /> Charles</p>