Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" <lou@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "photog0946" <photog0946@> wrote:
> >
> > HELLO GROUP,
> >    I've just been reading a couple of the posts concerning calibration hardware and that spurred me on to start this thread on a subject that has been a thorn in my side for the past few years. Let me first fill in a bit of information. I've been using a couple of LaCie displays for about 4 years. The main display has been showing rather obvious signs of old age for a few months and would occasionally collapse to a thin bright horizontal line in the middle of the screen.  Obviously time for a new display. After a lot of research and questions, both on this forum and others, I decided to go with the NEC LCD2690. This display came highly recommended by people such as John Paul Caponigro, Jeff Schewe, Mac Holbert, Jay Maisel etc, so it seemed that I couldn't go wrong with that decision. More $$$ than I had anticipated, but time to pay the piper and get on with it. 
> > 
> >    Now I come to the crux of this query. I have been calibrating my displays with ColorEyes Display Pro and the Spyder2 Pro hardware. With the NEC LCD2690 I decided to step up to the Spyder3 Pro, due to the larger sensor and better capabilities for LCD Displays. I find the ColorEyes Software to be very comprehensive and full featured, and the documentation is excellent. Every calibration is fully validated and verified and I sometimes send the information to the ColorEyes site for the techs to check for my own satisfaction as well. However, no matter how well the calibration is, I have NEVER experienced a match between the display and the output. I'm using 2 SP7600 printers with the Atkinson profiles, so I really don't believe that's the source of the problem.  I also use "soft proofing" extensively.  With the NEC Display my calibration targets are as follows: White Point=D65, Luminance=120cd/m2, Gamma=L* and Black Point=Absolute. I am considering using Black Point=Relative/Minimum. After calibrating and verifying I have been using a little app for the Mac called Gamma Control to build a profile of sorts that exists outside of the OS and doesn't interfere at all with the Display LUT. Gamma Control allows me to tweak the display in a manner that approximates the output much more closely than the calibrated display. I usually build two of these "profiles", one for MK and one for PK printing. Now of course I do realize that a properly calibrated display is essential for many reasons, but print matching has never been one of them in my experience. I don't believe it should be necessary to invoke such apps as Gamma Control in order to pull a calibrated display closer to the output. 
> > 
> >    I'm sure some on this forum will be willing to throw their hat into the ring on this subject with a great deal of expertise, so PLEASE do so. Your suggestions and comments will be greatly appreciated by me and perhaps others as well. If you have any further questions concerning my calibration procedures, please forward them.
> > 
> > Thank you all in advance.
> > Gary
> >
> Hi Gary.
> 
> I agree with a previous post that a "perfect" match is unlikely, since print and digital display are so different.  But...you can and should be able to get very close.  
> 
> My approach to the issue (at least with an ICC workflow) is to start and the end and work to the beginning.  I start with a framed print in "normal" (for me) display light, which is usually subdued.  This is the case more often than not in homes, offices, etc.  The next step backward is my viewing light, which I try to adjust so it is also not too bright (I use Solux and Philips 5000K lighting).  The next step backward is my monitor display, with the soft proof active.  I strive to set my monitor luminance so a pure white document in Photoshop has the same approximate brightness as a sheet of white paper under my viewing light.  If they are vastly different, a reasonable match will be difficult or impossible.  
> 
> Calibration settings that have always worked well for me at 5200K, 2.2 gamma, and 90 cd/m2.  My color and tonal match is about as close as it can be, given the difference in the two technologies.  Ambient light also plays a role.  It is the overall system and all pieces in the puzzle need to work in concert with one another.  
> 
> I have an article on monitor and printer profiling on my website if you are interested.  It's in the color management section.  Click the link to the left.
> 
> http://www.dinagraphics.com/color_management.php
> 
> Lou
>

I agree completely with Lou, and would emphasize that he calibrates to 90 cd/m2 not the recommended 120.  I also found the recommended 120 was too bright and thus my prints appeared too dark.  Calibrating to 85-90 cd/m2 (hard to see a difference) helped a whole lot.  My previous LCD was calibrated to 120, but that just didn't work with my current Dell Ultrasharp.