Digital BW, The Print

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

Gary,

Are you using your printing profiles in your custom soft proof and do you change them for each printer, ink and paper combination?

Best,
Martin

--- 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
>

You will never match the projected image in a monitor with the reflected image of a print. They are different animals.
-- Alan Scharf_


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- 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

On May 30, 2009, at 11:14 PM, photog0946 wrote:

>   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.

Yes, the Spyder3 and ColorEyes Display is definately a great choice  
for the Geek who wants lots of features, and doesn't mind waiting for  
the extra time advanced calibration takes.


> 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.

You haven't covered all the factors yet. There is still ambient light  
level, proofing light type, proofing light level, softproofing  
functions, and printer profile tuning...


>  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.

L* and Absolute Black Point are great Geek features, but unless you  
are using a full L* workflow including an L* workingspace, and unless  
you are building L*  related printer profiles, then you aren't really  
going L* all the way, and probably shouldn't be using L* at all.  
Similarly, you may find a relative black makes proofing matches  
easier, depending on what settings you use with your printer profiles.  
But since you don't actually build your printer profiles, you don't  
have full control of these aspects.

> 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.

Thats a cheat, and one I would not reccomend. What you are really  
saying is that you don't, after all that fancy display calibration,  
even use ICC-based display calibration and profiling, you use "mess up  
my display to look like my prints" non-ICC display adjustment.  
Frankly, in an ICC0-based system, the place to be doing your adjusting  
is in the printer profiles, not the display profile. For several  
reasons, but I"ll just not a couple. First, because you can't mess up  
your display to emulate a number of different printers, inks, papers,  
etc... only one. Second, your display is in who knows what state for  
visual corrections for work to be sent out for other uses and other  
printing.


> I usually build two of these "profiles", one for MK and one for PK  
> printing.

Yup, into the "multiple messups" situation already...

> 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.

That would appear to be because you are using your wrench as a hammer,  
and pounding on your display, instead of working on tuned printer  
profiles, and tuned printer profile softproof functions... with  
possible side issues in the lighting area.

> 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.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean a simple display profile will magically  
match a generic, untuned printer profile to your screen, under  
unspecified lighting conditions. So you are asking most of the right  
questions, but going about trying to solve them in a less than ideal  
manner.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------


Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On May 31, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Alan Scharf wrote:

> You will never match the projected image in a monitor with the  
> reflected image of a print. They are different animals.

So say all the people who haven't managed a good match. The ones who  
have just smile...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------


Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And we have to compensate for reflective backlight off our teeth :))

Mark
http://www.stillrivereditions.com

On May 31, 2009, at 11:41 AM, C D Tobie wrote:

> So say all the people who haven't managed a good match. The ones who
> have just smile...
>
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On May 31, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Mark Savoia wrote:

> And we have to compensate for reflective backlight off our teeth :))

They say you can tell a happy motorcyclist by the bugs in his teeth. I  
would suggest that you can tell a good retoucher by the black shirt,  
and the trick of smiling without letting his teeth show...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------


Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And off our heads for some of us, and for others some of that aluminum  
foil used to protect them from space rays sticks out under their hats  
and can cause specular highlights, requiring a new profile...

James

Sent from my iPhone

On May 31, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Mark Savoia  
<mark@...> wrote:

--- 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.