This content has been marked as final. Show 21 replies
Hi. I read this actually about two days ago, apart from the need to adjust luminance I really was confused by all the chit chat. Sorry. But on the subject of luminance. When the spyder gives you the option to adjust luminance with a bar that must find its way to the middle oint - often adjusting this bar leaves it slightly under or over the desired target. I read on a tuturial that it was better to adjust it to slightly above. but this gave me too much brightness. have you comew accross this?
I don't know what else to add than what I wrote on that thread except that when we buy glossy screens, laptops, cheap monitors, we cannot expect them to display color like a quality professional reference monitor.
Regarding luminance, I will repeat that I like to set brightness by the monitor hardware setting and disregard it in the profiling routine...generally recommended at 140 for LCD, but I target 180, and some people prefer much lower (most dependent on ambient lighting brightness and personal preferences I suspect).
At some point we need to realize the limitation of our tool and train our eye to work with it through daily work experience over time...
G. Ballard wrote:
>At some point we need to realize the limitation of our tool and train our eye to work with it through daily work experience over time...
Those are wise words.
If we must have high-end performance, we need to buy and use high-end equipment. If not, we must deal with the limitations, and adapt our work procedures to them.
But as with marketing campaigns and advertising policies, maybe it is time for the "Teachers and lecturers" in this industry to make this point more clearly. It is only something that I am beginning to realise. for me a monitor was a monitor. The way that colour management hardware manufacturers talk is therefore un-balanced. The way that Pantone and makers of colour cards rant on about colour is also un-balanced. What they should be adding is ....with a proper monitor designed for photos these products will work??. Because that is what you guys are suggesting right?
I thought it polite to let you know what I have just posted on the camera raw forum because it relates to my original question on this forum. It seems that My problem was linked to the way that I edited a photo in raw. MMmmmm!
Having just posted problems I was having with printing that I thought were due to some aspect of my colour management policies and/or my LCD monitor when tilted, I traced back my editing to the original DNG image and discovered something. As a result i have a simple question:
1. I know that all adjustments in RAW are global - no problem. But what I want to know is this; When adjusting the luminance values of say in my case the Yellow slider, is this affecting even the yellow values in all the colours of the image? It appears so but I had assumed maybe wrongly that this particular slider and option would have only affected literally the yellow colour, and not the Yellow VALUES in the blues and greys and greens.
Have I now learned something or is this assumption also wrong.
the original problem had to do with a slightly darker print but also a slightly yellow colour cast which COULD NOT BE SEEN on my monitor even when proofing. The RGB values revealed otherwise by a lack of blue values in the RGB info palette, and its opposite, much higher Yellow values in the CMYK info palette.
Hallo G Ballard, Sorry I forgot to mention that I am unable to set luminance values with the spyder 3 pro, it does not do that. It simply lets you adjust a bar at a given point in its calibration, you have no way of knowing if this is 180 or 580?
Any suggestions would be appreciated though.
>But as with marketing campaigns and advertising policies, maybe it is time for the "Teachers and lecturers" in this industry to make this point more clearly.
Yes, they certainly should emphasize how quality and the means to achieve it are also tied to better equipment. It's also necessary that the users become more competent, of course, but the quality of the materials and equipment is just as crucial in order to achieve quality results.
>It is only something that I am beginning to realise. for me a monitor was a monitor. The way that colour management hardware manufacturers talk is therefore un-balanced.
They do their bit, which also includes the necessary evils of hype and marketing. It's *our* job not to fall for the inflated claims and the manufactured enthusiasm -- to ask around, read the reviews and understand how to interpret the specs. NEVER buy ANYTHING just based on the say-so of the manufacturer!
>The way that Pantone and makers of colour cards rant on about colour is also un-balanced. What they should be adding is ....with a proper monitor designed for photos these products will work??
The matching of spot colors on a monitor display is a tricky business in itself. Of the 1100 or so colors in the Pantone Coated palette, about 140 are more than 3 DeltaE 2000 outside of the gamut of sRGB (using Relative Colorimetric) and about 185 are more than 2 DeltaE 2000 off. The peak color difference is at 13 DeltaE.
But many of the monitors out there don't even cover sRGB, which is a relatively small color space. My Apple Studio Display has a gamut 15% *smaller* than sRGB, for example: more than 200 of the Pantone coated colors are 3 DeltaE 2000 or more outside its gamut (with a peak at 11.4 DeltaE), and 265 are off by 2 DeltaE or more.
On the other hand, the newer higher-end displays from Eizo and NEC-Mitsubishi (and others too from Samsung and HP) cover gamuts that are far wider, enough to cover AdobeRGB or larger.
Only 35 Pantone coated colors are outside AdobeRGB by 3 DeltaE 2000 or more, and 65 by 2 DeltaE 2000 or more (the highest color difference is a much more moderate 6.2 DeltaE).
Not perfect, but a much better situation -- all due to using a better monitor (which, yes, is also more expensive).
I would suggest that you try an EyeOne Display 2 colorimeter instead, or, better still, an Optix XR (though it's no longer in production, there are still ways to purchase one online).
Borrow them from a friend, if they have one. See how they work for you.
Hallo Marco, I was for hours reading on this forum about colour, but it seems that no amount of colour policing can accomodate the inherent faults of LCDs.
Chris. But i do agree, the eyeone is a much better piece of software.
Marco, well, the web reviews and forums that I searched over THREE MONTHS, the learning, he readin, the enquiring, I nver buy anything without research. But there was not one place out of a thousand that could have prepared me for what I discovered in ONE WEEK of use. Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental issues regarding profiling with a piece of software. IT IS all conveniently missed and a lot of people talk about it as though it is the divine answer. I actually had better printouts on my 30 pound Tricolour Ink from windows 98 on s'RGB using driver matching.
THIS MAKE SME VERY ANGRY WITH THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE AND ALL THOSE SO CALLED COLOUR GEEKS ON THE WEB SITES. Using driver matching even now has produced better blues and no colour shifts. I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem so I will invetigate.
>> I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem
If Adobe RGB is the problem it will display/print desaturated in the reds (or the opposite super saturated in the reds).
Further, aRGB is useful in the learning process BECAUSE, as a device-independent non-monitor-type profile, it will be more noticeable if your setting are mixed up...
I'm working on a project that is aimed at the frustrations users encounter on the path to achieving predictable color. To help me understand your frustration, could you please expand on the following comments:
> Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental issues regarding profiling with a piece of software, IT IS all conveniently missed and a lot of people talk about it as though it is the divine answer.
What do you see as the "fundamental issues?" What is the "it" you are referring to?
> Using driver matching even now has produced better blues and no colour shifts.
Can you please explain what you mean by "driver matching?"
>it seems that no amount of colour policing can accomodate the inherent faults of LCDs.
Don't give up so easily before you carefully test all your options. In other words, don't jump to conclusions before you have all your evidence.
LCDs can be quite good (depending on which LCDs you use, of course -- some are better than others, a few of them *far* better), though many still swear by CRTs -- which I tend to see as a doomed romantic notion at this point in time.
>Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental issues regarding profiling with a piece of software.
I agree that all too often people (on the web or in books and articles) will "explain" procedures and omit crucial steps, or explain them poorly, leaving the reader puzzled and lost. It's a widespread bad habit of cutting corners or assuming things, or "bailing out", that I have noticed, and that I try carefully to avoid when I explain things to others, because I know from experience how frustrating and even infuriating it can be.
>I actually had better printouts on my 30 pound Tricolour Ink from windows 98 on s'RGB using driver matching.
Don't confuse the messenger(s) with the "message". Some popularizers may be doing a poor job of explaining color management, but nonetheless color management, properly understood and applied, DOES WORK.
It took me a good long while to sort out the useful bits from the tons of misinformation and pure and simple garbage when I started out in color management about 10 years ago. Just keep plugging away at it. A lot of it is old-fashioned trial-and-error: no one can spare you that crown of thorns.
>I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem so I will invetigate.
I strongly doubt that AdobeRGB is the problem. One should resist the temptation (borne out of helplessness and frustration) to make up theories out of thin air. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist.
I started going in depth into colour management about 6 months ago. I read I read I read. I consulted websites, reference manuals, Photoshop books, Lynda.com, other podcasts via apple, other videos from magazines. My overall impressions just before I decided to buy this spyder was this: profile the monitor, keep using ccurate printer profiles and good paper and everything will be much better. Maintain good colour management between in design illustrator and photoshop. That was it. I was always led down the road of how important it was to understand the dialogue boxes, the way the printer works, the colour gamuts - limitations and charts. In fact I was so full of theory my head was bursting with how easy it had all become to understand.
Untill that was --I ATTACHED MY FIRST PROFILER TO MY NEW APPLE MACHINE - then disaster struck. It took me weeks to realise that I was missing some important information, namely the monitors themselves, the importance of background lighting, understanding LCD's, the white paper scenario against the monitor, even the limitations of the software package itself.
Had I known a little while ago what I now know I would NEVER have bought the spyder. i would have gone for the EyeOne display 2. Had I have known then what I now know I would have enquired more about different monitors available for the mac. The missing links in this chain have become the paradox that there are limitations in the software itself. Not in my UNDERSTANDING of colour management.
And it all began because I accidently tilted my screen one day and noticed how wonderful and beautifully matched my screen was with what I had printed out -DESPITE THE YELLOW CAST, THE OFF COLOURS AND THE EXTRA DARK SHADOWS that were in the photo.
DRIVER MATCHING is apple's version of windows let printer decide colours.
Hallo Marco, yes you are right. I come up with theories born out of days of sheer hair pulling frustration. The books? well you are right there also, It does not take me long to learn a new art, but I am often frustrated by the alck pf mature guidance that there exists out there on the web. On the one hand we have Norman Koren, excellent but a huge struggle to weed out the important stuff before we go in depth, perhaps that is more to do with the web's structure and how the information is organised with so many hundreds of links, good links but so scientific. All i want is what will get me that photo printed out as I see it on screen, it does not even have to be exact, just a pretty close match would be fine.
One would have thought that in this age of super technology this situation could have been resolved. It may well be resolved but maybe corporate jealousy prevents the real solutions from hitting the market? Like water and petrol in the car!!
But I am glad you picked up on the Adobe RGB, - thanks.
>All i want is what will get me that photo printed out as I see it on screen, it does not even have to be exact, just a pretty close match would be fine.
That may be all you want to do, but it's no mean feat. As small a thing as it seems, it requires study and dedication, until one day it all "clicks" and it finally works as advertised. It's a heady feeling when that happens, I can assure you.
Don't rationalize your frustrations and don't give up. Keep at it.
Ok Marco, I am curious about something, this may or may not be relevant, but it would be nice to understand. I used photoshops colour sampler at 1x1 point (Not 5x5 average or 3x3 average etc), to define the RGB values of some colours on a test image from norman koren in the adobe RGB 1998 colour space. I then used apples own colour sampler from colour sync to compare readings:
First photoshops analysis: Apples colour analysis
125.125.125. on neutral gray 131.130.132
117.160.255 on blue sky 123.153.229
36.131.29 on some random green 0.141.39
1.76.177 on random dark blue 0.72.185
220.75.48 on reddish/ornge telephone 241.75.62
Are these figures ok, or is there room for concern in the disparities?
>I then used apples own colour sampler from colour sync to compare readings
You mean the DigitalColor Meter application, or the lens-like implement in the "Calculator" tab of ColorSync Utility?
Whichever the case may be, remember that, when you are sampling on-screen colors with DigitalColor Meter, you are actually sampling the RGB numbers of the image *after it's been converted* on-the-fly to your monitor's color profile. Those are no longer the numbers that the image was made of in AdobeRGB: they are the numbers that make up your image in your monitor profile.
In other words, you are comparing two different RGB scales, AdobeRGB on one hand and your monitor's profile on the other. By definition, the numbers will NOT match, though the appearance does.
Thankyou Marco, Now I know just a little bit more.