LCD Monitor Calibration: Lightroom 3 & CaptureOne 5 Pro

[ArtZ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have recalibrated my monitor following exactly Adobe RGB (1998) specifications: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf

 

 

White Point: 6500°K (CIE Standard D65)

White Luminance: 160 candelas

Black Luminance: 0.5557 candelas (0.34731% of white luminance)

Contrast: 287.9 (The ratio White Luminance/Black Luminance of 287.9 matches the linear dynamic range specified for the reference medium in ICC.1:2004-10, section D.1.5)

 

Monitor enviroment is illuminated at 32 lux

 

The calibration results give me the values in the picture (*)

 

(*) I had to reduce the Gamma Target to 2.15 to get a real value of Gamma of 2.18

 

 

Now my question is: Why the colour of the pictures in Adobe Lightroom 3 is excellent while the colour in Capture One 5 Pro is too warm (and I mean TOO warm).

 

BTW, I'm using M8 Capure One ICC profiles and Jamie's Profiles. Even using Jaimie's "Leica M8 Low Saturation" ICC profile, the image is still excessively warm.

 

All other applications (even web browser) looks good.

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks for your anwsers

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ptarmigan]

Hmm....... not seen the Adobe stuff before. In essence, calibrating each individual monitor needs to be done using proper hardware and appropriate software, not just setting parameters like these. You don't mention using anything and without this sort of calibration you won't know how you monitor responds nor have any baseline to work from.

 

Some monitors have wide native gamut/colour spaces - others less so and not all monitors allow sufficient and accurate enough tweak controls anyway.

 

As for C1 vs LR3 (or any other such software) - they all render slightly differently. The only way to get very very near would be to create custom profiles for the M8 for each software and in a whole variety of lighting conditions. Of course you'd need to know the exact kelvin value of the light you were shooting in both for the profile and any image you subsequently took. So in theory it's possible to have all the software render the same colours but it's a lot of work for IMHO very little gain.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I would advise to use for instance a Color Spyder:

 

 

Datacolor - Global Leader in Color Management Solutions

 

 

Calibrating to fixed values is sure to result in a wrongly calibrated monitor. The idea of calibrating is to eliminate individual errors of your monitor and video card as much as possible. That can only be done by measuring the real output of your screen.

[wlaidlaw]

Manuel,

 

There is a good website/shop here which has a huge amount of advice/software/tools for colour profiling monitor screens: Colour Confidence > Colour Confidence - Colour management, ICC profiling, X-Rite, Pantone, ColorVision, DataColor. I have the earlier version of the Eye-One, when it was still called Monaco Optix Pro and I don't think it's great. I would go with Jaap's advice and get one of the Spyder's. Be careful which one you get, if you ever intend to have dual screens or an external screen on a laptop, as you then need a dual screen one. I bought the Monaco with one screen software, which I was told could be upgraded to 2 screen. The company was then sold and I could not upgrade the software. I am told there is other software, which will work with the Monaco called Eye-Fi but I have not been able to get it to work. Ideally, a group of people can share a screen profiler, as you don't need to do it more than once every one to two months. You may need to buy a multiple software licence but this is cheaper than everyone buying the hardware as well. I don't know why photographic shops don't rent them out at say £15/€20 a time.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Just to explain why I don't think the Monaco (and maybe its successor Eye-One) is less than fantastic, I profiled both my iMac and MacBook Pro with it and then put the same image on both and looked at them side by side. The image did not look identical. The contrast on the MBP was definitely greater and greens were stronger. The iMac image was warmer. Now this may be down to LED backlighting on the MBP and CCFL on the iMac but I had hoped that profiling would compensate for this.

 

Wilson

[ArtZ]

Sorry guys,

 

I think I didn't explain it correctly. I have used Datacolor Spyder3 Elite version 4.0.2 in "Advanced mode" to calibrate my monitor.

 

In fact, the image I posted in my first post is the copy of the screen produced by Spyder3 with the obtained results ! (Menu "Info" on Spider3)

 

I get 98% of Adobe RGB color space. The monitor uses a S-IPS-panel (same the panel used in the NEC LCD2690WUXi).

 

That's why's confusing! I have recalibrate the screen a few times and CaptureOne looks always much warmer than LR3, Photoshop CS5 or ACDSee Pro 3.0.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Manuel,

 

Have you got your new profile selected in View/Proof Profile in C1?

 

Wilson

[ArtZ]

Manuel,

 

Have you got your new profile selected in View/Proof Profile in C1?

 

Wilson

 

Yes!

 

I think I will send an email to PhaseOne... because I prefer working with C1 than Photoshop.

 

I dislike the "database" concept of LR (I use Downloader Pro to download and classify my pictures); I find myself more comfortable with C1. Noise is better with LR but skin colours are better with C1.

[wlaidlaw]

Yes!

 

I think I will send an email to PhaseOne... because I prefer working with C1 than Photoshop.

 

I dislike the "database" concept of LR (I use Downloader Pro to download and classify my pictures); I find myself more comfortable with C1. Noise is better with LR but skin colours are better with C1.

 

I find I get a quicker response if I use the support section on their website after signing in. It is usually Jakub who replies and about 95% of what he says makes sense, which is massively better than support from other software makers.

 

I think what it may come down to is that sadly different programs display differently. I have opened the same DNG image in ACR6.1 (which is what LR3 uses) and C1. At the same point the readings are as follows on my calibrated MBP screen.

 

 

ACR 6.1---------------------R 78--------------------G 101------------------B 122

C1 (V5.1.2)-----------------R 90--------------------G 126------------------B 144

 

Wilson

[ArtZ]

I find I get a quicker response if I use the support section on their website after signing in. It is usually Jakub who replies and about 95% of what he says makes sense, which is massively better than support from other software makers.

 

I think what it may come down to is that sadly different programs display differently. I have opened the same DNG image in ACR6.1 (which is what LR3 uses) and C1. At the same point the readings are as follows on my calibrated MBP screen.

 

 

ACR 6.1---------------------R 78--------------------G 101------------------B 122

C1 (V5.1.2)-----------------R 90--------------------G 126------------------B 144

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

Thank you for your help. This confirm my findings. I'll print some pictures (in a couple of weeks, when I'll be at Le Mans) to see which one is closer to printed colours.

 

I'll keep you informed.

 

Take care.

[mweiner]

Art, I don't know anything about LR and ACR, but I have encountered the same issue of C1 appearing too warm and I think the problem is more related to saturation than white balance. After setting white balance with a WhitBal card (way too warm) and then trying to match the subject by fiddling with Kelvin and Tint settings till I was red and blue in the face, I finally discovered that the trick was to balance with WhitBal and then to _desaturate_. Wilson's comparative values above suggest that the proportional relationships of RGB are similar in LR/ACR vs C1 but that the intensity is greater in C1. Interestingly, just as I had hit on the desaturation tactic, but was skittish about how far I was having to reduce it, C1 sent a promotional email link to their skin-tone tutorial. Toward the end of the video, after making lots of sophisticated adjustments, the tutor says something like: "It still doesn't look right; it may need less saturation." He drags the slider left to about -35 and says, "Now that's a good result." I tried Jamie Roberts M8-Low_Sat profile, but it seems a little too cold. Jamie himself has written in this forum that he uses the M9 Generic and adjusts from there.

 

With the help of the young man pictured below I have been struggling to learn how to manage color. He is a cooperative, color challenging model and is available for checking my PP efforts against the real thing. The results below aren't perfect and I don't know how they will look via the web, but are the closest I've been able to come so far. It's worth noting in this discussion that while more desaturated (eg -45 or -50) seems more accurate, more saturated versions (eg -20) seem more striking and pleasing.

 

Left Image: Mid-spring, lot's of cloudy days, cool (pale, Scandinavian). I had to guess at the White Balance and then desaturated to -53. (M9, 75 Summilux at f3.5, C1 M9 Generic Profile)

 

Right Image: Mid-June, ,lot's of sunny days, hot. Kelvin and Tint from WhitBal (way too orange), but then desaturated to -45. (M9, 90 Summicron APO at f4.8, C1 M9 Generic Profile).

 

Regards,

Michael

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ArtZ]

Wilson and others,

 

I also forgot to explain you why I’ve chosen the settings described in Adobe RGB specifications.

 

From the beginning I used to set white luminance between 100 and 120 cd/m2 (candelas) and black luminance at 0.25 - 0.30 cd/m2. I wouldn’t consider setting white luminance to a value higher than 120 candelas because I found that very uncomfortable (too bright). Even if I had read some comments from people saying 140 cd/m2 was better than 120 cd/m2 for Adobe RGB color space.

 

Question: Why had I chosen these settings? Answer: Because that’s the information you find when you google “LCD monitor calibration”.

 

But I wasn’t really happy with the black levels and the colours using these settings. I knew something was wrong and I decided investigate a bit more. And then I found Adobe white paper about Adobe RGB (1998) color space.

 

Adobe set white luminance to 160 cd/m2 and the room environment to 32 lux (that’s good for me because my room is illuminated about 30-35 lux). First, I understood there’s a ratio between white luminance and black luminance. Black Luminance should be 0.34731% of the white luminance. This means if I set white luminance to 120 cd/m2, black luminance should be 0.42 (0.41677 cd/m2 exactly) and if I set white luminance to 100 cd/m2, black luminance should be 0.35 cd/cm3 (0.34731 cd/m2 exactly). Using these settings you get the right amount of contrast for Adobe RGB which is 287.9:1

 

I can understand now why I wasn’t happy with the black levels. When I used the values white luminance=100 and black luminance=0.25, I got a contrast of 400:1 which is too high. When I used the values white luminance=120 and black luminance=0.30, I got a contrast also of 400:1

 

Obviously the problem was contrast was too high. Now with a contrast at 287.9:1 I can see all black and white tones.

 

Bringing the monitor to these setting took me a long time because increasing the values of RGB channels using the controls in my monitor also increases white luminance value and decreasing RGB channels decrease white luminance. So I tried setting RGB channels in the middle (about Red=50, Green=32, Blue=32) and played with brightness and contrast until Spyder3 gave me the correct values for white luminance and black luminance (Wl=160, Bl=0.56) which brings contrast to 287.9:1

 

Once this was done, I recalibrate a last time with Spyder3 to get the right values for RGB channels to get the white point (CIE xy) at 0.313 0.329 at 6500K.

 

Concerning the white point, as you can see in the picture I posted, I get a DeltaE (CIE) of 0.2 (very close to 0) which is really excellent. DeltaE should be in any case < 6

 

What I realised during calibration process was that getting lower contrast CaptureOne colours were getting warmer while colours in LR3 reminded natural. If you set contrast at 400:1 (Wl=100, Bl=0.25 or Wl=120, Bl=0.30) the difference in colours between CaptureOne and LR3 is negligible).

 

PS: In fact my actual settings (Wl=160, Bl=0.56) doesn’t make the screen more uncomfortable than before (I thought a Wl>120 cd/m2 could be tiring for my eyes) probably because the lower contrast.

 

Cheers

.

Edited July 27, 2010 by ArtZ

[ArtZ]

I tried Jamie Roberts M8-Low_Sat profile, but it seems a little too cold. Jamie himself has written in this forum that he uses the M9 Generic and adjusts from there.

 

 

Michael,

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

I also use Jamie's profiles with C1

 

As I was telling Wilson yesterday I cannot print here in Paris, my printer is my house near Le Mans. If colours match, the problem is saturation as you pointed out so I can create a new profile for C1 or reduce saturation. If colors don't much, then is another story.

 

I'll keep you informed.

 

Cheers

 

PS. Nice shots. I love the first one. (I cannot judge about the colours now because I'm using a laptop)

.

[wlaidlaw]

Manuel,

 

You are lucky that you have more adjustable parameters on your monitor than most. Only the more expensive LCD screens now have contrast adjustment. I have been a bit disappointed with progress on LCD screens for monitors and I am not sure that they have kept pace with the level of improvement we have seen on TV flat panels. I suppose the problem is that most flat panel monitors are now sold to corporate organisations, who care little about the quality of the screens. The days of private individuals buying desk top computers and a separate screen are almost past. Those who want something better than a laptop, other than imaging professionals, will buy an "all in one" like an iMac, Sony L/J series or HP Touch Smart. No demand = no improvement.

 

Of course the next issue is that what we print, rarely looks much like the screen. But then if you think back to the days of film, how often have we been disappointed by how someone had developed a film for us. At least we now have the uncorrupted DNG's which we can go back to. My first big trip with a digital was to Sri Lanka in the year 2000. I also took my Contax RX. The so called professional photo agency in Brighton, wrecked every film, with them all coming out looking like mud. However, I still had all the digital images I had taken (Leica Digilux 4.3). It was a big argument for using Kodachrome, which rarely disappointed.

 

Wilson

[ptarmigan]

Wilson,

 

Thank you for your help. This confirm my findings. I'll print some pictures (in a couple of weeks, when I'll be at Le Mans) to see which one is closer to printed colours.

 

I'll keep you informed.

 

Take care.

 

I hope you have a closed loop colour calibrated printer/colour management process or you'll end up with something that doesn't help much.

 

I think I'd probably decide on LR3 or C1 and stick with that rather than trying to compare/balance the two. For the odd image you might feel the need to use C1 you'll have to adjust the image 'by eye'.

 

Just for the record, seems the same with mine, C1 is warmer than LR3.

[wlaidlaw]

I hope you have a closed loop colour calibrated printer/colour management process or you'll end up with something that doesn't help much.

 

I think I'd probably decide on LR3 or C1 and stick with that rather than trying to compare/balance the two. For the odd image you might feel the need to use C1 you'll have to adjust the image 'by eye'.

 

Just for the record, seems the same with mine, C1 is warmer than LR3.

 

When it decides to work, my HP B9180 does have an internal colour calibration system. It is not prefect by any means but its colours are better than the considerably more expensive Canon Pixma Pro 9500 I have in the UK, albeit at a fraction lower definition. I did not buy a second B9180, as I was fed up, like very many other folks who bought one of these, with its horrendous reliability. The Canon uses far more of its too small ink carts but this is compensated by the B9180's appetite for print heads.

 

I have had 2 professional profiles done for the Canon, for use with a large amount of Lyson paper I got cheap. The profiles, written by Lyson for me free, are just fine but their paper is not very impressive, compared with Hannemuhle or Ilford.

 

Wilson

[ArtZ]

UPDATE:

 

Everything is compromise!

 

I've been playing late with LR3, Capture One 5 and Spyder3.

 

Finally I made a compromise:

 

1. Dimed a bit my room illumination

 

2. Set my monitor white luminance at 120 cd/m2 and black luminance at 0.42 cd/m2 (The ratio white luminance / black luminance= 287.9:1 (where black luminance=0.34731% of the white luminance) is extremely important.

 

Now pictures on Capture One and LR3 or PS CS5 look almost the same on the monitor and with excellent color accuracy.

 

On the other hand, web browsing and other programs that use sRGB color space, red and green look a bit over saturated but... that's not really disturbing me.

.

[ArtZ]

SECOND UPDATE:

 

Do you really want 100% natural colors with Capture One for M8 files ? I mean with 100% colour accuracy?

 

1. Calibrate your monitor as explained above

 

2. Select CaptureOne Leica M8 Standard Profile UV-IR filter (yes, the one that comes with Capture One -yes, THAT one that nobody uses...)

 

3. Select "Film Extra Shadow"

 

WOW...! You will be impressed!

 

I've never seen such a good colour reproduction before for M8 files. I just can't believe it!

.

Edited July 28, 2010 by ArtZ

[ptarmigan]

UPDATE:

 

Everything is compromise!

 

I've been playing late with LR3, Capture One 5 and Spyder3.

 

Finally I made a compromise:

 

1. Dimed a bit my room illumination

 

2. Set my monitor white luminance at 120 cd/m2 and black luminance at 0.42 cd/m2 (The ratio white luminance / black luminance= 287.9:1 (where black luminance=0.34731% of the white luminance) is extremely important.

 

Now pictures on Capture One and LR3 or PS CS5 look almost the same on the monitor and with excellent color accuracy.

 

On the other hand, web browsing and other programs that use sRGB color space, red and green look a bit over saturated but... that's not really disturbing me.

.

 

120 cd/m2 seems high to me. Are you in a particularly brightly lit area? I have mine set at 80 cd/m2.

 

SECOND UPDATE:

 

Do you really want 100% natural colors with Capture One for M8 files ? I mean with 100% colour accuracy?

 

1. Calibrate your monitor as explained above

 

2. Select CaptureOne Leica M8 Standard Profile UV-IR filter (yes, the one that comes with Capture One -yes, THAT one that nobody uses...)

 

3. Select "Film Extra Shadow"

 

WOW...! You will be impressed!

 

I've never seen such a good colour reproduction before for M8 files. I just can't believe it!

.

 

Tried this and it's certainly much better/nearer to LR3. I s'pose you need to get hold of one of those colour charts to be sure and I don't have one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ArtZ]

120 cd/m2 seems high to me. Are you in a particularly brightly lit area? I have mine set at 80 cd/m2.

 

Ian, a white luminance value of 120 cd/m2 is normal for a LCD screen. As I said before, the black luminance is extremely important. You must have it at 0.34731% of the white luminance (0.42 cd/m2 for a white luminance of 120 cd/m2). Setting in Adobe RGB colour space white luminance at 80 cd/m2 is too low to get 0.42 cd/m2 (*). You must be missing black levels

 

For instance, using this online test Monitor Calibration Tests: Black Point I can start seeing black levels starting at RGB=(1,1,1)

 

Tried this and it's certainly much better/nearer to LR3. I s'pose you need to get hold of one of those colour charts to be sure and I don't have one.

 

Maybe this help: LCD monitor test images

 

(*) Just for information: In my monitor, to get a black luminance of 0.42 cd/m2 at a while luminance of 120.0 cd/m2, I had to reduce the contrast control at 8 and the brightness control at 53 while RGB channels are: red=54, green=37, bue=37

Edited July 28, 2010 by ArtZ