Monitor calibration

[LeicaBraz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read abundantly about the advantages of calibrating ones' monitor. However, and since most of my digital conversions are to B&W, I am assuming that in this case calibration is not needed as won't make a difference.

Right?

Thanks

[archi4]

If you want your prints to match the image on your monitor (brightness, contrast etc.) you will have to calibrate your monitor.

maurice

[Advertisement]

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

[ptarmigan]

I have read abundantly about the advantages of calibrating ones' monitor. However, and since most of my digital conversions are to B&W, I am assuming that in this case calibration is not needed as won't make a difference.

Right?

Thanks

 

The answer is yes, it will make a big difference. Proper calibration sorts out gamma, brightness, luminance and contrast and they all affect how any image, even B&W is displayed.

 

If you want your prints to match the image on your monitor (brightness, contrast etc.) you will have to calibrate your monitor.

maurice

 

It's way more complicated than just calibrating your monitor but you are correct, it's the first step and you're dead without it.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I use the Huey device, which is less expensive than most of the others. It works well and quickly.

 

The real problem is getting a monitor with correct color display. That costs *real* money.

 

The Huey has served me well and will certainly work in the b/w workflow.

 

Are you using b/w conversion software or messing around in PS or other? I use Silver FX Pro for my b/w conversions. It gets right what it takes about 1/2 to an hour in PS.

Edited November 3, 2010 by wparsonsgisnet

[dpattinson]

Calibration also has an effect on the display of black and white images, at least it does on my monitor. That might be entirely due to the brightness change - but it certainly looks different once I load the calibrated profile.

[ho_co]

The others have given the "correct" answer.

 

However, depending on your needs, it may be possible to get away with simply using Adobe Gamma or Apple ColorSync or Apple Display Calibrator.

 

That is: If you're getting from your printer exactly what you expected from looking at the screen, you can consider your workflow properly calibrated.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The others have given the "correct" answer.

 

However, depending on your needs, it may be possible to get away with simply using Adobe Gamma or Apple ColorSync or Apple Display Calibrator.

 

That is: If you're getting from your printer exactly what you expected from looking at the screen, you can consider your workflow properly calibrated.

 

Geez ... condemned for being correct. This is a political time....

[250swb]

I have read abundantly about the advantages of calibrating ones' monitor. However, and since most of my digital conversions are to B&W, I am assuming that in this case calibration is not needed as won't make a difference.

Right?

Thanks

 

We talk about B&W, but traditional B&W prints are never ever just greyscale (containing only tones of pure white through to pure black). Depending on the base colour of the photographic paper and the emulsion prints have always had warm or cool tints. Sometimes its very subtle and hardly noticable, or sometimes the base colour can be strong enough to make you think the print has been toned in chemicals. Photographers have chosen their paper for printing not just by contrast grade, but the colour, crudely at the blue end for cool effects, the brown end of the range for 'warm' effects. This is also a feature of good photographic books showing B&W images, the printer will replicate the original colour of the prints.

 

So to replicate 'B&W' in any sort of traditional sense you need to use the subtle tints, and for this you definitely need to calibrate your monitor. And of course all the other reasons given above are just as valid a reason as well.

 

Steve

[ptarmigan]

The others have given the "correct" answer.

 

However, depending on your needs, it may be possible to get away with simply using Adobe Gamma or Apple ColorSync or Apple Display Calibrator.

 

That is: If you're getting from your printer exactly what you expected from looking at the screen, you can consider your workflow properly calibrated.

 

On the first point you could maybe get away with more simple calibration and depending on how good a quality your monitor is to start with the results may be quite acceptable. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It's not like simple monitor calibrators like the Huey are that expensive anyway.

 

However, you most certainly cannot consider your workflow properly calibrated and it's misleading to say so.

[t024484]

It is absolutely true to say that when your print looks exactly like your screen, you could be there. The question is however how to get there.

 

Most so called calibrated monitors are not calibrated well enough and the printers that I know are performing much better. So my advice would be, start with the monitor.

 

This what LaCie tells about color acuracy when measuring in CIE2000 color space.

If DeltaE >3, the color displayed is significantly different from the theoretical one, meaning that the difference will be perceptible to the viewer.

If DeltaE <2, LaCie considers the calibration a success; there remains a slight difference, but it is barely undetectable.

If DeltaE < 1, the color fidelity is excellent.

 

The bad news is that looking at various test on this excellent website,

LCD and TFT Monitor Reviews

it becomes obvious that many so called calibrated monitors have average delta's far above 3, being fully unacceptable.

The good news however is that with proper adjustment tools, this can be reduced to below an average delta of 1.0.

This is all described in detail on the TFT Web site.

 

Hans