Getting wide gamut monitor: some questions

[ymc226]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Color rendering compared to final print not working out well on my MacBook Pro. As suggested, I am getting a separate monitor. I am a hobbyist and print up to A3; no large prints. Is a 24 inch monitor big enough or do most post processing require at least a 27 inch screen?

 

I did purchase Spyder4Pro to calibrate my MBP and my iMac so I have a calibration product. However, I noticed these models on the B&H website with or without its own calibration system included. First of all, would the following models work with a 15 inch latest version MBP using a mini displayport to DVI-D cable?

 

Which would you recommend?

 

without:

NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK 24" Widescreen LCD PA241W-BK B&H

 

with:

NEC MultiSync PA241W-BK-SV 24.1" Widescreen PA241W-BK-SV

 

Another question: how would the Spyder4Pro know to calibrate the attached external monitor instead of assuming to calibrate the laptop screen by default?

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

Can't speak for the Spyder 4, but the earlier one recognised that there were 2 monitors and asked which you wanted to calibrate.

[hoppyman]

I have that monitor. If you buy this one, GET the Spectraview II (and a hood). Brilliant, automated, accurate. It will use your Spyder or EyeOne etc to make the adjustments directly in the monitor rather than with the video card in the computer. Effectively the monitor has its own high end graphics card built in. The high end EIZOs have a similar system.

 

With the Spectrawiew II you can even have multiple separate profiles available at a click for every paper type etc etc.

 

Some information on Macs and mini displayport cables (amd MUCH else useful) provided by my dealer here.

Knowledge Base at Image Science

[ymc226]

I have that monitor. If you buy this one, GET the Spectraview II (and a hood). Brilliant, automated, accurate. It will use your Spyder or EyeOne etc to make the adjustments directly in the monitor rather than with the video card in the computer. Effectively the monitor has its own high end graphics card built in. The high end EIZOs have a similar system.

 

With the Spectrawiew II you can even have multiple separate profiles available at a click for every paper type etc etc.

 

Some information on Macs and mini displayport cables (amd MUCH else useful) provided by my dealer here.

Knowledge Base at Image Science

 

 

Thanks for the link . . . . more variables to consider. I see the NEC PA accepts either DVI-D or display port inputs. Are they equal in data quality? Is there a difference?

[hoppyman]

I have no Mac experience regarding what each can do. I know that Displayport is one of the requirements for true 10 bit on a PC with the right hardware. However according to my guru that can't be done with Macs up to a certain point anyway. See the article links I provided for much more expertise than I have though.

Colour Accurate Monitors.

10 Bit Output Support

[adli]

So, my Eizo CG241W powered by a ATI Radeon HD 5870, still runs at 8 bit because I am running Mac OS? Bummer...

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another vote for Spectraview.

 

I use the Gretag McBeth Eye One (or what ever it's called these days)

 

You run the software, attach the spider, go make a coffee and come back to a perfectly calibrated screen.

[Jamie Roberts]

Thanks for the link . . . . more variables to consider. I see the NEC PA accepts either DVI-D or display port inputs. Are they equal in data quality? Is there a difference?

 

Geoff is correct: get the NEC with Spectraview and you won't be disappointed; it's really great. The only thing that would be better would be a similarly sized EIZO CG series, but you'll pay at least double (without a proper calibration system too--that's more money) for negligibly better shadows, etc...

 

I've got an EIZO CG 19 for sRGB and the NEC 241W with Spectraview and to be honest the NEC is so good for the money it's not even funny.

 

And to answer your question, the NEC supports both DVI-D and Displayport inputs. The bottom line is you won't see a difference between those two interfaces.

[Jeff S]

Ditto what Jamie said. I got the 24" (plenty big enough) NEC with SpectraView built in 3 years ago. Sean Reid had given it a great review (he highly recommended getting SpectraView built in) and I haven't been at all disappointed. The price can't be beat (especially if you can find a discount) compared to the also wonderful Eizo. Lots of other threads here (again) through the search box.

 

Jeff

[ymc226]

Thank you all. I just ordered the NEC 24 with the Spectraview. I'm interested to see if the same photo opened up in LR would be darker compared to one on my MacBook Pro. Prints from the Epson 3880 seem a touch darker than the laptop screen view.

[Jeff S]

Thank you all. I just ordered the NEC 24 with the Spectraview. I'm interested to see if the same photo opened up in LR would be darker compared to one on my MacBook Pro. Prints from the Epson 3880 seem a touch darker than the laptop screen view.

 

I set the monitor in SpectraView at 85 cd/m2 intensity, with a contrast ratio of 250:1. Prints match screen brightness well. YMMV; but easy to test and play with settings.

 

Jeff

[hoppyman]

I set the monitor in SpectraView at 85 cd/m2 intensity, with a contrast ratio of 250:1. Prints match screen brightness well. YMMV; but easy to test and play with settings.

 

Jeff

Jeff what paper are you soft proofing for there?

I've only started with this since the monitor is new to me. The Aussie NEC and color mangement guy has some useful discussion here:

How To Calibrate An NEC Monitor With SpectraView II

[Jeff S]

Jeff what paper are you soft proofing for there?

 

Geoff, I most frequently use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Baryta (and sometimes Pearl) for b/w, and generally Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for color. I print directly from LR, which up until now has not had a soft proofing mechanism (I haven't tried the new feature in LR4). So, my settings have come from old fashioned experience with lots of printing, in this case using an Epson 3800.

 

There are seemingly an infinite amount of settings between the front end, LR and the printer, and over the last 3 years I've continually tweaked my workflow. But I've also learned not to expect perfection when it comes to matching what's on the screen versus what's on the printed page. A print is not a screen; my goal is to get close and then, if necessary, make whatever refinements suit. Even then, I live with a print on a wall for a while and decide if it needs anything else, and whether it's suitable for my portfolio. And beyond that, the final lighting environment (for exhibit, for a certain room, etc.) often requires a lighter or darker print. It's an iterative process for me.

 

Maybe more than you asked.

 

Jeff

[hoppyman]

Thanks Jeff.

I printed with my 3800 for a couple of years from PS and had a number of customer profiles for it . They were collateral damage when I needed to get the 3880 instead.

With the multi profile ability of the new monitor, now I have an improved soft proofing capability and plan to print entirely from LR.

I've settled on just three papers for better printing. Your numbers are useful.

[Paul J]

You really need to experiment with settings although I found the NEC recommended very close indeed for my needs. Spectraview takes out the guess work and mystery of calibration. They really developed a perfect solution to a minefield of variables.

 

It really depends on your room, the lighting, how it changes through out the day. There is a lot of info out there on how to calibrate the NEC with Spectraview out there.

 

Andrew Rodney who posts on various boards (and worth googling) is a great source of info here. He also has a site Digital Dog :: Main

 

I've also found http://hardforum.com/ a great place for info. Just search for your particular monitor.

 

i've been using NEC and Spectraview for 5 years now without fault. Monitor matches my output.

[ymc226]

Thanks Jeff.

I printed with my 3800 for a couple of years from PS and had a number of customer profiles for it . They were collateral damage when I needed to get the 3880 instead.

With the multi profile ability of the new monitor, now I have an improved soft proofing capability and plan to print entirely from LR.

I've settled on just three papers for better printing. Your numbers are useful.

 

I am going to set up my monitor tonight (NEC PA241W) with the Spectraview II when I get home using the MacBook Pro as the host computer.

 

In reading your post and NEC's page on multi-profile ability, I am still uncertain what this is capable of in terms of soft proofing. I would also be using a 3880 and LR3 or 4. Would the soft proofing feature in LR4 be enough or does the NEC Multi Profile function add additional capability?

[Jamie Roberts]

I am going to set up my monitor tonight (NEC PA241W) with the Spectraview II when I get home using the MacBook Pro as the host computer.

 

In reading your post and NEC's page on multi-profile ability, I am still uncertain what this is capable of in terms of soft proofing. I would also be using a 3880 and LR3 or 4. Would the soft proofing feature in LR4 be enough or does the NEC Multi Profile function add additional capability?

 

First, congrats on the monitor! You're going to love it.

 

If I were you, I'd set the luminance / brightness value at 110cd/m2 and go down from there. Try some prints. You might be pleasantly surprised right there.

 

Secondly, the monitor doesn't soft-proof; your color-profile aware software (Photoshop, LR, C1) does. You can multiprofile but I really wouldn't bother; you can switch to sRGB (which isn't a printing space) if you want, but I also wouldn't bother.

 

Here's what you need to do:

 

1. Set your monitor for aRGB (that would be wide-gamut colour, which will mostly match your print space with a 3880 but not quite--that's the way of the world, alas). Note that unless you are viewing the web with a colour managed browser (Firefox or Safari) reds will now be too saturated through your browser. But PS, LR, and colour aware applications don't care about that.

 

2) Use SpectraView to profile the monitor

 

3) Soft proof in PS or Lightroom with your target (paper) profile to see where your colours are out of print gamut (different from screen gamut). Adjust if necessary, but on a 3880 I wouldn't expect a lot of adjustments. Don't even think about printing anything wider gamut than aRGB unless you really know what you're doing (clipping). If you want to be sure to get good colour results going to an unknown RGB printer, convert your final photo to sRGB. But for your workflow with a 3880, stick to aRGB.

 

6) Print with PS or LR managing the colour, and enjoy. If your prints are overall dark, recalibrate the monitor "down" in luminanace; if they're too bright, then raise it up, but if you're going over 110/cdm2 you're looking at your prints under some intense lighting

[ymc226]

Thank you Jaime,

 

I will set the brightness down to 110 as you suggested as the SVII default is 140 which is too bright and would make my prints appear too dark. From my readings, I agree that the Adobe RBG color space would be the one that most likely matches between monitor and paper/printer.

 

How does soft proofing work? Would the software (in this case LR4) have to figure out how the colors in the photo would "translate" onto your particular printer/ink/paper and then "translate" that back onto the screen? I assume the process is wedded very closely to the printer drivers specific to the particular printer model. The reason I ask is that I've also just bought the RIP, ImagePrint 9, for B&W digital printing but would like to try it out for color work. If using ImagePrint as my driver, if the process is driver dependent, I don't think soft proofing would work since it assumes a regular Epson driver in making the soft proofs. Am I thinking correctly?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hoppyman]

Thanks Paul. Yes. I was just interested to hear Jeff's numbers as a starting point too.

The links will be useful.

I'm fortunate here in that my monitor supplier is also my fine art paper merchant, printer supplier, custom profiler, colour guru and all round nice guy.

 

i've been happy to deal with him for some years and have learnt quite a bit from him over time (I linked his website for others earlier in the thread.)

 

You really need to experiment with settings although I found the NEC recommended very close indeed for my needs. Spectraview takes out the guess work and mystery of calibration. They really developed a perfect solution to a minefield of variables.

 

It really depends on your room, the lighting, how it changes through out the day. There is a lot of info out there on how to calibrate the NEC with Spectraview out there.

 

Andrew Rodney who posts on various boards (and worth googling) is a great source of info here. He also has a site Digital Dog :: Main

 

I've also found http://hardforum.com/ a great place for info. Just search for your particular monitor.

 

i've been using NEC and Spectraview for 5 years now without fault. Monitor matches my output.

[Jeff S]

Thanks Jeff.

I printed with my 3800 for a couple of years from PS and had a number of customer profiles for it . They were collateral damage when I needed to get the 3880 instead.

With the multi profile ability of the new monitor, now I have an improved soft proofing capability and plan to print entirely from LR.

I've settled on just three papers for better printing. Your numbers are useful.

 

I do a custom profile for each paper I use, using a friend's equipment, calibrating everything on my own system. The monitor settings I cited merely help make sure that the screen isn't too bright relative to the print. Your settings may of course vary with your papers, your screen and printer, and your lighting. It isn't unusual, though, to have to bring down the brightness and contrast from default settings on the NEC monitors.

 

FWIW, I generally set white point to D50 and gamma curve to 2.2.

 

Jeff