Monitor calibration

[Qnewbie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Q has been my first venture in the Leica line and I have to say, it has been a joy, but I was disappointed in my first set of prints from Mpix-pro. What recommendations do you have for calibrating your monitor to enable good prints? Any input on other workflow and settings would be appreciated. I use Lightroom to process my images. 

 

[@McLeica]

I had exactly the same problem and it was driving me nuts.

 

Anyway, to cut along story short, I bought the X-Rite Colormunki and calibrated my screen. This profile runs through my Epson R3000 and now matches beautifully.

 

Problem solved, but I haven't tried a third party printing service. Can they use a profile you create?

[marcg]

Monitor calibration is only half the story. If you are only producing images to be shown on the Internet, then monitor calibration is probably all you need. Even then it probably isn't too relevant because most of the people who are watching your images on the Internet won't have their monitors calibrated – and even if they do, they won't have their monitors necessary calibrated to the specification of your monitor.

If you are concerned about producing accurate prints then you will also need to calibrate your printer so that you can be confident that it churns out what you see on your screen.

There was a thread about this very recently – and it may have been in this Q sub forum, I can't quite remember. Anyway, if you hunt for it you will find that it is worth a read.

If you are looking at cheap solutions to monitor and printer calibration – and there's nothing wrong with cheap solutions for most enthusiasts/hobbyist printing needs – then there is the datacolor Spyder or the colormunki by Xrite.

The Spyder is not a true colour spectrophotometer but it does a fairly decent job anyway. It comes in two parts, a monitor calibration instrument and a printer calibration instrument.

The colormunki is a spectrophotometer. It is one piece of equipment which calibrates your monitor and also your printer. It is much older than the datacolor and the software is also much older. The datacolor software is very recent and so you might think that it is much more up-to-date and much more capable. However, enthusiasts/pros tend to recommend the colormunki.

I have tried both and I prefer the colormunki and I sold my datacolor within a week or so of having bought it. Another advantage of the colormunki is that because it is a product which is several years old, you can get good second-hand ones on eBay – which is what I did for a much cheaper price than that which I paid for the new datacolor system.

Other than the price, what I specially like the colormunki is that you calibrate your monitor, then you calibrate your printer, then you can hone the calibration by recalibrating the calibrated printout. This seems to me to be very much more sensible than the datacolor system which simply calibrates the monitor and then the other piece of equipment which calibrates the printer independently.

However, both systems have their fan base and both work pretty well

[marcg]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253772-has-anyone-tried-printing-from-jpegs/?p=2939942

 

… And incidentally, even though the colormunki is comparatively old, it is still currently sold and supported by Xrite, so that in that respect it is up-to-date.

[Qnewbie]

Thank you so much for the quick feedback! I could not decide regarding colormunki vs spyder but I think I know the answer now.

[Jeff S]

Calibrating your monitor is a good starting point, as is ensuring that the total workflow from camera to print (and even beyond to display conditions) is color managed properly.  Obviously, though, that's merely one variable in the print chain, and will only ensure accuracy of reproduction; it won't ensure great prints, which involves myriad variables.  Just as in the darkroom days, aligning one's enlarger is necessary but hardly sufficient for making great prints.  The most critical factor has always been one's own eyes and judgment, not the gear.  

 

BTW, the calibration gear won't make a mediocre monitor great...the best are typically Eizo or NEC, some of which have hardware calibration built in.

 

 

Jeff

[Iduna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Calibrating your monitor is a good starting point, as is ensuring that the total workflow from camera to print (and even beyond to display conditions) is color managed properly.  Obviously, though, that's merely one variable in the print chain, and will only ensure accuracy of reproduction; it won't ensure great prints, which involves myriad variables.  Just as in the darkroom days, aligning one's enlarger is necessary but hardly sufficient for making great prints.  The most critical factor has always been one's own eyes and judgment, not the gear.  

 

BTW, the calibration gear won't make a mediocre monitor great...the best are typically Eizo or NEC, some of which have hardware calibration built in.

 

 

Jeff

 

I think, calibration of the devices is a must if you need the exact values for a professional workflow. Even without a calibration system you can achieve very good results.

 

 If you are not satisfied by the performance within your own system you need a good Monitor first which is able to show Adobe RGB or or even bigger colour spaces. the graphic card should also work correspondingly. This is one side of the medal.- but the printer environment has ist own life. I bought a professinal printer from Canon and can say that those results are amazing.

They are by far better than any results from a printer service. But it needs a few things to consider: either you print from LR or Photohop to print out of this software or you tweak your printer's manual Settings to use the printer software. This is a procedure of its own. You can also rely on the printer and find your own preferred settings. The paper profile is essential and how much ink it can take and needs. My experience is that the better the printer so are the results. The default

settings are very acceptable and with a little bit experience these can be improved also. A professional printer will not need as much ink as a consumer product and your prints will be excellent at a better price than from an average service.

For me this works quite well. An Eizo monitor with integrated calibration shold be a desirable option though - Good luck with upgrading your system

[Jeff S]

I think, calibration of the devices is a must if you need the exact values for a professional workflow. Even without a calibration system you can achieve very good results.

 

 If you are not satisfied by the performance within your own system you need a good Monitor first which is able to show Adobe RGB or or even bigger colour spaces. the graphic card should also work correspondingly. This is one side of the medal.- but the printer environment has ist own life. I bought a professinal printer from Canon and can say that those results are amazing.

They are by far better than any results from a printer service. But it needs a few things to consider: either you print from LR or Photohop to print out of this software or you tweak your printer's manual Settings to use the printer software. This is a procedure of its own. You can also rely on the printer and find your own preferred settings. The paper profile is essential and how much ink it can take and needs. My experience is that the better the printer so are the results. The default

settings are very acceptable and with a little bit experience these can be improved also. A professional printer will not need as much ink as a consumer product and your prints will be excellent at a better price than from an average service.

For me this works quite well. An Eizo monitor with integrated calibration shold be a desirable option though - Good luck with upgrading your system

I trust that you're directing your comments to the OP and not to me, as I've been printing on my own for 4 decades, in the darkroom and in the lightroom.  The print discussion is far deeper than even you present, which is why I briefly stated that there are myriad variables to consider beyond calibration, and still address the OP's question.

 

Jeff

[ramosa]

I had exactly the same problem and it was driving me nuts.

 

Anyway, to cut along story short, I bought the X-Rite Colormunki and calibrated my screen. This profile runs through my Epson R3000 and now matches beautifully.

 

Problem solved, but I haven't tried a third party printing service. Can they use a profile you create?

 

I use the same calibration device--and also like it. 

[wda]

I had exactly the same problem and it was driving me nuts.

 

Anyway, to cut along story short, I bought the X-Rite Colormunki and calibrated my screen. This profile runs through my Epson R3000 and now matches beautifully.

 

Problem solved, but I haven't tried a third party printing service. Can they use a profile you create?

They should recognize your profile if it is embedded in the file. I just tell my printer to print my file as presented. Otherwise the printer will apply his generic profile and possibly undo much of your good work.

[tobey bilek]

If the colors look ok straight from the camera with a nice sunlight scene not using auto white balance, the monitor is is not a problem.   

 

What is wrong with MPIX prints.   Off color or to dark or too light.   Are you ask them to proof the prints or are you sending them files to just be printed ( economy) prints in which case it is up to you to make them look good with MPIX profile applied.

 

You need to have a black point in the image from which they can establish proper exposure.   

 

You also need to have the file in the proper color space, i.e. same as what they use, probably sRGB.

 

If you think digital is easy, you are wrong.  There are many pitfalls some of which you can control, some you can not.