XDR Displays & Calibration

[hirohhhh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there anyone who uses Apple XDR displays as reference for printing? Do you calibrate them?

I always used to calibrate my displays, until I purchased my first Apple XDR Pro Display. That was seemed very well factory calibrated, so I gave it a try that way. I set it in a Design & Print mode and left it with it’s native profile.

Then at one point I decided to calibrate it using my dusty i1 Display Pro, but I honestly didn’t see the point. Both profiles looked good, and I’d say pretty similar, and I even preferred the original one. Since then, I didn’t bother calibrating XDR Pro Display.

Now, I purchased MacBook Pro with XDR display, and although I don’t use it as a reference for printing, I think this one won’t need calibration either, because it uses the same technology as XDR Pro Display. My old MacBook Pro with LCD display now looks so poor, and that one needed constant calibration, and even when I do it, once in a while, it’s night and day between new and old profile.

I’d like to hear from others who own XDR displays, do you calibrate them? If yes, why, what do you use for calibration. Did you try not to calibrate them?

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

It depends on how long you keep your display unit. Performance changes with time. I recalibrate my Eizo monitor about every 200 hours and I notice incremental changes to the output values.

Edited March 21, 2023 by wda

[hirohhhh]

3 minutes ago, wda said:

It depends on how long you keep your display unit. Performance changes with time. I recalibrate my Eizo monitor about every 200 hours and I notice incremental changes to the output values.

I didn't calibrate my Apple XDR for the first two years and I noticed a slight change. But then I realized, for what I need it, the factory calibration is great, so I didn't calibrate it after that. I wouldn't gain anything doing it every week or so. So, I'm curious, am I missing something, or this technology is so good?

[wda]

Maybe.

[wide.angle]

I think related to this question is, how can we feel confident that a calibration device (e.g., Calibrite Display Plus) that is an order of magnitude cheaper than a monitor (e.g., Apple Pro Display XDR) can be trusted to measure more "accurately" than a factory calibration and not change in its measurements over time? I was unsuccessfully searching for an answer to that when I came across this discussion.

(Setting aside what seems to be one benefit to using the device would be to match multiple monitors/printers, even if it isn't more "accurate").

[Hanno]

I have the Pro Display HDR linked to a Mac Studio and as well a MacBook Pro 16 inch.

I believe fine tuning the calibration of these Apple monitors could make sense if you are printing. 

If so, at the very minimum you would lower the luminance from the 160 cd/m2 max SDR setting of the Apple presets (design & print or photography).

Whether you would then need a third party device or not is going to be based on how your prints come out. 

If you are not printing, then fine tuning the factory calibration is more optional though probably recommended based on your lighting conditions. 

As you know the point of calibration is to account for the lighting conditions when post processing, when viewing on a screen and/or on paper. You won’t know or control for sure the future viewing conditions of people looking at your photography. Calibration say for daylight viewing conditions is a best effort and more of a norm. 

My sole lighting source is a BenQ screenbar Halo set a min intensity and c. 5750K. When I did calibrate the Pro Display HDR with Calibrite Display Plus there was a noticeable difference between before and after. The monitor set at Apple’s photography profile corrected for 100 cd/m2 luminance was warmer / lower in color temperature versus recalibrated profile.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Hanno

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the end you are the best person to judge if you need to calibrate your display: if your prints don't look the same as what's on screen, then you need to calibrate. If you can't tell the difference then you don't.

[irenedp]

Apple monitors are extremely expensive and not ideal for color accuracy. I would go for an Eizo (the newer versions self-calibrate) or even a Benq and calibrate manually with an X-rite. 

[Qwertynm]

I'd say it depends. Most recreational photographers have a workflow in sRGB I'd assume. Their output medium is probably in 99% of cases instagram, flickr or an online forum so just another digital display. iPhones and iPads display sRGB and P3 color spaces. If you're just looking at your pictures 99% of the time on either one of your monitors why bother with all this calibration if it's pretty accurate out of the box. How accurate do you really need 95%, 99% or 100%?

My printer asked for a tiff file the last time I printed something and we looked at the image on his Eizo. I edited on my 16" MBP and we didn't change colour or exposure. Paper doesn't have the same color depth and dynamic range as a LCD anyway so it just has to be good enough for the output medium.

If you need it to be accurate for the sake of it that's fine too I guess. If not, save yourself the time & money and just edit for your output medium.

[zeitz]

51 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

Their output medium is probably in 99% of cases instagram, flickr or an online forum so just another digital display. iPhones and iPads display sRGB and P3 color spaces.

Since the viewers' monitors are totally unknown and absolutely not color managed, the color accuracy of a website post makes no difference at all.  Every viewer will see the file differently.

53 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

Paper doesn't have the same color depth and dynamic range as a LCD anyway so it just has to be good enough for the output medium.

This issue can be overcome with a color managed work flow.  That is why Eizo monitors calibrate dimmer than usuals and why the screens have a satin sheen rather that a glossy sheen.  The color depth and dynamic range between what I see on the Eizo screen and what are print on a Canon iPF pigment printer are very close.