print mismatch monitor due to lighting

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

Could it be that 120 or 180 is not that big a difference? That is what I feel at the moment. My screen is now set to 120 and I cannot see any difference 🫣

I am not sure if a setting is simply transferable as it also depends on ambient light in the room. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I find it quite significant - it is something like 35% or 50%

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, pedaes said:

I am not sure if a setting is simply transferable as it also depends on ambient light in the room. 

The brightness is measured by the Spyder and an objective value. It may be that the Spyder bases its advised setting on the measured ambient light. The Calibrite system allows to keep the sensor plugged in and it will automatically adjust the screen to the ambient light. 

[M11 for me]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

I am not sure if a setting is simply transferable as it also depends on ambient light in the room. 

I must say that I have very little experience with that kind of issues. You might be fully right. 

Up to now, whenever I wanted to have a print done, I went to a (my) professional print studio. And up to now they always altered my input so that the result was "great". However, what I saw on their screen was quite what I saw on mine . . .

A last thing: I do not own a good printer to do prints at home . . .

[jaapv]

That can easily be corrected. The Epson XP 15000 is a good six-cartridge printer up to A3+ at the size of an A4 printer (well..., close) and quite reasonably priced. Ink is not too expensive either. The only drawback is that there are only very few RIPs for it.

7 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

I must say that I have very little experience with that kind of issues. You might be fully right. 

Up to now, whenever I wanted to have a print done, I went to a (my) professional print studio. And up to now they always altered my input so that the result was "great". However, what I saw on their screen was quite what I saw on mine . . .

A last thing: I do not own a good printer to do prints at home . . .

 

[marchyman]

I use a i1 display pro -- now a calibrite something or another -- and tell it to ignore ambient light.  My target is 100.  I also used the device to measure the actual screen white point and luminance of my studio display.  Those values are used to create a custom display preset.  That preset is used to generate the profile using native luminance and whitepoint values.  A side effect of using a preset like that is no more accidental changes to the brightness... it is fixed at the target setting.

I followed instructions found on youtube by ArtIsRight. It's about 3 years old, now, so doesn't exactly describe the current procedure as the locations of and format of some of the windows and the calibrite software has changed.  The process is the same, though.

 

 

Edited July 10 by marchyman

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

 

My exibition room, actually the living room, does not have constant lighting, but that is another problem I cannot care for now.

I also do the similar thing to turn down the TV I use to display my pictures, now they look much more comfortable.  .

No you can only go for an accurate print, if the corner of the room is dark you can't change that or the result looks like a print with clown makeup. Peoples eyes adapt to dark corners in museums so why not in your living room? Keep it natural. 

Edited July 10 by 250swb

[Jeff S]

A lot of museum lighting sucks, or is intentionally dimmed for preservation and archival purposes.  One of the benefits of home printing, and display, is for better optimizing viewing conditions, if desired.  I’ve seen many prints from well known photographers, and printers, that benefit substantially from even subtle changes in display lighting (or even cover glass types).  It can make a difference between having the print tones “sing” versus having just a nice print, depending of course on the picture. Ideally, the monitor approximates those display conditions, as best as possible given reflective vs emissive lighting differences.  If nothing else, one can save paper from trial and error.

[graphlex]

3 hours ago, marchyman said:

I use a i1 display pro -- now a calibrite something or another -- and tell it to ignore ambient light.  My target is 100.  I also used the device to measure the actual screen white point and luminance of my studio display.  Those values are used to create a custom display preset.  That preset is used to generate the profile using native luminance and whitepoint values.  A side effect of using a preset like that is no more accidental changes to the brightness... it is fixed at the target setting.

I followed instructions found on youtube by ArtIsRight. It's about 3 years old, now, so doesn't exactly describe the current procedure as the locations of and format of some of the windows and the calibrite software has changed.  The process is the same, though.

 

 

I also use Calibrite.  A challenge is that the business has been sold, or has failed, a couple times.

[jaapv]

I use both Calibrite and Spyder and find little to choose between the two. I have the impression that Spyder gives marginally more consistent results. 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

No you can only go for an accurate print, if the corner of the room is dark you can't change that or the result looks like a print with clown makeup. Peoples eyes adapt to dark corners in museums so why not in your living room? Keep it natural. 

In my case, the lighting is determined by other factors. The pictures are not the main objects.  Even adding the exibition light to the pictures not necessariky making the room better. 

[marchyman]

19 hours ago, jaapv said:

I use both Calibrite and Spyder and find little to choose between the two. I have the impression that Spyder gives marginally more consistent results. 

I picked Calibrite -- then x-rite -- when continued Spyder use required purchase of their latest hardware. I did that once,  from 3 to 4 I think.  When Datacolor told me I needed to buy yet another version I bought the x-rite unit, instead.  That was in 2017.  I'm still using it.