# Screen gamut



## IMG_0001 (Jan 21, 2014)

Hello everyone,

To make a long story short, my computer broke and after discussions on the following thread, I settled for a IPS touchscreen ASUS N550JV as a replacement. Now, the non-touchscreen (but IPS) version was reviewed at a couple places and said to have small gamut. I decided to test the touchscreen version with my Spyder4Elite and was stunned by the results (see attachment).

Now, the screen does appear to be high contrast and vivid with neat colors, but I'm surprised nonetheless. I was therefore wondering if anyone is aware of images meant to visually check the screen gamut in order to confirm the calibration/test results. Images with purposefully large gamut that would make obvious deviations in tones in out of gamut areas for example.

Thanks.


----------



## LDS (Jan 21, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> touchscreen ASUS N550JV as a replacement


IMHO "touch screen" (aka "fingerprints") and "image processing" don't go well together. After some usr no matter what the gamut is, the dirt on the screen will change it...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 21, 2014)

LDS said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > touchscreen ASUS N550JV as a replacement
> ...



I understand, but I will be the sole user of the laptop and I am pretty sure I can keep my hands clean and my usage of the touch functions to a minimum. ĳudging by the contents of the stores I visited, the non touchscreen laptops are going to become rare soon anyways.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 21, 2014)

You will want a display calibration tool, and many of them will test the gamut. You cannot tell just by looking at a image on the display.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 21, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You will want a display calibration tool, and many of them will test the gamut. You cannot tell just by looking at a image on the display.



OP said he's checked it via Spyder4Elite, and based on the attached PDF, if I'm reading it right, it looks like it's 96% sRGB & 75% AdobeRGB which seems pretty good, although not quite wide-gamut from my knowledge. 

I'd guess the better look of colors is just that you now have it calibrated. Previously they probably had no ICC profile, or just a fairly generic ICC profile for that panel.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 21, 2014)

Thanks, the appearance was quite good out of the box, but still better once calibrated. 

Mainly, the thing is that based on the machine price and reviews on the web, I was not expecting these kind of results. Not only the Spyder4Elite gives 97% sRGB, but the deltaEs are all under 5, and mostly under 3 which seems pretty good to me.

I just wanted a way to crosscheck these results without getting another screen calibrator. I had thought that there might have been images meant to show/emphasize the gamut limits of a screen or something like that.

Here is a review of the standard panel:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-N550JV-CN201H-Notebook.98311.0.html

And one of the touchscreen (less in-depth):
http://www.tlbhd.com/asus-n550-review-17589/


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 22, 2014)

If anybody is interested, here is a way of checking your monitors out of gamut colors through Photoshop. It is reportedly not that precise, but interesting nevertheless. The principle is soft-proofing an image in Photoshop using your monitor profile as an output device. Out of gamut colors will then show as grey.

http://www.damiensymonds.com.au/art_smlgmt2.html


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 22, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> If anybody is interested, here is a way of checking your monitors out of gamut colors through Photoshop. It is reportedly not that precise, but interesting nevertheless. The principle is soft-proofing an image in Photoshop using your monitor profile as an output device. Out of gamut colors will then show as grey.
> 
> http://www.damiensymonds.com.au/art_smlgmt2.html


While this is an interesting idea, I think this one fails on many levels, mainly because he's using a full-spectrum test image in a 8-bit (I presume based on his PS CS2 reference) application, which explains the "clipping" he refers to, which has nothing to do with gamut. Also, when the author is concerned about how much of the sRGB (not AdobeRGB or ProRGB) profile his monitor shows, that's a little bizarre. The whole idea of sRGB is to have common color space for web and everyday printing - i.e. for display on 99% of the screens out there that aren't color managed. I'm also thinking that since PS uses the monitor's profile for soft-proofing, there's a feedback loop when you try to have the monitor proof itself. 

Back to the OP's topic, that's a decent monitor by desktop standards, but a pretty excellent one by laptop standards.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > You will want a display calibration tool, and many of them will test the gamut. You cannot tell just by looking at a image on the display.
> ...


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 22, 2014)

I still like my Asus 248Q as is (other than my own settings). I have to turn the contrast, brightness and color down quite a bit, because I don't work in a room with a lot of ambient light...such as a bright room full of windows or a brightly lit office, or something. Even at this low setting, the images on screen already have more "apparent" contrast and color than any print has had (other than on metallic paper...which can look quite special in my opinion anyway!). It has a pre-calibrated setting that is slightly too warm, far too bright and far too saturated color, to be all that accurate in my opinion. With my own settings it's quite neutral, and even though shadow detail looks a bit muted, it's still far more than what shows up in lab-adjusted prints on lustre photo paper. By comparison they have a very compressed contrast look to them, yet they still look fabulous with plenty of contrast...go figure.

For just viewing or displaying images it has a "scenery mode" and a "theater mode" that are bright enough to fry your brain...


----------



## jrista (Jan 22, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Thanks, the appearance was quite good out of the box, but still better once calibrated.
> 
> Mainly, the thing is that based on the machine price and reviews on the web, I was not expecting these kind of results. Not only the Spyder4Elite gives 97% sRGB, but the deltaEs are all under 5, and mostly under 3 which seems pretty good to me.
> 
> I just wanted a way to crosscheck these results without getting another screen calibrator. I had thought that there might have been images meant to show/emphasize the gamut limits of a screen or something like that.



Owning a DataColor Spyder myself (I actually bought the full DataColor suite during the Spyder3 days), I would point out that I do not believe DataColor's devices, including the Spyder4, are actually capable of calibrating displays to anything other than sRGB. Their devices are colorimeters, rather than spectrophotometers, and as such they are not as accurate and seem to be tuned to calibrating your screen relative to the sRGB gamut rather than the AdobeRGB gamut. DataColor has claimed there are software features that can be used to calibrate wide-gamut displays, however even with the latest software updates and 'elite' software, I have never been able to get anything other than sRGB calibration out of my Spyder devices for all of my screens.

If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki Design. ColorMunki Design is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, the appearance was quite good out of the box, but still better once calibrated.
> ...



That is interesting, I thought both the colormunki and spyder were colorimeters as I had read of issues with x-rite colored filters stability over time. Nevertheless, I went with datacolor because my reseller told me they were informed by Pantone that they would discontinue the x-rite series so I was concerned with support down the line. I have not verified the claim however...

Edit: And I mostly work sRGB anyways...


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > IMG_0001 said:
> ...



The color filters of any colorimeter or spectrophotometer will fade over time. That isn't really limited to one brand or another or even one model or another. As far as I know, though, X-Rite's devices are all spectrophotometers:



> *Product Details*
> *COLORMUNKI DEVICE*
> All-in-One _*spectrophotometer*_ puts the world of spectral color at your fingertips â€“ easily capture colors and calibrate all you monitors, printers and projectors. A white calibration tile is integrated, so thereâ€™s nothing to lose or match up to your device. Also includes a protective bag which doubles as an integrated monitor holder and it all fits in the palm of your hand. This truly is your do everything color solution!



Also, to be quite frank, it sounds like your reseller has brand affinity. ColorMunki is pretty much the top color calibration device on the market. It is highly doubtful that it would be discontinued. X-Rite and Pantone certainly collaborated on it, and it covers the pantone solid color set, which is actually very ideal. Just because ColorMunki competes with Pantone Huey, though, doesn't mean that X-Rite will be discontinuing it. I don't think Pantone has any right to discontinue it, it isn't their product. Pantone collaborates with everyone in the color market...its what they do, basically. 

Regarding DataColor...I liked my Spyder3 stuff when I first got it. It did it's job, calibrated my devices quickly, and produced an ideal sRGB gamut. After having used it for about four years now, though, I have come to realize that it is a very inconsistent system. I can calibrate my screen repeatedly in the exact same conditions, and every single time DataColor's system will produce slightly different results. White point shifts, shadow tonality will crush, then open up again, colors, particularly greens and reds, will change slightly from calibration to calibration. Even calibrating my screen brightness results in shifts...I use 120mcd brightness, however from one calibration to the next, the device might read that as 90mcd, and other times it might read that as 180mcd. 

Very, very inconsistent system.

I purchased the Spyder4 device from the local Micro Center and gave it a try. Same basic issues. They are a little less extreme now, but fundamentally the same basic issues exist. I don't really have anything against DataColor, and I actually like their multi-device normalization features (where you can calibrate multiple screens on separate computers and normalize their calibration to produce very similar results). But as I've become more critical in my work, and rely more heavily on having a color-correct workflow...I've simply come to realize that DataColor's devices really aren't ideal. 

ColorMunki Design is a more consistent, accurate device, and the ColorMunki Design is very nice in that one single device can calibrate everything (DataColor has different devices for calibrating screen and printer.) Also, as far as I can tell, ColorMunki always calibrates my screen to a gamut wider than sRGB (but still not AdobeRGB, however I don't think my CinemaDisplay 30" screen can achieve full AdobeRGB gamut anyway.) I returned the ColorMunki device I had because an X-Rite i1Display device actually comes with the NEC PA302W-BK-SV high end desktop display which has a 14-bit hardware LUT (SpectraView II is really just a relabeled i1Display, which is X-Rites higher end display calibration tool), and the reviews of this display indicate the calibrations are simply exquisite and highly accurate. 

Seeing as I plan to buy that NEC monitor, and I don't generally create printer calibrations anymore, and the $500 ColorMunki Design was just a bit expensive for me at the time. If you aren't intending to spend $1200 on a new monitor, though, the ColorMunki is pretty much the most accurate calibration device around. If you don't want to spend $500, then an i1Display Pro is probably sufficient (however, to be quite honest, I am not sure if that is a spectro or a colorimeter...either way, the reviews indicate it does an exquisite job.)


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 23, 2014)

Thanks Jrista, that is all quite intersting. To be honest, I've just recently came in to color calibrated workflow and still have to grasp all aspects of it. Until now, I'm pretty happy with my spyder4 and I'm aware that is not the most high end device, but I'm sure it is not thse weakest link in my gear and workflow either.

Just as an aside, I don't think the store had a brand affinity since the shop that told me about the X-rite being discontinued actually only held this brand in stock and referred me to a competitor so I could get a Datacolor product.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.

Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.

A robust colour workflow is a wonderful thing but is way more than a decent monitor and profile, it starts at capture with custom camera profiles and ends with the final viewers viewing conditions.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> To make a long story short, my computer broke and after discussions on the following thread, I settled for a IPS touchscreen ASUS N550JV as a replacement. Now, the non-touchscreen (but IPS) version was reviewed at a couple places and said to have small gamut. I decided to test the touchscreen version with my Spyder4Elite and was stunned by the results (see attachment).
> 
> ...



That looks close to normal for a regular, non-wide gamut screen, maybe a trace farther short of sRGB than most but not by much. I expected you'd be talking about one of those screens that is like only 65% of sRGB or something like a few cheap laptops and lots of older tablets have/had.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.
> 
> Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.
> 
> A robust colour workflow is a wonderful thing but is way more than a decent monitor and profile, it starts at capture with custom camera profiles and ends with the final viewers viewing conditions.



In relation to the very broad scope you describe, you are indeed correct. However if you prefer to have a very accurate color-corrected *personal workflow*...from camera to printer...ColorMunki Design is the most consistent device I've found on the market in it's price range. (I don't know about the ColorMunki Display...I was looking for a device that would cover both screen and print calibration, which is what the Design does.) If you do color-corrected printing at home, the inconsistencies that the Spyder process introduces become very annoying. Since the last calibration I did after returning the ColorMunki, I simply stopped calibrating. My screen seems to naturally drift at a pretty slow rate, and NOT recalibrating keeps the current calibration in tact, and right now, my shadow tonality is excellent, greens and reds show up superbly, etc.

If these small details don't matter to you, then indeed...any old calibration device will do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> The color filters of any colorimeter or spectrophotometer will fade over time. That isn't really limited to one brand or another or even one model or another. As far as I know, though, X-Rite's devices are all spectrophotometers:



Actually it does vary a lot by model. Stuff like i1D2 and older Spyders have unprotected gels and they decay a lot faster than the ones with glass and sealing. i1Display Pro for instance lasts a lot longer than the old i1D2.

x-rite makes lots of colorimeters, i1D2, i1D, i1Display Pro and such were all colorimeters. i1 Pro and i1 Pro II are spectros as is one of the colormunkis (there is a new colormunki, man their new naming is soooo confusing! i1 Display Pro and i1 Display and i1 Pro are 100% different and the latter is a spectro and the first two colorimeters! and I think colormunki is a spectro but the new colormunki display i think is a slowed down i1 display pro colorimeters, i forget the naming for the colormunkis so that might be wrong).

i1 Display Pro seems to have the least copy to copy variation of all the colorimeters that do not cost like $800+. Spyder4 seems to be OK but not up to the i1 Display Pro.




> Seeing as I plan to buy that NEC monitor, and I don't generally create printer calibrations anymore, and the $500 ColorMunki Design was just a bit expensive for me at the time. If you aren't intending to spend $1200 on a new monitor, though, the ColorMunki is pretty much the most accurate calibration device around. If you don't want to spend $500, then an i1Display Pro is probably sufficient (however, to be quite honest, I am not sure if that is a spectro or a colorimeter...either way, the reviews indicate it does an exquisite job.)



i1 Display Pro is a colorimeter but it has expanded vision compared to the prior i1D2 and it is VASTLY better in terms of copy to copy variation. I tested a few i1 Display Pro and they were identical for most measurements off by like 0.001 for a few and like .002 for one. The i1D2 were said to at times register, copy to copy, a color calibrated by one copy to measure 10 to even 20dE off often enough (not with all copies, but it wasn't that rare that their could be that much of a difference copy to copy)

i1 Display Pro having almost idenitcal performance for all copies means that the included conversion tables all apply well it has tables for regular CCFL, wide gamut CCFL, LED and such. it works especially well with NEC CCFL wide gamut PA monitors since that is the monitors they used to calibrate the tables.

It is much faster and somewhat more accurate at measuring dark shades than the affordable spectros.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.
> 
> Calibration is yet another area where some people seem to obsess, it is important to remain cognoscent of the fact that a profile, in and of itself, only has any relevance or use when compared to something else, "accurate" colour is a complete red herring and calibrating a monitor without regard to final output, be it an uncalibrated web users screen, a high end printer, or the local Costco, or where that print is then hung, what viewing conditions that web user has etc, really make single screen profiling a little pointless. Certainly nothing to obsess about.



Not really since:
1. most of the images you see will be on your monitor so it certainly makes sense to have it calibrated (ever more now that 4k+ monitors are coming out)
2. it means you won't have to alter all your photos and potentially completely reprocess them all when you get a new monitor
3. you can't even get to the other steps you mention if the first step isn't there


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The color filters of any colorimeter or spectrophotometer will fade over time. That isn't really limited to one brand or another or even one model or another. As far as I know, though, X-Rite's devices are all spectrophotometers:
> ...



Ah, ok. So the i1Display Pro is a colorimeter. Well, that doesn't seem to hamper it's performance at all...reviews indicate it does a stellar job with high consistency. 

I also believe that a glass filter in front of the color filter will help reduce the rate at which the color filter fades...however it won't stop it from fading.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> > Seeing as I plan to buy that NEC monitor, and I don't generally create printer calibrations anymore, and the $500 ColorMunki Design was just a bit expensive for me at the time. If you aren't intending to spend $1200 on a new monitor, though, the ColorMunki is pretty much the most accurate calibration device around. If you don't want to spend $500, then an i1Display Pro is probably sufficient (however, to be quite honest, I am not sure if that is a spectro or a colorimeter...either way, the reviews indicate it does an exquisite job.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, the i1Display Pro is a very good calibration device. Interesting that it handles the dark shades better, spectros have lower precision at darker tones than they do at higher tones, so if it is not a spectro, that makes sense. I wonder how accurate it's middle tones are, though. That is really where the richest color shows up in any photo...shadows and highlights naturally have less color fidelity, where as the very broad range of midtones is where the vast bulk of color and fine tonality come from anyway.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a colorimeter.
> ...



I just made a print booth with a set of $250 Solux bulbs, I take my printing pretty seriously. I am currently printing a group show for ten photographers. How much use is my viewing booth for this show? Zero. The viewing conditions at the venue are so removed from my calibrated and profiled screen and print booth as to nullify their use, I can't replicate the venues lighting in my print booth (with the full spectrum top of the range photographic viewing bulbs I have) and it would take a custom created screen profile made from light readings at the venue to get my screen close.

That is not saying there is no point to profiling, just to put what you do in isolation in perspective. 

The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.

As for screen brightness, well this is so dependent on ambient light too. The specs for true colour critical work include ambient light levels that are depressingly low, room tone (no colour) levels, operators clothing colour and a plethora of other details that remove it ever more from where any output might be viewed.

There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances. They are effectively infinite. Having a personal color-correct workflow still produces color-accurate prints. One of the reasons I bought the DataColor SpyderPrint was it's ability to produce a variety of color profiles for known illuminants from a single source calibration. You generate one profile, then generate profiles for different lighting like tungsten, sunlight, D50, D65, etc. You simply had to choose the right profile for the lighting to print in such a way that color would be accurate under that specific kind of lighting.

These days, I assume daylight and/or sunlight viewing. I stopped concerning myself with the ability to produce prints that look good under the extreme orange-yellow light of a tungsten bulb. Too costly. Most people spend the most time looking at prints during the day, which would be either 5000K-5500K sunlight, or 6500K daylight. I calibrate my screen to D55, or 5500 kelvin, and my workflow produces correct, accurate color for those conditions. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.



Actually, I clearly stated it was the ColorMunki Design, and I even linked to the ColorMunki Design web site from where I took the quote about it being a spectro...



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> As for screen brightness, well this is so dependent on ambient light too. The specs for true colour critical work include ambient light levels that are depressingly low, room tone (no colour) levels, operators clothing colour and a plethora of other details that remove it ever more from where any output might be viewed.



I have 5000K CRI 89 lighting at my workstation, where I wear black. I always calibrate at night under pure artificial lighting, as I normally print at night. My workstation is also directly and pretty evenly illuminated. The Spyder3 and Spyder4, as well as ColorMunki and i1Display devices all take ambient lighting measurements. 

As for where the output is viewed, again...I don't think that matters so much. You can't control the infinitely varying situations where your output might be viewed. All you can do is control your specific workflow. In the case of prints, if you assume the most common viewing circumstances...indoors during the daytime for people who buy your prints, you greatly narrow the potential viewing scenarios you have to account form.

Color calibration isn't about calibrating the world. It's about calibrating your workflow. That's it. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".



I think she was damn right! ;D She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.



Nonsense, final output viewing is the goal, not some isolated and insular workspace that we create. Though the output is of course not limited to printing, there are many great printers that write on this subject regularly, Ctein and John Paul Caponigro, being my two favourites, though I don't agree with all their ideas, at the foundation of all great printers workflow is a clear understanding of where an image will be displayed. It is the first question any serious printer will ask, sure if you don't know then a "regular" print can be made, but that isn't _the complete way_ nor is it going to get you anything like optimal results.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I mentioned the ColorMunki, is because, as has been said, X-Rite's naming policy is very confusing and you didn't differentiate between the ColorMunki Display, a colorimeter, and the ColorMunki Design, a spectrophotometer.
> ...



No, you didn't.



jrista said:


> If you want to truly test out your screen and see what it is truly capable of, you should probably pick up an X-Rite ColorMunki. ColorMunki is a true spectrophotometer, which is a scientific-grade high precision device that will perform a much more realistic and accurate calibration of your screen, and should theoretically work for any gamut.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think she was damn right! ;D She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.



She was, that is why I referenced the anecdote. But she was working to the output viewing conditions, not the sterile fully profiled and managed workstation conditions.

Final output viewing conditions are all that matters, if you are outputting your images, if you aren't then by definition it is moot because you don't have any.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You can't concern yourself too much about external viewing circumstances.
> ...



I agree in certain circumstances. For example, if you are going to be exhibiting your work at a gallery, and you can gather the specifics of the kind of lighting they use, then you absolutely want to print according to those specific viewing circumstances.

I am thinking more of the general circumstance. You, or maybe a lab, print on a regular basis for potentially thousands of customers. The average customer couldn't give you any meaningful information about what kind of light is going to fall on the print when it is being viewed, and even if they did, it would only be correct some of the time. Even if you did know, you still aren't going to be recalibrating your system every time for different output circumstances. You do something like what DataColor SpyderPrint does...generate a profile, then extrapolate potential alternative light sources and white points from that. And you simply select the profile you need for those *special *prints. However you calibrate your system to one single baseline...you don't keep recalibrating it for each of potentially countless output circumstances.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Your taking that out of context. Click the damn link in my quote about the ColorMunki...it takes you directly to the ColorMunki Design web page. Everything I put after my quote assumes you actually READ the quote and clicked the link...since it came BEFORE.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



No it didn't. This is the entirety of your first post in the thread.



jrista said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, the appearance was quite good out of the box, but still better once calibrated.
> ...




See, no mention of ColorMunki Display and no link? Just X-Rite ColorMunki, and no link, so apart from those two details you were right about mentioning Display and a link.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



And I was just trying to put in perspective the comparative futility that obsessing about the last few percent of accurate profiling and calibration is. A robust colour managed workflow is a good general practice, but spending excessive time and money on "better" is rarely worth it, especially when you consider the workstation to be nothing more than an intermediate step from capture to final output viewing. and the wide gamut of conditions that might encompass.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It is less about accuracy and more about consistency. I thought I made that relatively clear in all my words...but perhaps you are not really reading everything I've written. I wrote a lot about the inconsistencies of the DataColor products, vs. the consistency and accuracy of the ColorMunki Design...the fundamental issue that I've had (after years of use with multiple devices, starting with a Spyder2, actually) is lack of consistency with DataColor's products from calibration to calibration.

Anyway, there has been more than enough context in everything I've written to avoid any of the ambiguities you seem to be picking up. Even if you pulled that quote from a prior answer, if you had actually read everything, you would have known I was referring to the ColorMunki Design _by the time you made which device I was talking about an issue._

We obviously disagree here, and I'd rather not continue to hijack IMG_001's thread with another endless debate that goes exactly nowhere...so, TTFN!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

A simple acknowledgement you made a small mistake and that you have subsequently edited all your posts to rewrite what you lambasted me for would have been sufficient.

But, whatever.

We both have good input to make to a thread about colour management, you are very theoretical based, I am more practical and pragmatic. Having printed commercially for other photographers I have a slightly unusual, for this forum, perspective, but it closely aligns with industry experts. I would never argue pure technicalities with you (apart from perspective and compression  ), indeed I often enhance my understanding of "why" because of posters like you. Of course consistency should be a given in an advanced thread like this, my input was merely to clarify a small point (which you vehemently denied but then edited) and to caution against obsessiveness and diminishing returns in a section of the workflow from capture to output viewing. Of course screen calibration and profiling are important, as are camera and printer profiles, as are final output viewing condition considerations. Obsessing over one or two and ignoring the rest are as invaluable for ultimate accuracy as not bothering.


----------



## notapro (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista,

You mentioned the NEC PA302W-BK-SV monitor. When do you expect to purchase it? I believe that you will find it an excellent piece of equipment.

I have had mine for five or six days, and it is tremendous. For what it's worth, in the context of this thread, what I see on this monitor is a vast improvement over a more generic 23-inch monitor I was using previously (an Acer S231HL). To give a mundane example, the red color of the word "canon" in "canonrumors" at the top of this webpage stands out to me now. I never noticed it before as a red distinct from the other reds on this site. In fact, I notice differences in reds across many websites that were not so apparent before I had this monitor, and seeing wide ranges in reds in everyday use is at this point what is most striking to me.

Differences in reds as they appear in photos is noticeable as well, relative to what they were with my previous monitor. The banding in the in the red background of the attached JPG file is evident, whereas to see the banding with the Acer monitor I was using, one would have to pixel-peep the original image at full size (in the original RAW file, banding was not visible).


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> A simple acknowledgement you made a small mistake and that you have subsequently edited all your posts to rewrite what you lambasted me for would have been sufficient.
> 
> But, whatever.



Tit for tat. Two way roads. We both made mistakes. I apologize. 



privatebydesign said:


> We both have good input to make to a thread about colour management, you are very theoretical based, I am more practical and pragmatic. Having printed commercially for other photographers I have a slightly unusual, for this forum, perspective, but it closely aligns with industry experts. I would never argue pure technicalities with you (apart from perspective and compression  ), indeed I often enhance my understanding of "why" because of posters like you. Of course consistency should be a given in an advanced thread like this, my input was merely to clarify a small point (which you vehemently denied but then edited) and to caution against obsessiveness and diminishing returns in a section of the workflow from capture to output viewing. Of course screen calibration and profiling are important, as are camera and printer profiles, as are final output viewing condition considerations. Obsessing over one or two and ignoring the rest are as invaluable for ultimate accuracy as not bothering.



I completely agreed with you in the end about perspective and compression. ;P I was trying to extend the meaning beyond what you and Neuro were insisting it was limited to...I failed. : I am happy to accept the more limited description.

I edited the post to eliminate future confusion, nothing else. And I still wish you had read everything...there were multiple posts between my first, and the point at which you decided to ignore everything I said about ColorMunki Design and claim I was talking about the ColorMunki Display (and I DID use the word Design in my subsequent posts, many times, before you made an issue about it. I only edited the first post, to avoid further confusion of anyone else who came along and read it.)

As for output scenarios, as you said, as an industry printer, you have a rather unique perspective. For the average photographer, what matters is their own workflow. We can even eliminate the print context, and just deal with the web context. Most photographers publish their work on the web. I do myself, more than I print (although I do print quite a lot.) The thing that is most irksome about DataColor's system is the inconsistencies between calibration and subsequent recalibrations (which the software wants you to do pretty frequently, no longer than two months at the most, and more frequently than that most of the time.) When I did recalibrate often, the biggest issue was the tonal range in the shadows. It swings widely...sometimes blacks seem completely crushed, and at other times they are wide open and rich.

That becomes a serious problem for publishing to the web. A calibrated screen is also usually readjusted so that it's backlight is dimmer. A brightness of 120mcd is pretty standard, and in some cases as low as 80mcd is even better for workflows that involve print. When you edit images with crushed blacks and shadows, especially if you don't know they are crushed, inevitably results in you editing the shadows to be brighter. It was a while before I noticed this inconsistency, however when I would view my work on other peoples computers, I'd easily notice that some looked pretty good, while others were clearly too bright in the shadows, often too noisy in the shadows, and tonal gradients were really poor. I've actually kept an old Sony Vaio laptop around that has this huge 18.4" screen that is one of the worst screens I've ever used. It's sole value to me is to check my post-processing, and make sure that I edited the shadows properly.

This was the heart of what I was trying to write about. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system are a problem. Less so, really, for print...and you make some great points there. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system that frustrate me so much are actually most important for my web publishing workflow. I've actually avoided recalibrating for...months, at this point, maybe over five months...because I kept recalibrating last time until I managed to get perfect shadow tonality, along with the best green and red reproduction I could manage. I'm truly afraid to recalibrate with the Spyder system, as it could result in hours of fiddling and tweaking and fiddling more to avoid the crushed blacks problem.

I also believe I am not the only one who has noted such issues with DataColor's products. In my research about what screen to replace my current one with (the backlight on this one is going to go in the not too distant future, as I've had this screen for at least seven years now), many reviewers of products like NEC's PA301 and PA302 screens noted that they experienced much more consistent and accurate results with either any of the i1 products from X-Rite, or the bundled SpectraView II device. I've read about similar issues with people who use Dell's UltraSharp screens. Even if "perfect" calibration isn't and maybe shouldn't be "the goal", I do believe "consistent" calibration IS and SHOULD be a goal.


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

notapro said:


> jrista,
> 
> You mentioned the NEC PA302W-BK-SV monitor. When do you expect to purchase it? I believe that you will find it an excellent piece of equipment.
> 
> I have had mine for five or six days, and it is tremendous.



Well, congrats on the purchase!  I'm a bit envious...I've read a LOT about what monitor to replace my current one with (an Apple CinemaDisplay 30"...one of the older ones, with the single piece injection molded aluminum body). The best on the market are of course Eizo's, which have built-in calibration so you don't even need a device...and the NECs. I'd certainly prefer a 16-bit hardware LUT and built in automatic calibration, but I can't justify spending three grand on such a screen, not for what I do. The NEC sounds, from all the raving reviews, to be quite amazing. I'm sure you'll love your screen for a long time to come.



notapro said:


> For what it's worth, in the context of this thread, what I see on this monitor is a vast improvement over a more generic 23-inch monitor I was using previously (an Acer S231HL). To give a mundane example, the red color of the word "canon" in "canonrumors" at the top of this webpage stands out to me now. I never noticed it before as a red distinct from the other reds on this site. In fact, I notice differences in reds across many websites that were not so apparent before I had this monitor, and seeing wide ranges in reds in everyday use is at this point what is most striking to me.



You are using a true wide-gamut screen now, so deep reds will definitely be richer. Deep colors in general, as well as colors in the AdobeRGB gamut that extend beyond the reach of sRGB, will be more vibrant. Greens in particular should really start to pop with the NEC.



notapro said:


> Differences in reds as they appear in photos is noticeable as well, relative to what they were with my previous monitor. The banding in the in the red background of the attached JPG file is evident, whereas to see the banding with the Acer monitor I was using, one would have to pixel-peep the original image at full size (in the original RAW file, banding was not visible).



That would be the screen's hardware 14-bit LUT. Even though internally the operating system and most software is only capable of 8-bpc color, with the NEC screen, you actually have 14-bpc (or 42-bit) color. When working with images that have a higher bit depth than 8-bpc, such as 16-bit TIFF or RAW images in the AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB gamut, instead of multiple similar colors basically being "binned" into the same 8-bit color the screen is actually able to differentiate those colors, and the correct colors will be looked up via the LUT built into the monitor. You should RARELY see posterization and banding anymore, as that is usually caused by that binning effect, where similar colors are merged by ICM (which can occur with both Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual intents) when there isn't enough precision in the display space to account for all actual source colors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> There is a wonderful story that somebody high up in colour management tells, I forget who (maybe that darned Digital Dog guy), about a magazine editor arguing with the printers, and the picture editors about what image had this months "look". In a burst of frustration she took the last two choices outside to a news stand and put them in the rack for a couple of minutes, then chose one. When asked by all the "experts" what exactly she did and what she thought she could accomplish, she replied, "I wanted to see which looked best on the rack of a news stand, that is where they sell from".



hah


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think she was damn right! ;D She narrowed the potential viewing circumstances to the one that seemed most important. That's all you can do. You can't calibrate the world....you can only calibrate your workflow.
> ...



Don't forget though that they now know which sort of look looks best on the newsstand and since they have calibrated monitors they can reliable aim to hit close to that to begin with from then on.

And I still wouldn't discount the lone screen thing so much. Again most photos you take are seen by yourself and most and most often on screen. And the for others who see your stuff, it's online that will total the largest amount of views for most people.

And the varying conditions for prints thing, yeah, but all the same I find it way easier to get prints that seem reasonable when basing off of a color-managed monitor then one set to who knows what.

And you always have a decent starting point. You don't need to re-edit your images completely every time you move to a new screen or a new printer etc.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear. I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray. Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can. I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before. It's great and annoying all at the same time


----------



## jrista (Jan 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear. I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray. Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can. I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before. It's great and annoying all at the same time



*Me Too*

I have developed the "problem" of being able to always see the color balance of lighting. Light used to just be "white"...it didn't matter if it was the deep orange 2700kelvin of tungsten or the 3300kelvin of halogen or the 5500kelvin of sunlight or the 6500kelvin of daylight. Now, I really hate standard tungsten light...it is just WAAAAY TOOOO OOOOOORAAAAANNNG. I prefer at least 3300-3500 kelvin lighting for my upstairs rooms, and I've moved to 5000 kelvin white light for my downstairs living area. Even if I turn off the downstairs lighting, go up the stairs in the dark, and turn on the upstairs lighting, I can still always tell that it is much more yellow-orange than the downstairs light, even after having hours to "adjust".

Because I obsessed over tuning my computers calibration, I somehow seemed to have disabled the bit in my brain that automatically adjusts whitepoint for me mentally. It's interesting in one sense...I can have different lighting of different temperatures all throughout the house, and I can recognize each and every one as distinct....even without needing to compare them simultaneously. In the other sense...it's kind of annoying, as I really hate the orange light that illuminates most people's homes now.... :-\


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Since we're all over the color management discussion, I'm wondering if anyone else has had the experience I've had since upgrading their color managed gear. I'm running a full 10/30-bit set up with color managed everything including lighting - just about everything except the paint on my walls which are white, but not neutral gray. Since doing this, I've discovered that I'm much more sensitive to my white balance than ever before, to the point that I'm thinking of using my ColorChecker Passport or other reference cards for as many of my shoots as I can. I'm also noticing much smaller variations in my prints than ever before. It's great and annoying all at the same time
> ...


I'm happy to hear that I'm not alone - maybe we need to start ICC Anonymous  I began replacing my house bulbs with D65 ones many years ago - D50 is too orange for me, too - I only use it for proofing my commercial work going to magazines and the like.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 23, 2014)

Thanks again everyone, some interesting posts and debate in there. For me the move to calibrating the screen just resulted from the evident blue-purple cast of my previous machine screen. I don't do photography professionally, but it was overwhelmingly evident that I could not print easily with the initial setup. I don't have my own printer but deal with a reputable local shop that is well setup.

Now, even though all is not perfect, my screen is much ore neutral and postprocessing for printing is much easier to handle for a 'casual' user like me.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Thanks again everyone, some interesting posts and debate in there. For me the move to calibrating the screen just resulted from the evident blue-purple cast of my previous machine screen. I don't do photography professionally, but it was overwhelmingly evident that I could not print easily with the initial setup. I don't have my own printer but deal with a reputable local shop that is well setup.
> 
> Now, even though all is not perfect, my screen is much ore neutral and postprocessing for printing is much easier to handle for a 'casual' user like me.


I found the conversations pretty interesting, too, and a calibrated screen and a printer that uses a color-managed workflow is plenty good enough for the majority of people. Congrats on getting set up, but beware, it can be a "gateway drug" to full color management - LOL


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 23, 2014)

Looks as if monitors aren't the only things that need measuring around here :


----------



## notapro (Jan 23, 2014)

As others have done here, I, too, have modified the lighting in my home. All lights are at 6500K. I will not ever go back to orange or yellow lighting. I even have urges to change the lamps in my car's headlights to ones with whiter light . . . maybe I should look into finding an ICC Anonymous group. Carl may be onto something with his idea of other things needing measuring around here.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 24, 2014)

Hi, my name is Laurent and I've not cailbrated my screen or changed a lightbulb for 48 hours... It is hard... you know...screen calibration has been part of my life since high school when that guy showed me his wide gamut. 

I'm sure we can all relate.


----------

