ColorConfused1223

I haven't compared to prints as of yet, although my question is more so about the nature of profiles and the current accuracy of how they are being displayed on my monitor.

I've just read through it. It's a very nice resource and is definitely something I wish I'd found months ago when I was still trying to understand some of the basics. For the most part, I've followed these settings during my calibrations. The only exceptions being the RGB adjustment (which I forewent, only using brightness) and the brightness I used (as I am primarily working with digital content rather than prints, I aimed for 120 rather than 80). I do see that the guide covered one of my questions: achieving a white point that falls slightly short of the target isn't uncommon. My current profile's verification, as read by the device immediately after calibration, shows very ideal delta-e measurements that I am very happy with. It's just that, having run the calibrations in the past with the same settings, I have gotten a lot of variance in these verification readings that I can't figure out the source of. This is why I tested in Photoshop with the soft proofing method I listed, although I do suspect my understanding on that is off.

Hello. I've been working on getting my primary display calibrated using a Calibrite Display Plus HL Colorimeter but have run into a few issues that I wanted to ask about. While I've been doing a lot of research into color management and display technology these last few months, it is very possible that these issues could be the result of a gap in my understanding. My first question is about the calibration process itself. I've run a number of calibrations using the Calibrite Profiler software and, despite maintaining the same settings (both in the software itself and in my monitors OSD menus), I have received inconsistent results in the 'verification' stage of the process. For example, there have been times when the verification has shown a maximum measured delta-e (across all measured patches) of 2-3, while other times it has shown less than 1 for the same measurement. Additionally, the actual white point that is achieved during the calibrations tends to vary by roughly 30-50 'degrees', and in the past it has taken multiple calibrations to reach a temperature acceptably close to 6500. My second question stems from the first. After my most recent calibration, I wanted to ensure that things were actually correct. To do this, I opened one of my files in Photoshop, set the soft proof 'device to simulate' to the ICC profile my calibration generated, and compared. What I noticed is that, when soft proofing to the profile I generated, the image appears more saturated (despite that being the same profile that is already active on my monitor). When I soft proof to a more 'standard' profile (such as web standard sRGB) there are minimal differences, although this seems to vary between files. In a totally different picture I had open, soft proofing to sRGB significantly altered the image in question despite my monitor seemingly being calibrated to match the sRGB standard. To me, it seems like there shouldn't be any differences in either of these cases, as my monitor was calibrated to match the sRGB standard. I'm pretty confused here. As far as I can tell, the display I am using (PA278CV) shouldn't have any issues with colorimeter calibration. I have the device set to the 'standard' preset (though past calibrations have used the 'User 1' preset), have perfectly matched the targeted luminance, and am using a profile which reports a maximum measured delta-e of 0.7 across all verification patches.