Damien Symonds

If you're desperate, then yes, it'll just pass.

You haven't shown me her whole face, but it seems that she's looking directly at the camera; so maybe it would be possible to copy and flip from the other side.

It's damn hard, though.

The Spyder Express is very basic tech.  I'm fairly confident to say that you'll get a better match with a new device.

4 hours ago, rightmovephotography said:

Will a better version of Spyder allow me to adjust the black point

Not as such, no.

Have you ever had a satisfactory print match with this screen/calibrator/lab combination?

Well there you go.

Where is the problem folder located?

Well, if your calibration has given you a print match during the day, that's all we can ask for. Sounds good.

Sounds good.  And do you do all your editing during the day?

Well, can you tell me about the light around you?  https://www.damiensymonds.net/2012/01/light-around-your-computer.html

Hi @Shsp00, I can assure you that this is not a universal problem.  My updated Bridge still rates just fine.

Did you try rating images in a few different folders, on a few different drives?

Can you still view ratings you gave images previously?

Definitely avoid VGA.

HDMI and DVI are both great, and (I think) DisplayPort is good for super-high-resolution screens.

Brian will be along shortly to tell us if I'm right or wrong.

Hi @ShannyP20 more recently it's been split up into two panels - "Optics" and "Geometry".

At least, I think that's what you're referring to.

That's perfectly normal, don't worry.

According to X-Rite's own page, GB-LED is the correct choice.

According to those specs, it's standard.

No no no no no.

Thank you for asking.

https://www.damiensymonds.net/why-do-some-print-labs-tell-you-to-change-your-photoshop-color-settings/

It should be turned off while you're editing, yes.  Just turn it on to check colours before printing.

1 minute ago, Michelle Gifford said:

I haven't tested any reds from them yet, but am sending some asap.

 

What?  I thought you said you had prints with reds in them?  Reds that had turned dark?

Just now, Michelle Gifford said:

What profile should I be working in?

https://www.damiensymonds.net/2014/07/proof-setup-working-cmyk-not-really.html

21 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

Anyway, the important question is, does soft-proofing make the reds look more like the print?

@Michelle Gifford?

Anyway, the important question is, does soft-proofing make the reds look more like the print?

Just now, Michelle Gifford said:

I thought you had no opinion on labs lol. now the one I picked and am happy with, you hate😆

https://www.facebook.com/groups/askdamien/posts/4143619009031601/

No, that's ok.  If they specifically said "Perceptual" not "Relative Colorimetric", then that's what you should do.

It's definitely uncommon, but that shouldn't be surprising from stupid Millers.  They certainly march to the beat of their own drum.

Did the lab specifically tell you to use Perceptual?

NEVER use working CMYK.

Easily good enough, yes.

3 hours ago, Michelle Gifford said:

I got test prints from Miller's. They sent color-corrected ones and also some straight from my file to their printer. They look the same except very subtle differences. What am I missing? The blue is gone thank goodness, but I was thinking that the prints would look different for some reason if my calibration is off. Maybe it was just those few prints from the other lab and my calibration is good??

This is great news.

3 hours ago, Michelle Gifford said:

Anyway, my question is, in soft-proofing, the monitor doesn't look good at all (with the ICC profiles that Miller's sent), but the prints are good. What's that mean?

Can you show me a screenshot of your soft-proofing settings?

17 minutes ago, Dana Dyer said:

I don't see istudio listed anymore..?

Sorry, yes, it's called "ccStudio" now.