MrNikon101955

Damien, Math does come into play. If the room is too dark, and your guy gives a starting basis for illuminating a room with his math...that is helpful! One wouldn't want to be squinting because it's too bright; after all, I agree that it's apparently too dark. Once my room is properly illuminated I can submit more test images. I agree, it's that simple, but at the moment my prints do not match my monitor in a room illuminated at 500 lumens with my monitor calibrated at 65cd/m2. To me it's better than guessing how bright my room should be. I will keep you posted, but that may take a week or so. Thank you, Julius

Damien, I'm still waiting to hear from the technician at Black River Imaging....hopefully today. I've read your article before, and I'm trying to understand this a bit better. Let's do some math according to your lighting guy! 4 x 4 meter room should have approximately 1,800 lumens. (A 4 x 4 meter room roughly translates into a 13 x 13 foot room) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My calculations will be in feet since I am in the US. 13 x 13 = 169 square feet --- 1800 / 169 = 10.65 lumens per square foot. My room is 11 x 12 feet (3.3528 x 3.6576 meters) with an 8 foot (2.4384 meter) ceiling. 11 x 12 = 132 square feet --- 132 x 10.65 = 1,406 lumens per square foot. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to my calculations I should have bulbs approximately equaling 1,400 lumens in my room. My room is way too dark according to this...500 lumens @ 5000K. According to your lighting guy, the bulbs should be between 4000-4200K. The bulbs I have now are 5000K. This is throwing off the color on my prints? (I would think so ever so slightly.) Correct me if I am wrong, but would the 5000K bulbs make skin colors look more orange when printed? (Just a guess, and please correct me if I am wrong.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did brighten up the room to 1,500 lumens, and the darker areas on a couple photos look not as saturated/muted. (I only have the 5000K bulbs at the moment.) Once I have the room luminated properly I will be able to work on the test prints more efficiently? Thank you, Julius

Damien, Yes, Eizo in the UK says that my calibration should be +/- 80cd/m2. Let my clarify a few things before going on! 1) I talked before with Eizo support in the United States, and they clearly had no idea of what was going on. It was quite obvious their responses were scripted. After thinking about it for about a month I contacted Eizo in the UK, and the gentleman I am talking with there seems a lot more knowledgeable about their monitors. Eizo UK says that the Contrast Ratio should be +/- 600:1 for their monitors, and as noted above, 80cd/m2. 2) My previous monitor was calibrated very dark also, I just looked it up and the Brightness was set to 30.1 on a scale of 1-100. 3) Eizo UK said that if I'm much lower than 80cd/m2 my printing company is doing something wrong. Eizo also says that their monitors aren't designed to work below 50cd/m2. 4) This Windows 10 computer and my previous Windows 7 computer were built by a local company which was recommended by my cousin who has been a professional photographer for 40+ years. This company has been around since 1986, and do work for schools, etc. Apparently, a very reputable company. Question #1: Could this company have done something to these computers so that they have to be calibrated so dark? Question #2: If not, is it normal for professional printing companies here in the United States be doing something different so that monitors have to be calibrated very dark? (This is just a thought I've had. I know that OSHA [Occupational Safety & Health Organization] here in the United States can dictate the way things [printing for example] are done here in comparison to other countries. [For instance, Chemicals, and paper used in photographic printing.] As I said, just a thought.) Question #3: Is there a way to see if anyone on your site uses an Eizo CS2420 here in the United States, and what their calibration targets are if they are using a professional printing company? I will be talking to Black River Imaging today regarding my test prints, and I will let you know what he says. Your time is very much appreciated! I hope everyone can learn something through this frustrating experience. Thanks again, Julius

Damien, Sorry, I was waiting on getting some test prints back from Black River Imaging before responding to you! > Regarding the way my "good" old monitor prints look on this new Eizo monitor. Let's take one picture as an example: so far, there are darker areas on the print that are now showing up with more detail. I believe this is because my monitor is too bright as of now, and I still believe that the technology in these new monitors is much better which would show more detail (more coverage of the sRGB color space for instance). I understand that getting the calibration correct will probably correct most of this. Please feel free to comment! > Regarding the test prints...they came back a bit dark overall. It was especially noticeable in the facial tones...much darker. The head technician at Black River Imaging seems very knowledgeable, and willing to help resolve this issue. Between you, and the technician, I believe we will get this figured out to my satisfaction. I think read through everything you have posted on calibration, and it makes a lot of sense!!! I know I'll have a better understanding of this once we are done. I sincerely appreciate your time...be patient with me as I'm a bit on the older side, and it take a bit longer for me to grasp some of this technology! The professional photographer that recommended you also said that Black River's technician is excellent. > The test prints were done with a calibration of 65 cd/m2 - 6500K - 2.2 Gamma - Black Point @ minimum (I personally question the minimum setting which Eizo says is a must, and don't change.) Contrast ratio calculated by the ColorNavigator 7 software is 644:1. I am calibrating at sRGB since most printing companies here in the United States require sRGB files.

No, Much more detail is being shown with my new computer and monitor. I really think this new monitor which is 9 years newer than my old one has something to do with that (technology).

First of all, the difference between the Eizo and my older NEC is very noticeable when viewing picture edited with the NEC. My older pictures look much different! Is it an entirely new computer system, or have you only replaced the screen? This is an entirely new computer system. The computer is custom made by a very reputable company that was referred to me by my cousin who has been a professional photographer for 40+ years, and he’s been using them for years for all his computer needs. How are you judging this, exactly? When I pull up pictures edited on the old screen onto the new screen, they look very different. I would think this has to do with better technology in these new monitors…better coverage of the sRGB color space. What calibrator did you use for your old screen? I used the Spyder Elite 3, version 4 software I believe. I think this Eizo came with the Spyder 5 Express, but I know it is a version of the Spyder family. (NOTE: The Eizo support agent said that he X-Rite i1 Display may give slightly better results.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) What would happen if the contrast ratio was above or below 600:1? (800:1 / 400:1) Even 600:1 is too high in my opinion. 400:1 is better. Basically, the higher the contrast ratio, the further away from print matching you'll be. And I guess it goes without saying that print matching is the goal of calibration. On that subject, which pro lab are your prints from? And how many prints do you have? I’ve been using Bay Photo for years, but they have become less than helpful with my issue. In years past they had a technician who was extremely helpful, but he is no longer with them. I’ve already talked to Black River Imaging, and may give them a try. I’m not saying I am going to switch, but that is on my mind at this point in time. I will send evaluation prints out to both companies. After talking to Black River Imaging yesterday, I was impressed with their top technician. A thought and question. Correct me if I am wrong with my thinking! If a 1:1 Contrast Ratio is given, you would have Pure White (ffffff) & Pure Black (000000). If this is correct wouldn’t a higher Contrast Ratio be better as long as you don’t go above the rating of the monitor? I’m also thinking that too high of a ratio could possibly go beyond a printing company’s capability. Am I correct; if not could you explain further! I’d like to understand this a bit more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) If the darker areas of my evaluation prints come back too dark, would it be best to think about raising or lowering the contrast ratio? (Their ColorNavigator7 software has a black level control.) The purpose of calibration is to make your screen match your prints. It doesn't matter if you don't like the prints, your screen still has to match them. So, if the blacks on screen are lighter than the blacks in print, you need to darken the blacks on screen. However, I urge you to take your light into consideration. Have you read this? Yes, I have. I’ve brightened up the room a bit to where the monitor isn’t overpowering the other lighting in the room. In addition, there is not glare on screen. Thank you, Julius Titak

I'm in the process of calibrating my new Eizo CS2420, and I have a few questions. First of all the difference between the Eizo and my older NEC is very noticeable when viewing picture edited with the NEC. My older pictures look much different! Talking with the support people at Eizo, they say that the Contrast Ratio should be around 600:1 for this monitor. Questions: 1) What would happen if the contrast ratio was above or below 600:1? (800:1 / 400:1) 2) If the darker areas of my evaluation prints come back too dark, would it be best to think about raising or lowering the contrast ratio? (Their ColorNavigator7 software has a black level control.) 3) The hardware doing the calibrating is their EX3 which is the equivalent to the Spyder 3 Express I think (Express - 95% sure). The program looks nothing like the Spyder programs interface. 4) Have you had any experience with Eizo, ColorNavigator7 software that would prove beneficial? 5) Is there anything else you'd like to add? I've read through a lot of you articles, and I thank you for making them available to us! Thank you, Julius Titak