Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At D55, the images on the screen are still cooler than the prints, especially for the full sun images, but (pardon the pun) we're getting warmer. The saturation of the on screen images is getting closer to the prints, too. Try D50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At D50, the on screen images are a much better match in both warmth and vibrancy to the prints.

Should I recalibrate my monitor, now? If yes, to what settings in the ColorMunki?

10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

Too-warm room lighting makes prints look too warm, which makes the screen look too cold in comparison.

Hrmmmm.... It's been a while since I read your article on proper lighting. I remember, at the time, being pleased that I was getting what I thought was a "day neutral" bulb (the one that currently is illuminating my closet/office). What do I need to do about the lighting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just remembered that you use Millers, which do use D50.  So maybe your room light is ok after all.

1 minute ago, LSSmith said:

At D50, the on screen images are a much better match in both warmth and vibrancy to the prints.

This is wonderful news!  It would have been disappointing to have to spend on a new calibrator.

2 minutes ago, LSSmith said:

Should I recalibrate my monitor, now? If yes, to what settings in the ColorMunki?

Well, maybe D50 as well?  Have you tried that yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

Well, maybe D50 as well?  Have you tried that yet?

I have not tried it, yet, today.

Questions:

When I do recalibrate the monitor at D50, should I leave the brightness of the monitor, which I manually decreased to 0 yesterday, at 0 brightness? If not, to what should I manually set it? (Manually setting the monitor to 0 was the only way that I could seem to get the on screen images to be less bright enough for me to evaluate warmth and vividness/vibrancy correctly.)

In ColorMunki, should I set the White Luminance Target to 100, rather than Native (in the current Monitor profile)?

10 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

I just remembered that you use Millers, which do use D50.  So maybe your room light is ok after all.

I realize that we have to establish a baseline somehow, and I'm okay with setting it so that images printed with Millers is the baseline for the purposes of expediency (in getting the current images to look beautiful for the client, who is patience personified at this point). However, by establishing the baseline as the "Millers" profile, am I screwing myself over if I wish to print one of these same images at a different lab, or, even worse, on a different medium, like canvas or acrylic? If I have to set up different monitor profiles, I presume that I could. It just seems like a lot of freaking work. Your thoughts, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LSSmith said:

When I do recalibrate the monitor at D50, should I leave the brightness of the monitor, which I manually decreased to 0 yesterday, at 0 brightness? If not, to what should I manually set it? (Manually setting the monitor to 0 was the only way that I could seem to get the on screen images to be less bright enough for me to evaluate warmth and vividness/vibrancy correctly.)

Yep, if 0 is working, leave it there for sure.  In some cases, even 0 isn't low enough.  https://www.damiensymonds.net/desktop-monitor-brightness

1 minute ago, LSSmith said:

In ColorMunki, should I set the White Luminance Target to 100, rather than Native (in the current Monitor profile)?

Let's leave it at Native for now, I think.

2 minutes ago, LSSmith said:

I realize that we have to establish a baseline somehow, and I'm okay with setting it so that images printed with Millers is the baseline for the purposes of expediency (in getting the current images to look beautiful for the client, who is patience personified at this point). However, by establishing the baseline as the "Millers" profile, am I screwing myself over if I wish to print one of these same images at a different lab, or, even worse, on a different medium, like canvas or acrylic?

Yes, but not just that!  Your photos will look too cold anywhere on the world wide web too.  The WWW uses sRGB as its standard, as you well know, and sRGB is a D65 colour space.  That's why most labs have sensibly moved to D65 in the last couple of decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said:

Yep, if 0 is working, leave it there for sure.  In some cases, even 0 isn't low enough.  https://www.damiensymonds.net/desktop-monitor-brightness

Let's leave it at Native for now, I think.

Yes, but not just that!  Your photos will look too cold anywhere on the world wide web too.  The WWW uses sRGB as its standard, as you well know, and sRGB is a D65 colour space.  That's why most labs have sensibly moved to D65 in the last couple of decades.

Okie doke. I'll leave the manual brightness at 0 and the ColorMunki at Native, for now.

I'm guessing that I should start investigating other labs, to use, in the very near future. You've also touched on another concern of mine: I'm redoing my website and I'd rather not have to create additional files to compensate for a "Millers" profile. What a pain!

Gonna recalibrate the monitor and report back on the results. After that, I have to go home. If needs be, I'll be back at the monitor calibration early tomorrow morning. *crossing fingers, toes, and eyeballs for a successful recalibration this time around*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you know it? I ran the recalibration on the monitor, and when I went to save it, I kept getting a message about "Unable to set LUTs (-87)". What does that mean and what do I do about it tomorrow morning?

6 minutes ago, Damien Symonds said:

At least you know you can edit on the laptop screen right away, if there is any editing that urgently needs doing.

True. Could I also set the monitor to the laptop's profile, via that Display.exe thingy that you have, and which I downloaded a while back? Would that allow me to edit the images correctly...oh, wait....the monitor's backlighting would be an issue, wouldn't it, because it's different from the laptop's screen? *siiiiigh*

At any rate, I look forward to your answers, and I'll keep plugging away and reporting back tomorrow.

Thank you for taking time out of your Sunday to help me with this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LSSmith said:

Wouldn't you know it? I ran the recalibration on the monitor, and when I went to save it, I kept getting a message about "Unable to set LUTs (-87)". What does that mean and what do I do about it tomorrow morning?

Oh, that annoying thing.  It's just a glitch, and doesn't usually happen twice in a row.  Recalibration should solve it.

23 minutes ago, LSSmith said:

Could I also set the monitor to the laptop's profile, via that Display.exe thingy that you have

No, definitely not.  The profiles will be VERY different, because the screens are VERY different.

23 minutes ago, LSSmith said:

Thank you for taking time out of your Sunday to help me with this.

It's Monday here.  I live in the future, remember?  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Damien Symonds said:

Oh, that annoying thing.  It's just a glitch, and doesn't usually happen twice in a row.  Recalibration should solve it.

Okie dokie. Once my monitor has warmed up, I'll recalibrate it.....again. :)

13 hours ago, Damien Symonds said:

It's Monday here.  I live in the future, remember?  :D

*ROTFLMAO* ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Damien Symonds said:

Oh, that annoying thing.  It's just a glitch, and doesn't usually happen twice in a row.  Recalibration should solve it.

I've recalibrated the monitor and I think that I have acceptable results. The images on screen nearly match the prints in both warmth and vibrance. Millers allows me to submit four images for free test prints. Is there anything else that I need to check, calibration wise, before I submit the images that I've been using for calibration to the lab?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also just posted a question in the Deluxe RAW section about a new feature in ACR. I'm not sure how new it is, but I only noticed it a few weeks ago. The topic header is "ACR 'Color Profile' Options".

It occurred to me this morning, as I was prepping to edit (post monitor calibration), that this may be an added complication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LSSmith said:

I've recalibrated the monitor and I think that I have acceptable results. The images on screen nearly match the prints in both warmth and vibrance. Millers allows me to submit four images for free test prints. Is there anything else that I need to check, calibration wise, before I submit the images that I've been using for calibration to the lab?

Well, it would be a good idea to get their soft-proofing profiles and check that, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I know that I'm not supposed to harp on the prints, but can you explain why the last batch seem to have an opaque grey overlay? This is really bugging me, and I'm worried about being able to deliver gorgeous prints to the client. Thank you for your patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LSSmith said:

Now, I know that I'm not supposed to harp on the prints, but can you explain why the last batch seem to have an opaque grey overlay? This is really bugging me, and I'm worried about being able to deliver gorgeous prints to the client. Thank you for your patience.

Huh?  I thought you said you'd finally got a calibration that gave you a print match?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien Symonds said:

Huh?  I thought you said you'd finally got a calibration that gave you a print match?

In terms of warmth and vibrancy, yes. The colors are very nearly the same. Skin on the subjects in the photos are very close to the ones in the prints.

It's just that it seems to me that, in the case of the last batch of prints, that a dingy, grey, opaque layer was added. I don't know how else to describe it. In the prints, that "layer" is particularly noticeable in the shadowy areas of a subject's skin.

I paid particularly close attention, during this last round of calibration, to examine the on screen versions to make sure that the calibration resulted in images that matched as closely as possible to the prints. They're very close, but they're not identical.

 

brb....I have to drop off hurricane relief supplies. I'll check in once I've returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LSSmith said:

It's just that it seems to me that, in the case of the last batch of prints, that a dingy, grey, opaque layer was added. I don't know how else to describe it. In the prints, that "layer" is particularly noticeable in the shadowy areas of a subject's skin.

Well, what about the older prints?  Are you getting a better screen-to-print match with them than with the last batch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...