Any Thoughts on NEC P Series Monitor?

[Preston]

Hi All,

My Dell 19" CRT finally bit the BIG one. It powers up, but no video at all. I even tried it on another machine--zip, zilch, nada. :(

After doing a little research, I found a NEC P221W. The specs look great, and the reviews at B&H are all positive, but I wondered if anyone here is using a NEC P-Series monitor, and what your thoughts are about it?

I looked at Eizo and the other professional monitors from NEC and they are way out of my budget! At about $390 and free shipping from B&H, this one looks really decent.

I'll be using my Monaco Optix-XR with X-Rite software for calibration.

I need this pretty quick, so any help you can provide over the next couple of days is much appreciated.

Many Thanks,

--P

[tlitody]

I was just looking at NEC monitors yesterday so I'm interested in this too.
The lab I'm thinking of using for lambda output works in Adobe RGB so I'm hoping to find a monitor 100% Adobe RGB capable but they seem to be very expensive.
If your output device is only sRGB capable then I think several of the less expensive NEC monitors fit the bill.

[Preston]

This particular monitor (according to the specs at NEC) gives 96% of Adobe RGB. Not too shabby.

I use an Epson R2400 printer and print using Adobe RGB, so I need this output.

-P

[Ken Lee]

It's nice to work in a big color space, so that other people with wide-gamut monitors can see all the colors, but unless I'm mistaken, the gamut of a R2400, even on glossy Epson paper, is a very small portion of the Adobe RGB color space.

[Brian Ellis]

I recently bought the P221W and have been using it for about a month. It's a joy to use and I'd highly recommend it to anyone looking for a reasonably priced monitor that can be easily and accurately calibrated. However, I also bought SpectraView II, the NEC calibration software, which is the usual recommendation with this monitor. So I can't tell you how it would do using your existing calibration software and hardware.

I'd suggest that you go to the NEC web site where you can find a list of third-party sensors that are compatible with SpectraView. If your Monaco is one of them then you could buy the SpectraView software alone, which only costs about $100, rather than having to buy both the software and the NEC sensor, which together cost about $250. I did quite a bit of research before buying the monitor and everything I read evaluated the monitor on the basis of using it with SpectraView rather than a 3rd party calibration program and certainly that's what I'd recommend if you only need the software and not the sensor as well. My Spyder III Pro sensor is compatible with SpectraView so at $100 it was an easy decision for me to buy the software, especially since I've never been very enthusiastic about Spyder III Pro. If you would have to spend $250 then you probably should buy the monitor alone and try calibrating it with your existing setup. You can always add SpectraView later.

Of course on the same theory you could forget SpectraView, try your existing calibration software, and maybe save $100. But to me it was worth $100 to know from all the research I did that calibration was going to be a snap if I had SpectraView vs the uncertainly of using the monitor with a 3rd party program. And not having had a lot of success with Spyder III Pro and my previous Dell monitor made it that much easier.

[tlitody]

I was thinking that a monitor with a contrast ratio of 500:1 would be more than enough for colour calibrating for printing. I this correct or are the higher contrast monitors better or worse?

[Brian Ellis]

I was thinking that a monitor with a contrast ratio of 500:1 would be more than enough for colour calibrating for printing. I this correct or are the higher contrast monitors better or worse?

I think that's correct. I've never measured myself but I've read that the biggest contract range you'll get on paper is about 400:1, in which case you wouldn't need any more than that to calibrate your monitor.

[Ken Lee]

I was thinking that a monitor with a contrast ratio of 500:1 would be more than enough for colour calibrating for printing. I this correct or are the higher contrast monitors better or worse?

Bright and contrasty LCD monitors are great consumer products for surfing the web, reading email, and playing video games in brightly lit rooms - but they are troublesome for editing fine art images which are eventually sent to a printer.

Paper and ink provide a comparatively modest contrast ratio, and a very narrow color gamut compared even to sRGB, never mind Adobe RGB or others. Good calibration software like ColorEyes Display Pro lets you turn down the brightness as part of the calibration. Photoshop soft-proofing lets you visualize the printed image, in part by simulating the low contrast of paper-white and paper-black. Photoshop also holds back the colors for you, and lets you spot out-of-gamut colors with another tool.

Much of what these tools do, is circumvent the brightness, contrast, and saturation of consumer-grade LCD monitors. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs a $2000 monitor (I don't have one) - just that you need to know what you're doing, or you will waste a lot of money in paper and ink. I have.

You'll appreciate these articles:

Are Your Prints Too Dark ? The Cause, And The Cure (http://www.shutterbug.com/techniques/digital_darkroom/0809prints/) on the Shutterbug web site

My Printer is Too Dark (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/My_Printer_Is_Too_Dark) on the Chromix Color Wiki

Here's how the article starts: "First off, I have a confession to make. The real title of this article is "My Monitor is Too Bright"."

[tlitody]

I think that's correct. I've never measured myself but I've read that the biggest contract range you'll get on paper is about 400:1, in which case you wouldn't need any more than that to calibrate your monitor.

512:1 is 10 stops so given that paper is only capable of 7 or 8 stops then if contrast range is all that mattered, then you would be looking at 128:1 but I don't think its quite that simple.

[tlitody]

You'll appreciate these articles:

Are Your Prints Too Dark ? The Cause, And The Cure (http://www.shutterbug.com/techniques/digital_darkroom/0809prints/) on the Shutterbug web site

My Printer is Too Dark (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/My_Printer_Is_Too_Dark) on the Chromix Color Wiki

Here's how the article starts: "First off, I have a confession to make. The real title of this article is "My Monitor is Too Bright"."

Thanks, I'll read those.

[Ken Lee]

In the final analysis, while an ink set might yield an impressive color gamut in the laboratory, we need to consider actual ink on paper.

Epson Premium Glossy paper is a lot like the old glossy photo paper. It has a very white white, and allows deep blacks when using the "Photo Black" ink. (Because it uses Optical Brightening Agents, it also exhibits some color shift when viewed under a variety of lighting, but that's another matter).

(Anyone with a Mac can do this right out of the box, using the application called ColorSync Utility, which is located in the Utilities folder).

In the first image, we see the Adobe RGB color space in the outer region. Inside, is the color space of Epson's own profile for their Premium Glossy on the R2400, a profile freely downloadable from their site.

In the second image, we see a comparison between Adobe RGB and a custom profile that Chromix (http://www.chromix.com) made for for my actual printer, and the same paper.

It's interesting to note that the Epson profile actually exceeds the Adobe RGB color space in certain areas. My custom profile is a bit more modest.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/AdobeRGBVersusEpsonR2400PremGlossy.jpg
Adobe RGB (outside) Epson R2400 Premium Glossy Best Photo (inside)



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/AobeRGBVersusKL2400EpsonPremGlossy.jpg
Adobe RGB (outside) Chromix custom profile Epson R2400 Premium Glossy Best Photo (inside)

[tlitody]

Anyone know what Fuji Crystal Archive is capable of in terms of colour gamut relative to Adobe RGB and sRGB?

I ask because if it falls largely within sRGB then it seems pointless for me to spend money on a monitor which is Adobe RGB capable when printing to Fuji Crystal Archive.

[Ken Lee]

I found this comparison of a Fuji Frontier 370, using Crystal Archive Paper, against sRGB (which is actually narrower than Adobe RGB) and Adobe RGB. Again, the paper+ink gamuts fall rather short.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/fuji/frontier-370-gamuts.htm

I suspect that having a wide gamut monitor lets you enjoy wide-gamut images - on your monitor. It's not a question of better printing. (What's a print ? Is that something like a newspaper, or a magazine ? I saw one of those at an online museum the other day.)

It may be that in the future, nobody will print anything, because digital cameras and monitors play in such a larger... arena. Even now, you can buy a digital photo frame that shows your family snapshots on a monitor, and even flips from one image to the next like a slide show. The notion of a "fine art print" may soon become a curiosity, like live music, acoustic instruments, or a "slide show". When's the last time we sat around and watched one of those ?

This article on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml) recommends a still wider color space, ProPhoto - for users of (inherently wide-gamut) digital cameras. Figure 6 shows the range of human vision, with a variety of color spaces inscribed therein. The smallest one, you'll notice, is a print on matte paper. (What's a print ?)

[tlitody]

I found this comparison of a Fuji Frontier 370, using Crystal Archive Paper, against sRGB (which is actually narrower than Adobe RGB) and Adobe RGB. Again, the paper+ink gamuts fall rather short.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/fuji/frontier-370-gamuts.htm

I suspect that having a wide gamut monitor lets you enjoy wide-gamut images - on your monitor. It's not a question of better printing. (What's a print ? Is that something like a newspaper, or a magazine ? I saw one of those at an online museum the other day.)

It may be that in the future, nobody will print anything, because digital cameras and monitors play in such a larger... arena. Even now, you can buy a digital photo frame that shows your family snapshots on a monitor, and even flips from one image to the next like a slide show. The notion of a "fine art print" may soon become a curiosity, like live music, acoustic instruments, or a "slide show". When's the last time we sat around and watched one of those ?

This article on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml) recommends a still wider color space, ProPhoto - for users of (inherently wide-gamut) digital cameras. Figure 6 shows the range of human vision, with a variety of color spaces inscribed therein. The smallest one, you'll notice, is a print on matte paper. (What's a print ?)

Thanks, that seems to show it falling pretty much within sRGB. I think one of the NEC monitors which is not full adobe RGB will be good enough for my needs.

[Preston]

Brian,

I really appreciate your comments. I found a listing on DP Review of colorimeters that are compatible with the SpectraView II software. Here's the list...

•GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V1

•X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V2

•X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Monitor, Eye-One Pro.

•X-Rite ColorMunki.

•Monaco OptixXR (X-Rite DTP 94).

•ColorVision/Datacolor Spyder 2.

•Datacolor Spyder 3.

My Monaco Optix XR is on the list, so it looks like I can save some money by purchasing just the software. Thanks for the hint to check this out!

I'll be ordering the monitor and software today.

Many thanks to all who gave me a hand.

--P

[PenGun]

No matter what you do, no matter how much you spend you always have the same problem. A monitor is a light transmissive device and a print is a light reflection medium.

They will never be the same.

[Brian Ellis]

No matter what you do, no matter how much you spend you always have the same problem. A monitor is a light transmissive device and a print is a light reflection medium.

They will never be the same.

That's certainly true, they'll never be "the same." But it isn't a major problem, assuming a well-calibrated monitor and good printer profiles. I figure my prints are about 95% accurate relative to what I see on the monitor. Close enough that I almost never feel the need to reprint.

[tlitody]

Just been doing some more research and the brand new Eizo Coloredge CG245W looks like a lot of monitor for the money considering it has built in self calibration so no need of a third party calibration device. Also provides 98% of Adobe RGB. Not as cheap as the NEC you were looking at but then its a lot more monitor and is less than half the price of the CG221W which is their top monitor.

[D. Bryant]

Brian,


I'll be ordering the monitor and software today.


--P

You won't be sorry. I have two NEC LCD displays calibrated with Spectraview II. It is extremely easy to calibrate - including luminance settings. Coupled with PS soft proofing and very accurate paper profiles I print with a virtual WYSIWYG environment.

Don Bryant

[Preston]

Don,

Thanks for the encouraging words! My stuff should ship from B&H today! I am looking forward to putting it to work!

--P

[Brian Ellis]

Just been doing some more research and the brand new Eizo Coloredge CG245W looks like a lot of monitor for the money considering it has built in self calibration so no need of a third party calibration device. Also provides 98% of Adobe RGB. Not as cheap as the NEC you were looking at but then its a lot more monitor and is less than half the price of the CG221W which is their top monitor.

Well it should be a lot of monitor for the money considering that the money is $2,879 at B&H compared to about $500 for the NEC P221W with full calibration hardware and software.

[tlitody]

Well is should be a lot of monitor for the money considering that the money is $2,879 at B&H compared to about $500 for the NEC P221W with full calibration hardware and software.

The price I have been quoted in UK is equvalent to $2120 (including VAT). Yup I know its more buts it a bigger screen, higher resolution, latest 3D LUTs, inbuilt calibrator, free calibration software. OK so it's a different beast. I just mentioned it out of interest for anyone interested as it's a lot cheaper than many EIZO monitors.

[Brian Ellis]

The price I have been quoted in UK is equvalent to $2120 (including VAT). Yup I know its more buts it a bigger screen, higher resolution, latest 3D LUTs, inbuilt calibrator, free calibration software. OK so it's a different beast. I just mentioned it out of interest for anyone interested as it's a lot cheaper than many EIZO monitors.

Before buying the NEC I spent a lot of time researching different brands and models. I didn't go as high as $2,000 but I looked at some in the $1,500 price range. After reading a lot of reviews I concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the features that drove the prices up so high (other than the size of the screens) were things that wouldn't be important to a photographer who simply wanted a monitor that displayed accurate colors and that could be easily calibrated to match the prints.

I could be wrong, the reviews often were highly technical and I didn't understand a lot of the specs being quoted or their significance to a photographer (as opposed to a gamer or a graphic artist). But it just seemed to me that for a photographer, especially an amateur like me and many others here, that there just wasn't any point to paying $2,000+ for a monitor.

[tlitody]

Before buying the NEC I spent a lot of time researching different brands and models. I didn't go as high as $2,000 but I looked at some in the $1,500 price range. After reading a lot of reviews I concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the features that drove the prices up so high (other than the size of the screens) were things that wouldn't be important to a photographer who simply wanted a monitor that displayed accurate colors and that could be easily calibrated to match the prints.

I could be wrong, the reviews often were highly technical and I didn't understand a lot of the specs being quoted or their significance to a photographer (as opposed to a gamer or a graphic artist). But it just seemed to me that for a photographer, especially an amateur like me and many others here, that there just wasn't any point to paying $2,000+ for a monitor.

fair point. For me it is about matching what the Lab uses. An NEC would probably be close enough but it's interesting that Eizo are making some new monitors which are more accessible pricewise than they used to be. I bought an Eizo Flexscan CRT monitor probably 20 years ago and it was over a £1000 ($1500) back then, so prices are coming down in real terms. Maybe not as fast as NEC though.

[Preston]

"Before buying the NEC I spent a lot of time researching different brands and models. I didn't go as high as $2,000 but I looked at some in the $1,500 price range."

So did I. As I stated in the first post, I looked at Eizo, as well. The MultiSync 221 I settled on seemed to offer the best of both worlds in terms of reliability, features, and price.

"But it just seemed to me that for a photographer, especially an amateur like me and many others here, that there just wasn't any point to paying $2,000+ for a monitor."

For photographer like me, who would rather spend his hard earned dollars on film, processing, prints and location travel, saving money and having the capabilites I need in my systems means a lot.

--P

[SAShruby]

You guys convinced me to buy this monitor. Thanks for the help.

[Preston]

Peter,

My new monitor and SpectraView software arrived today! This thing is drop-dead gorgeous!

I Installed the software without a hitch, but haven't gone through the calibration/profiling routine yet--there's a familiarization/learning curve. You have to attach the monitor before installing the SpectraView software.

Be sure to update your video card driver using the manufacturer's driver and set all the color management options to default before calibrating.

Also, one thing that is not clear on either B&H's site or at NEC (I may have missed it), is that the screen can be rotated to portrait mode. That would be nice for someone working on vertical panos, or documents. Cool.

You will not be disappointed with this monitor!

--P

[SAShruby]

Oh that's just great if you can rotate it.

Thanks for the info, I'm having a friend coming over. He will help me with the monitor calibration. I didn't buy the Spectraview software yet, I guess it won't be very difficult to order and download it online.

[Preston]

Peter,

If you have one of the compatible colorimeters (listed below for convenience) and it's driver software is already installed, you can't go wrong with the SpectraView software.

I just finished the calibration using my Monaco Optix-XR, and it worked like a champ. The extra $$ for the software is well worth the outlay, imho.

Here's the page for SpectraView at NEC: http://www.necdisplay.com/SupportCenter/Monitors/Spectraview2/

Compatible Colorimeters...

•GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V1

•X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display V2

•X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Eye-One Monitor, Eye-One Pro.

•X-Rite ColorMunki.

•Monaco OptixXR (X-Rite DTP 94).

•ColorVision/Datacolor Spyder 2.

•Datacolor Spyder 3.

--P

[D. Bryant]

Peter,

I just finished the calibration using my Monaco Optix-XR, and it worked like a champ. The extra $$ for the software is well worth the outlay, imho.



+1! I have the same colorimeter and it worked great! BTW, the Optix-XR is an XRite unit, DPT94 I think. Unfortunately Xrite branded it internally so it won't work with the iOneDisplay software so the Spectraview II software is a dream to use and a savior of colorimeter hardware. Both of my LCDs look identical!

Don

[SAShruby]

I believe he has either Spyder 2 or Spyder 3. I'll let you know how did it go...

[Brian Ellis]

I believe he has either Spyder 2 or Spyder 3. I'll let you know how did it go...

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly - Spyder 2 is NOT compatible with SpectraView II, only Spyder 3. So if your friend has Spyder 2 you won't be able to use SpectraView II without also buying the NEC sensor.

[SAShruby]

Brian,

It says Spyder 2, See SpectraView System Requirements, Supported Color Sensors (http://www.necdisplay.com/supportcenter/monitors/spectraview2/compatibility/)

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,

It says Spyder 2, See SpectraView System Requirements, Supported Color Sensors (http://www.necdisplay.com/supportcenter/monitors/spectraview2/compatibility/)

Thanks for the correction. I was reading this: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00OJy4. I guess NEC has made some changes in something somewhere since that was written. Then again, as I re-read it it's very confusing because while the messages say Spyder 2 can't be used, the information they link to seems to say it can be. I don't know, I already had Spyder 3 so I didn't pay much attention to Spyder 2 at the time I was buying.

[SAShruby]

Brian, it turned out my friend didn't have spyder but X-rite. I went throught 3 calibration cycles before I got 3 green OK!. I built my own light proof baffles, now it looks like Eizo :).

First print I printed was spot on. It really made the difference if you calibrate it properly, you can identify very low values from total black as well as highest highlites from whites.

I'm quite new to digital printing, my only question would be, is it better to set up AdobeRGB workspace in PS or work in sRGB workspace?

[Jason_1622]

I forget the model number, but I use dual NEC monitors and they've been very reliable and not too bad on the color/contrast.

[Preston]

Peter,

I use Adobe RGB as my working color space. If I need to use another color space, such as sRGB, I make a duplicate image and then convert its profile to sRGB.

--P

[D. Bryant]

I'm quite new to digital printing, my only question would be, is it better to set up AdobeRGB workspace in PS or work in sRGB workspace?

Use Prophoto.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

Don Bryant

[SAShruby]

Thanks Don. My inner guts were telling me that there must be better ICC profile than standards.

[Ken Lee]

I'm quite new to digital printing, my only question would be, is it better to set up AdobeRGB workspace in PS or work in sRGB workspace?

You might want to review some of the earlier postings in this thread.

ProPhoto exceeds the gamut of paper/ink. It may be good for monitor-to-monitor perhaps, but even then (as the article shows) it exceeds the gamut of most monitors as well... or have I missed something ? The article goes on to point out, that only high-end monitors can show Adobe RGB - never mind ProPhoto.

I mention this because your question used the word "printing". If you use such a large color space, be sure to use the Photoshop feature which lets you detect out-of-gamut colors. (This presumes that you have a calibrated monitor, a profile for your printer/ink combination, and are using the soft-proofing feature in Photoshop. Be sure to get up to speed with these concepts if you are new to this subject.)

[SAShruby]

I'm quite new to digital printing, my only question would be, is it better to set up AdobeRGB workspace in PS or work in sRGB workspace?

You might want to review some of the earlier postings in this thread.

ProPhoto exceeds the gamut of paper/ink. It may be good for monitor-to-monitor perhaps, but even then (as the article shows) it exceeds the gamut of most monitors as well... or have I missed something ? The article goes on to point out, that only high-end monitors can show Adobe RGB - never mind ProPhoto.

I mention this because your question used the word "printing". If you use such a large color space, be sure to use the Photoshop feature which lets you detect out-of-gamut colors. (This presumes that you have a calibrated monitor, a profile for your printer/ink combination, and are using the soft-proofing feature in Photoshop. Be sure to get up to speed with these concepts if you are new to this subject.)

I'm slowly getting there. Luminous Landscape is what I read these days. I'm quite confused but as I read more, it starts to make some sense.

Monitor (NEC P221W) is calibrated as white point = D65, gamma = 2.2 and luminance =110Cd/m2 right now (it seems to match my prints), I might go up to 140Cd/m2.

Scanner (Epson 4990) is also calibrated (no corrections applied) with IFT-8 calibration film, scanned in RGB space. I used Silverfast AI Pro as scanning software. Set having gamma = 2.2. For now, output is set to sRGB (would be better AdobeRGB?). Not sure I can set to ProPhoto.

PS5 working space - That was the question I asked. Now I have sRGB, it seems that Adobe RGB or ProPhoto is a better option.

Printer (Epson7880) has the latest driver installed and has all ICC profiles for the inkjets I print on.

In Windows7 Color management is set as follows:
Monitor - Custom P221w Profile (I have two profiles, one for day and one for night)
Scanner - Custom Epson 4990 Profile
Printer - Automatically select (Not sure about this one, I hope when setting ICC profile for particular injet in PS, it will assign profile I select there...)

Am I missing something?


And finally soft-proofing, I just red some info about it yesterday, I think before I go further I need to figure out if my environment is set properly.

[Peter De Smidt]

There are pluses and minuses to all of the choices for editing color space, although working in 16-bit per channel minimizes the problems with the larger color spaces.

Your color space determines the extremes of color that you can get. Your bit depth determines how many colors you can have. So if you have a large color space but low bit depth, the difference between adjacent tones can be quite large. This determines, for example, how big of a change moving from RGB 10,10,10 to RGB 11,10,10 would make perceptually.

8 bit per channel images can have 255 differen't tones per channel, whereas a 16-bit per channel image can have 65,536 tones per channel. Thus if you're working with a larger space such as Profoto, you really want to work in 16 bit per channel, since otherwise you limit the precision available for editing.

Thus, if you have 8 bit per channel images, say from a compact digital camera, then you probably want to work in sRGB, since the smaller color space will allow more precision. You also won't have to convert the profile for web display.

On the other hand, if you if you're scanning slides in 16 bit, then you probably would be best off with a space like Ektaspace, which is supposed to contain all of the tones available with ektachrome film. It's a big space, although not as big a Profoto RGB, which would be a good alternative too.

If you're using a digital slr with 16 bits per channel, then Profoto RGB would be a good choice. Adobe 98 would probably be ok, but I believe that some printers can print colors that fall outside of it's gamut, although they would be pretty extreme colors, and so I'm not sure how much of a factor that really is.

[SAShruby]

Peter, I calibrated scanner by scanning ITF-8 with 48bit color channel, 3x16bit. I scan 16 bit greyscale or 48 bit color, although I'm not sure how many bits Epson 4990 really utilize. I'm more inclined to 14bits or so.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm slowly getting there. Luminous Landscape is what I read these days. I'm quite confused but as I read more, it starts to make some sense.

Monitor (NEC P221W) is calibrated as white point = D65, gamma = 2.2 and luminance =110Cd/m2 right now (it seems to match my prints), I might go up to 140Cd/m2.

Scanner (Epson 4990) is also calibrated (no corrections applied) with IFT-8 calibration film, scanned in RGB space. I used Silverfast AI Pro as scanning software. Set having gamma = 2.2. For now, output is set to sRGB (would be better AdobeRGB?). Not sure I can set to ProPhoto.

PS5 working space - That was the question I asked. Now I have sRGB, it seems that Adobe RGB or ProPhoto is a better option.

Printer (Epson7880) has the latest driver installed and has all ICC profiles for the inkjets I print on.

In Windows7 Color management is set as follows:
Monitor - Custom P221w Profile (I have two profiles, one for day and one for night)
Scanner - Custom Epson 4990 Profile
Printer - Automatically select (Not sure about this one, I hope when setting ICC profile for particular injet in PS, it will assign profile I select there...)

Am I missing something?


And finally soft-proofing, I just red some info about it yesterday, I think before I go further I need to figure out if my environment is set properly.

Sounds like you're in good shape. But if you're getting a good match with your prints at 110 Cd/m2 why would you want to go to 140? 140 is pretty high, from the reading I did it seemed like most people used a lower number to avoid having prints that looked too dark compared to what they saw on the monitor.

[Ken Lee]

If the intention is to print to a medium with limited gamut, why view in as wide a gamut as possible ?

[bob carnie]

I agree, a recipe for lunch bag letdown.

If the intention is to print to a medium with limited gamut, why view in as wide a gamut as possible ?

[Ken Lee]

It took a while to find the meaning of Lunch Bag Letdown :cool:

Apparently, it's disappointment we get at the worst possible moment, when it is least welcome.

[Brian Ellis]

It took a while to find the meaning of Lunch Bag Letdown :cool:

Apparently, it's disappointment we get at the worst possible moment, when it is least welcome.

I can assure you that there's no disappointment with the P221W, at least not here. It's by a wide margin the best monitor I've ever used in terms of correlation between what I see on the monitor and what comes out of my printer.

[SAShruby]

Sounds like you're in good shape. But if you're getting a good match with your prints at 110 Cd/m2 why would you want to go to 140? 140 is pretty high, from the reading I did it seemed like most people used a lower number to avoid having prints that looked too dark compared to what they saw on the monitor.


At luminous landscape there is a discussion that LCD doesn't perform to their maximum at low luminance levels. They suggest higher luminance. Apparently, higher luminance of LCD has no effect on the final print, you need to compensate with the higher luminance of your light booth, and supposedly it has nothing to do with brightness/darkness of the print.

[D. Bryant]

Apparently, higher luminance of LCD has no effect on the final print, you need to compensate with the higher luminance of your light booth, and supposedly it has nothing to do with brightness/darkness of the print.

That is correct, however I find extremely bright LCD settings hard to view for extended periods of time.

I have my luminace set to 110. I don't have a viewing booth but instead use an Ott lamp.

Don

[tlitody]

At luminous landscape there is a discussion that LCD doesn't perform to their maximum at low luminance levels. They suggest higher luminance. Apparently, higher luminance of LCD has no effect on the final print, you need to compensate with the higher luminance of your light booth, and supposedly it has nothing to do with brightness/darkness of the print.

Re-read http://www.shutterbug.com/techniques/digital_darkroom/0809prints/ posted by Ken Lee and discussion about required contrast ratio being only upto 400:1 for image editing prior to printing. Your monitor goes upto 1000:1 with 300cd/m² so it's a lot more than required.

Note that the top of the range EIZO for image editing, which costs a lot more money, only goes to 400:1 contrast ratio and the thing is optimised with even lighting across the screen. It's max brightness is 200cd/m². I spoke with EIZO UK about one of their new monitors and they told me most imaging professionals set to between 80 cd/m² and 110 cd/m² which confirms what the above link says.

[Ken Lee]

That's right. To lighten up your prints in a brightly lit booth - in order to match the monitor - may be a confused approach.

Consumer monitors are not designed to match paper white in the average office or gallery. Instead, they are designed to be brighter than paper white, so that people can comfortably surf the web, read their email, etc. This makes them ill-suited for judging images that will appear at paper-white brightness.

Having studied the subject and metered a variety of lighting conditions, I set my monitor to 80 cd/m2. Elsewhere on this forum, Jim Kitchen mentioned that his Eizo monitor is only warrantied to be accurate, at 80 or below.

That value just happens to be paper-white in the average office. It's no coincidence, since high-end monitors for the graphics and print industry, are made to work with graphics and print, where white is... paper white.

[Brian Ellis]

That's right. To lighten up your prints in a brightly lit booth - in order to match the monitor - may be a confused approach.

Consumer monitors are not designed to match paper white in the average office or gallery. Instead, they are designed to be brighter than paper white, so that people can comfortably surf the web, read their email, etc. This makes them ill-suited for judging images that will appear at paper-white brightness.

Having studied the subject and metered a variety of lighting conditions, I set my monitor to 80 cd/m2. Elsewhere on this forum, Jim Kitchen mentioned that his Eizo monitor is only warrantied to be accurate, at 80 or below.

That value just happens to be paper-white in the average office. It's no coincidence, since high-end monitors for the graphics and print industry, are made to work with graphics and print, where white is... paper white.

80 is the lowest I've heard but if it works for you it works. I set mine at 110 and that works for me. Obviously this is something that differs from one person to another.

[Ken Lee]

110 and 80 are quite close.

[tlitody]

Elsewhere on this forum, Jim Kitchen mentioned that his Eizo monitor is only warrantied to be accurate, at 80 or below.

Setting brightness up high reduces the life of the monitor. The EIZO 5 year warranty is invalidated if you run it above a set level for that monitor. For some of them it is 80 and for some of them it is a bit higher. They are all capable of much higher. Eizo recommends running all its monitors below 100. Don't know if that is to make em last longer or for best colour accuracy. Probably both.

[SAShruby]

I found this (http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/color-management/monitor-profiling/) article quite helpfull. It also describes all aspects of setting the environment.

BTW, P221W has almost Adobe 1998 gamut.

[Preston]

I just wanted to hop in again and offer my thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.

The information you provided has been quite valuable.

Many thanks,

--P

[D. Bryant]

I just wanted to hop in again and offer my thanks to all who contributed to this discussion.

The information you provided has been quite valuable.

Many thanks,

--P
So how's it driving?

Don Bryant