Calibrating the monitor

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

I'm just curious to know, do you guys calibrate your screens? I have calibrated (yep - correctly) my Eizo CS240, and when I look at photos I have adjusted on my calibrated screen they look to cold and almost greenish on other monitors... and its pretty consistent. If I use a non calibrated mode it looks all right on other screens... looking at those photos in calibrated mode makes them look to red (obviously I suppose).

Whats you guys experiences and opinions on this? Is it pointless?

Cheers
Peter

[Bruce Watson]

I'm just curious to know, do you guys calibrate your screens? I have calibrated (yep - correctly) my Eizo CS240, and when I look at photos I have adjusted on my calibrated screen they look to cold and almost greenish on other monitors... and its pretty consistent. If I use a non calibrated mode it looks all right on other screens... looking at those photos in calibrated mode makes them look to red (obviously I suppose).

The point of calibration of a computer monitor is to bring the monitor to the center of its color space. This includes creating a solid and linear gray axis, so it can go from black to white without any color casts, making sure the edges of the gamut are where they are supposed to be, and the rate of change of the colors from the center axis to the edges is smooth and linear.

What this accomplishes is it lets you build an image that looks the way you want it. Unfortunately, when you look at this image on an uncalibrated monitor (nearly all of them), it will vary from your image as the uncalibrated monitor varies from its colorspace. If your monitor and the target monitor are using different color spaces, it can be even worse. And there's nothing you can do about other peoples' monitors.

So what you get in the end, is using a calibrated monitor (and the correct color space) for your work gives you the best chance to have your work look close to what you want on the target monitor. But as you have found out, that's no guarantee. It's just statistics.

[chuckcars]

There is no answer to this. The vast majority of computer displays are uncalibrated. What is important is your monitor. What spec are you calibrating to. D-65 maybe.

[pkr1979]

Hi! And thanks to both of you for your feedback :-)

I have to admit but I'm not sure what you refer regarding the spec and D-65?

But brightness is set to a 100cd/m2, black level "minimum", white point 5500 K, and the RGB gamma is 2,2... is this what you mean?

And as far as I can tell from the monitors self validation it came pretty close... I don't get this though - if it can validate itself why doesn't it just fix itself?

[Preston]

D65 means the white point is 6500 K. Your luminance, black point, and Gamma are fine. Your current white point of 5500 K is on the warm (redder side). Try calibrating using 6500.

If you are making prints, you may need to adjust these values to get a close Print/Monitor match. Of course, and as you have discovered, your images will look different on un-calibrated screens. It would be nice if all screens out there were calibrated, but that will never happen.
--P

[Bruce Watson]

D65 means the white point is 6500 K.

It means a lot more than that. D65 is a shorthand reference to a CEI standard. Very very basically, it's a standard for artificially replicating a version of daylight. Done well, it will be hard to tell the difference from true daylight at a particular location (somewhere in northern Europe IIRC), time of year, cloud cover, and time of day, etc. Said another way, a piece of art held under said daylight, and a D65 source, will look the same to a given viewer. And to any other viewer anywhere, under whatever weather conditions, time of year, time of day, etc.

Standards like this are the only way an artist can work on something, pass it off to, say, a printing house, and have the printing house faithfully reproduce it.

If your monitor is calibrated to D65, and my monitor is also calibrated to D65, your work should look the same on both monitors, all other settings being the same. The problem you seem to have is that while your monitor is calibrated to some standard or other, the monitors you want to display on are not, and therefore show your work differently. Welcome to the world of computer monitors, and the internet in general. Embrace the chaos! ;-)

[pkr1979]

Thanks for that Preston :-) I didn't know that. I suppose there is no quick fix for adjusting my pictures to the new white point - without having to adjust every one of them? And do you have any idea why that was the setting set by Eizo? Why didn't they set 6500 as white point?

[chuckcars]

D65 refers to the color temperature you are calibrating to. i.e., 6500Kelvin. Here is a link to an excellent article.

http://www.color-management-guide.co...libration.html

I use an xrite i1 Display and calibrate all my machines. This all takes a bit of time to digest it all.

[Alan Klein]

If it works without calibrating it, then don't fix it.

[Kirk Gittings]

If it works without calibrating it, then don't fix it.

Because it looks better "uncalibrated" doesn't mean that it is optimum or even that it is actually "uncalibrated". It may be defaulting back to a factory preset calibration or earlier calibration. In any event I would try and figure this problem out as I don't think simply trusting your eye is good enough. Why would you want to buy a great monitor like an Eizo and not want the best out of it? And......even if it looks good now over the years a monitor's colors etc. will drift. At some point you need to be able to calibrate the monitor correctly. I would talk to Eizo support.