Monitor calibration help

[Bruce Schultz]

I realize I need to calibrate my monitor, both for web purposes and printing. 95 percent of what I do will be from wet-plate images, so I need something that would be good for B&W, something simple - like me. Looks like the Spyder and Munki are the 2 most popular choices. WHich would be best for my criteria? Also, how often is calibration necessary? The monitor I just bought is pretty clunky to adjust so if calibration is a weekly, or even monthly, occurrence, it's likely I won't do it as much as necessary with this monitor.
Thanks.

[Tyler Boley]

looks like you are getting no response so far. I would say look for comparative reviews on line, like this-
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/r...itor_profiling

I don't think your B&W needs makes one of these better than another, just compare price and your budget, and review info. The Spyder is very easy to use, I imagine the other is as well but I have no personal experience with it.
Tyler

[Aahx]

Munki is easy to use as well as you can scan prints for paper profiles as well with it. But Munki is only usable on LCD type monitors. It will not work for CRT's (which I also still have a few of). My Spyder (first generation) will work on my CRT's as well as LCD's. But cannot do print paper profiles. So look at your complete worth flow, and then make a call to what you need to best cover all your calibration needs.

[Brian Ellis]

I recently replaced Spyder II with Spyder III Pro and have been happy with the results. I've also read good reviews of it several places on line (don't remember where, sorry). The Munki is probably fine too but it costs a lot more than Spyder III Pro (though you can't make paper profiles with it, for that you need a more expensive version which may bring the cost more in line with Color Munki). I didn't really look into Color Munki because all I wanted was something to calibrate my monitor and that's what the Spyder III Pro does. lf you Google you should be able to find plenty of information about both. And if you're still unsure, post a question to the photo.net digital darkroom forum. I've found that to be a good place for questions about digital gear.

[Mark Barendt]

I realize I need to calibrate my monitor, both for web purposes and printing.

For the web, forget it. You have no control over what your stuff looks like on anybody's monitor except your own.

For printing you must realize the limits of all these devices. The color temp and brightness of the room you are in probably changes as the day progresses so your images will look different at different times of the day.

You also need to realize that your monitor and paper are very different mediums, they will look different. (Think projected slide vs paper)

Different printers and papers have different gamuts too.

That said, profiling your monitor or paying your lab for corrections are the only reliable ways to get repeatable results.

95 percent of what I do will be from wet-plate images, so I need something that would be good for B&W, something simple - like me. Looks like the Spyder and Munki are the 2 most popular choices. WHich would be best for my criteria?

I'm sure either will work fine.

Also, how often is calibration necessary? The monitor I just bought is pretty clunky to adjust so if calibration is a weekly, or even monthly, occurrence, it's likely I won't do it as much as necessary with this monitor.
Thanks.

You will probably only mess with adjusting the monitor hardware once, the recalibration is all software past that and probably once a month will be plenty.

[pherold]

You should also consider the i1Display 2. We sell them all here so I don't have an ulterior motive to favor one over another. The i1D2 is also very accurate, the software is easy to use and it works on LCD & CRT monitors. It has an attachable ambient light head that you can use if you want to get an idea of what color temperature your lights are. In my testing I have found it to get a darker reading for blacks than the Spyder 3. That might draw out a bit more shadow detail in the monitor profile with the i1D2.

Concerning your clunky monitor: Most of the process is automatic - allowing the software and the measurement instrument to go through their paces. But in the beginning of the monthly process you are expected to adjust your brightness at least using the monitor controls. So that might be a bit awkward, but you'd be surprised at how you get used to it after a few months. It does not take much to adjust the brightness up or down a few notches.

[thechrisproject]

For the web, forget it. You have no control over what your stuff looks like on anybody's monitor except your own.

I disagree with this. It's true, you don't have control, but a well balanced image on a calibrated monitor will look better on more displays than one where you just don't care. A lot of my opinions on this come from sound mixing. You don't control the speakers people listen to your mixes on, but a good mix will sound good on most speakers.

Congruently, I'd almost say that the best way to get good color on the web is to test your photos on various different displays.

[Mark Barendt]

My real point here is only that once you have corrected the image for printing in a color managed work flow, there is no point in doing more to make it look good on the web.

Sampling isn't a realistic option for individuals because the sample would not be large enough to provide good data.

I know that whenever I got a new computer or monitor, before my photographic adventures began, the first thing I did was adjust the brightness and contrast of the monitor to suit my taste.

Short of sampling say 10,000 monitors, in the entire geographic area you intend to serve, there's no good way to find an average.

I disagree with this. It's true, you don't have control, but a well balanced image on a calibrated monitor will look better on more displays than one where you just don't care. A lot of my opinions on this come from sound mixing. You don't control the speakers people listen to your mixes on, but a good mix will sound good on most speakers.

Congruently, I'd almost say that the best way to get good color on the web is to test your photos on various different displays.

[Bruce Schultz]

I've ordered a Spyder3Print calibrator. I'll let you know how it works for me.
I printed an image last night, and it took 3 tries before I got the desired tones.

[Peter De Smidt]

I might be mistaken, but isn't the spyder3print just for prints? Without a calibrated monitor, it's doubtful that it'll be much help. I have a spyder 3 print and a Spyder 3 elite (monitor). Together they work well, although reading patches is a pain. Luckily, I don't change papers that often.