Help me calibrate my monitor

[David A. Goldfarb]

So yesterday I set up my first decent photo quality printer--an HP B9180. I've never been interested in making inkjet prints before, but we needed to replace our 12-year-old laser printer anyway, and the tabloid format is useful for some of the work my wife does, so I figured it was a good time to get something with photo quality output.

So I made a few test prints and the B&W's looked like silver prints with major drydown! I figured the main issue was monitor calibration, so lacking a calibration gizmo for now, I adjusted the monitor gamma visually using Adobe Gamma, so the screen image better matches the print output.

Then I looked at my website, and everything looked like crap, so before I adjust all the images on my website, tell me what you think of the three attached images on your monitor, and maybe say a few words about your monitor calibration (i.e., uncalibrated, visually adjusted gamma, or gizmo adjusted and what gizmo you use). I'm thinking I may have overshot the monitor correction a bit, because images posted on the web by other people who I know use calibration devices look too dark on my monitor. Just out of curiosity, I also tried the Monitor Calibration Wizard recommended in another thread, and the difference I'm getting between MCW and Adobe Gamma is almost imperceptible. The first one is the version currently on the website in greyscale mode; the second is pre-calibration converted to sRBG; and the third one is sRBG post-calibration.







Thanks in advance.

[Lee L]

David,

One other thing that should be taken into consideration is the browser. Not all are color managed. I believe that newer versions of Safari are by default, at least on the Mac. Firefox 3 has color management available, but as shipped, it's not enabled. I'm not sure about Internet Explorer and its various incarnations.

Here's a brief note on enabling color management in Firefox 3: http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/08/c...-to-firefox-3/

Your post-calibration sRGB version looks "best" to me, running Firefox 3 with color management enabled, on linux+gnome. It has more local contrast and visible detail on the bottom of the deck, but still retains contrast and detail everywhere. The higher end of the scale is also a bit lighter. But it's hard to say what looks exactly right without knowing your intentions.

Hope this helps. BTW, the .png format has a built-in gamma index that can be adjusted by the viewing platform to suit the local screen. I've been using that for several years for posting online where gamma was a concern. Of course, this too assumes that the viewing platform/software behave appropriately with .png files, but you can never guarantee that your viewers have the right stuff in place at their end. And of course their awareness of the issues is another matter entirely. All you can do is give them the best file to work with from your end.

You've probably already been there, but Norman Koren has a good page on gamma and calibration here: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

Lee

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Lee. It sounds like you're seeing what I want you to see in the last version--more shadow detail and more luminosity particularly off the steel beams facing the light on the right side of the frame.

[Lee L]

Thanks, Lee. It sounds like you're seeing what I want you to see in the last version--more shadow detail and more luminosity particularly off the steel beams facing the light on the right side of the frame.

Yes, that's what I'm seeing in the shadows and also on the sunlit steel on the right. The building in shadow at the middle under the billboard is also lighter and with much more local contrast. The brickwork patterns there are much more apparent.

Lee

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks. I checked the monitor gamma again, and I think I did overcorrect a bit, so I backed off a bit, and other things are starting to look better.

[mkochsch]

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've adjusted the third version slightly to reflect the latest monitor recalibration.

I also realized that it's easiest to compare the different versions by opening the three images in three different tabs so they're all in the same location on the screen, and toggling between them. If you want to try it that way, here are the three URLs--


http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/viaduct.jpg

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/temp/Viaduct.jpg

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/tem...--adjusted.jpg

[David A. Goldfarb]

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

I was looking for one earlier today and couldn't find a cheap one that could work with LCD monitors (saw a CRT-only one for $26 buy-it-now, though), but I'll keep looking.

[Keith Taylor]

You can buy a used eye-one or a spyder2prop on ebay for $50-$60. Just do it! You will save that money in ink in paper over and over again.
~m

I bought a Spyder and found that it consistently produced a monitor profile that was too magenta. I eventually dumped it for SuperCal http://www.bergdesign.com/supercal/ which works perfectly. It's shareware ($19) so you can download it and try it for free. It's Mac only however.

Keith.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Picked up a box of Harman Gloss FB AI and printed the original TIF at the maximum printer resolution with the ICC profile from Harman, and after even a visual calibration with Adobe Gamma, the improvement is enormous. The shadows are much more open, highlights still there, and there's a nice glow off the steel. The look is different from my Azo print from the same neg, but the inkjet is still a perfectly respectable print.

So for the moment, I don't feel I have to rush out and buy another gizmo.