Tilting screen gives better colour matchingwith print why did I need spyder pro?

Hallo Marco, I was for hours reading on this forum about colour, but it seems that no amount of colour policing can accomodate the inherent faults of LCDs.

Chris. But i do agree, the eyeone is a much better piece of software.

Chris

Marco, well, the web reviews and forums that I searched over THREE MONTHS, the learning, he readin, the enquiring, I nver buy anything without research. But there was not one place out of a thousand that could have prepared me for what I discovered in ONE WEEK of use. Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental issues regarding profiling with a piece of software. IT IS all conveniently missed and a lot of people talk about it as though it is the divine answer. I actually had better printouts on my 30 pound Tricolour Ink from windows 98 on s'RGB using driver matching.

THIS MAKE SME VERY ANGRY WITH THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE AND ALL THOSE SO CALLED COLOUR GEEKS ON THE WEB SITES. Using driver matching even now has produced better blues and no colour shifts. I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem so I will invetigate.

> I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem




If Adobe RGB is the problem it will display/print desaturated in the reds.

Further, aRGB is useful in the learning process BECAUSE it will be more noticeable if your setting are mixed up.

Chris001 -

I'm working on a project that is aimed at the frustrations users encounter on the path to achieving predictable color. To help me understand your frustration, could you please expand on the following comments:

Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video
course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental
issues regarding profiling with a piece of software, IT IS all conveniently
missed and a lot of people talk about it as though it is the divine answer.




What do you see as the "fundamental issues?" What is the "it" you are referring to?

Using driver matching even now has produced better blues and no colour
shifts.




Can you please explain what you mean by "driver matching?"

Thanks,
Rick

it seems that no amount of colour policing can accomodate the inherent
faults of LCDs.




Don't give up so easily before you carefully test all your options. In other words, don't jump to conclusions before you have all your evidence.

LCDs can be quite good (depending on which LCDs you use, of course -- some are better than others, a few of them *far* better), though many still swear by CRTs -- which I tend to see as a doomed romantic notion at this point in time.

Even my most advanced photoshop and colour management tuturials and video
course and reference manuals made any mention of some of the most fundemental
issues regarding profiling with a piece of software.




I agree that all too often people (on the web or in books and articles) will "explain" procedures and omit crucial steps, or explain them poorly, leaving the reader puzzled and lost. It's a widespread bad habit of cutting corners or assuming things, or "bailing out", that I have noticed, and that I try carefully to avoid when I explain things to others, because I know from experience how frustrating and even infuriating it can be.

I actually had better printouts on my 30 pound Tricolour Ink from windows
98 on s'RGB using driver matching.




Don't confuse the messenger(s) with the "message". Some popularizers may be doing a poor job of explaining color management, but nonetheless color management, properly understood and applied, DOES WORK.

It took me a good long while to sort out the useful bits from the tons of misinformation and pure and simple garbage when I started out in color management about 10 years ago. Just keep plugging away at it. A lot of it is old-fashioned trial-and-error: no one can spare you that crown of thorns.

I actually think that adobe 1998 gamut may well be the problem so I will
invetigate.




I strongly doubt that AdobeRGB is the problem. One should resist the temptation (borne out of helplessness and frustration) to make up theories out of thin air. If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist.

Hallo Rick,

I started going in depth into colour management about 6 months ago. I read I read I read. I consulted websites, reference manuals, Photoshop books, Lynda.com, other podcasts via apple, other videos from magazines. My overall impressions just before I decided to buy this spyder was this: profile the monitor, keep using ccurate printer profiles and good paper and everything will be much better. Maintain good colour management between in design illustrator and photoshop. That was it. I was always led down the road of how important it was to understand the dialogue boxes, the way the printer works, the colour gamuts - limitations and charts. In fact I was so full of theory my head was bursting with how easy it had all become to understand.

Untill that was --I ATTACHED MY FIRST PROFILER TO MY NEW APPLE MACHINE - then disaster struck. It took me weeks to realise that I was missing some important information, namely the monitors themselves, the importance of background lighting, understanding LCD's, the white paper scenario against the monitor, even the limitations of the software package itself.

Had I known a little while ago what I now know I would NEVER have bought the spyder. i would have gone for the EyeOne display 2. Had I have known then what I now know I would have enquired more about different monitors available for the mac. The missing links in this chain have become the paradox that there are limitations in the software itself. Not in my UNDERSTANDING of colour management.

And it all began because I accidently tilted my screen one day and noticed how wonderful and beautifully matched my screen was with what I had printed out -DESPITE THE YELLOW CAST, THE OFF COLOURS AND THE EXTRA DARK SHADOWS that were in the photo.

DRIVER MATCHING is apple's version of windows let printer decide colours.

Best regards

Chris

Hallo Marco, yes you are right. I come up with theories born out of days of sheer hair pulling frustration. The books? well you are right there also, It does not take me long to learn a new art, but I am often frustrated by the alck pf mature guidance that there exists out there on the web. On the one hand we have Norman Koren, excellent but a huge struggle to weed out the important stuff before we go in depth, perhaps that is more to do with the web's structure and how the information is organised with so many hundreds of links, good links but so scientific. All i want is what will get me that photo printed out as I see it on screen, it does not even have to be exact, just a pretty close match would be fine.

One would have thought that in this age of super technology this situation could have been resolved. It may well be resolved but maybe corporate jealousy prevents the real solutions from hitting the market? Like water and petrol in the car!!

But I am glad you picked up on the Adobe RGB, - thanks.

All i want is what will get me that photo printed out as I see it on screen,
it does not even have to be exact, just a pretty close match would be
fine.




That may be all you want to do, but it's no mean feat. As small a thing as it seems, it requires study and dedication, until one day it all "clicks" and it finally works as advertised. It's a heady feeling when that happens, I can assure you.

Don't rationalize your frustrations and don't give up. Keep at it.

Ok Marco, I am curious about something, this may or may not be relevant, but it would be nice to understand. I used photoshops colour sampler at 1x1 point (Not 5x5 average or 3x3 average etc), to define the RGB values of some colours on a test image from norman koren in the adobe RGB 1998 colour space. I then used apples own colour sampler from colour sync to compare readings:

First photoshops analysis: Apples colour analysis
125.125.125. on neutral gray 131.130.132
117.160.255 on blue sky 123.153.229
36.131.29 on some random green 0.141.39
1.76.177 on random dark blue 0.72.185
220.75.48 on reddish/ornge telephone 241.75.62

Are these figures ok, or is there room for concern in the disparities?