Have I bought the wrong monitor profile package?

Chris,

I understand your concern but I can assure you that basICColor is a very well know company in the European print market place. The basICColor Display 4 software is also used by many OEM manufacturers such as NEC Europe, JUST Normlicht, Barbieri, and a few others. You could download the JUST Normlicht version adJUST monitor Calibration from their website as well. www.justnormlicht.com. Another company you could look at is Integrated Color Corp's (www.integrated-color.com) Color Eyes Pro but I do not know for sure if they support the Spyder 3 yet. They do support the Spyder 2 though so maybe they have the Spyder 3 as well.

JD

Hi, JD, I had a quick look at the website. As much as I am tempted to
try free download I am always suspicious. I can not be sure that it won't
interfere with some software already installed. plus i never know what
else is being downloaded even if I do keep an eye on the IP transfer processess.




Chris, I only have the highest respect and appreciation for Karl Koch and his software (basICColor display).

The site for basICColor display is at <http://www.basiccolor.de/english/Datenblaetter_E/display_E/display_E.htm>

He also offers high-end software to create output and device link profiles, and much else, and his products are of the highest quality. My exchanges with him have always been fair and helpful.

basICColor display is what I have been using for years to calibrate my own display, and it works very well, better than other packages I have tried over the years. To be fair, ColorEyes Display (from Integrated Color, at <http://www.integrated-color.com>) can be considered a worthy competitor, but I am happy with what I have.

As for your fears about transfers of malicious software from Karl's site, I believe they are completely unfounded. Karl is simply not that kind of person.

It is tempting, but this package is unknown to most professionals that
i can gather. Pity.




You haven't spoken to the right professionals, I'm afraid. I would question the competence of color management professionals who haven't heard of basICColor display.

Hi Marco, OK I will look deeper into what they offer, and I actually mean that - promise, but I am so bogged down at the moment with this whole issue that I would first like to take this as far as I can with you guys and adobe forum and my own efforts. Actually if I am in a relaxing carefree mood tonight (not at the moment I'm not) then I will browse tonight. Hope they have prices. can not stand web sites and ferry firms that make you book first just to discover the price.

Best regards

Chris.

Hallo Lou,

Well I have calibrated to 5000K, I just guessed at the luminance by viewing a photo shadow area and adjusting accordingly. It is worth mentioning that I have so many times followed the spyder recomendations and they are so out in ALL instances it is beyond belief. I have travelled through every one of their settings and even defaulted the monitor back to its manufacturer settings as they suggest - it's a crime!!!

Anyway the long and short of it is after guessing luminance values, guessing new settings for beginning the calibration, then setting target to 5000, then guessing the luminance adjustments after it was all over I now have a 100% perfect match in Greys, blacks and whites. Colours are very good, though red and orange are saturated still. No yellow cast. though tomorrow I will probably see a different screen and will switch over to my other save profile of 5800K. Can not switch off the daylight can I? I can not move the computer either! what a business!!!!

Probably will encounter problems tomorrow, I will just make another profile until THE PHOTO FITS THE SCREEN Ugmmmmm! Not a good idea, but what else can one do? sarcasm ok! Don't mean that.

I will not know really the value in all this till day breaks, but I know then that 5000K will be awful.

Best regards

Chris.

Well I have calibrated to 5000K, I just guessed at the luminance by viewing
a photo shadow area and adjusting accordingly.




I hope you are not confusing color temperature (5000K) with luminance (which is expressed in candelas per square meter, or cd/m2, or "nits").

Those are two separate things:

COLOR TEMPERATURE determines whether your display will appear yellower (lower temperature, say 5000K) or bluer (higher temperature, say 6500K), regardless of luminance level.

On the other hand, the target LUMINANCE for an LCD, regardless of color temperature, is usually in the neighborhood of 140 cd/m2 in an office environment, and 90 to 110 cd/m2 in a darkened environment. Those are rough guidelines, which you will have to test and adapt to your own specific needs.

Can not switch off the daylight can I? I can not move the computer either!
what a business!!!!





I will not know really the value in all this till day breaks, but I know
then that 5000K will be awful.




Chris -
In the "old" days, we photographers used to shoot on film and do the processing in a darkroom, the conditions of which were proscribed by the photographic process itself. Film and paper were light-sensitive; the darkroom had to be completely dark for film and light tight lit with a safelight for paper. The point is that to successfully work as a photographer, you had to have a controlled environment in which to process your images, and in which to exercise process control.

Nothing has changed in the modern digital world. Think of your viewing conditions in the same way as you would think of a darkroom. You have to work in a controlled environment. You will be constantly frustrated if the viewing conditions are constantly changing. You've got two options:

1 - Set up your work environment based upon working at night-time only.
or
2 - Control your work environment by covering the windows.

Any other approach is a guarantee of constant frustration.

I appreciate your frustration, but this is the reality.

Chris,

Dr. Dina advises you to take 2 or 3 stiff drinks and check it again in the morning. It might end up being be closer than you think. I know you are frustrated, but you are closer than you realize. Once it all comes together, you will be much better off having a calibrated system and knowing how it all works together.

You'll get there. See, you already have a pretty good match on black, white, gray and most of your colors. Hang in.

Lou

Hi Rick, and Lou. Well firstly Rick I came from a darkroom background. And I still use film and process at home then off to the darkroom, I appreciate the need for controlled environments. You are right about what you say as regards the work in day oor evening and keep the ambient light down for colour temp on the screen. but this was my frustration. the spyder3 pro measures the ambient light and makes eroneous decisions, that is what I did not expect from a professional piece of software.

Lou, it works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT IT SHOULD NOT WORK AT ALL. I am now in the morning, light outside is cloudy but average bright. The big window is to my right, the screen has no dirct light on it at all. Byt natural light is filling the room, but it is not bright. My ambient light measurement tells me that I should set spyder to 6500. But it is at 5000. the luminace is low, I have to guess at this.

the colour cast is gone. te print looks so close to the screen except that colours on screen are little more saturated, this is on soft proof by the way for the paper.

The shadows are better but still titsy bit darker on photo, but much better.

I have written to Spyder people in Zurich explaining the situation and the fact that they over-simplified their answers tome on my first ticket to them over 6 weeks ago, I am not happy with them.

But theoretically according to all the manuals this should not work Lou?

Best regards, Chris.

Marco, no i have not confused it, thanks. But i keep saying to people that I am UNABLE to put in any luminance values numerically. I have only a bar on the calibrator without figures. And even that option WILL NOT APPEAR if I disobey Spyder's recomendations.

man I hate this spyder.

Chris,

It doesn't surprise me at all that those settings work. I experimented extensively (back and forth for years) before adopting those settings, and they always have worked well on my systems (both at work on a CRT with overhead fluorescent lighting and at home on an LCD with completely different lighting).

Human vision is very complex. Daylight, especially on a cloudy or overcast day, is much cooler than daylight on a clear day, or 5000K lighting, and a lot cooler than incandescent lighting. Human vision tends to self calibrate, but even that is complex. Certainly, your prints will look a bit cooler under overcast conditions than it will under warmer lighting. It's probably more noticeable in the digital realm, since you have a monitor for comparison.

Normally, when you are evaluating prints, you are looking back and forth between monitor and print with a critical eye. We latch onto neutrals, highlights, skin tones, etc. Most printing papers have a measured white point between about 4700K (very warm papers without optical brighteners) and about 5300K (very white papers, often with optical brighteners). That suggests moving toward a warmer setting. I say use whatever works, and 5000-5500K seems to work best for me.

The difference in saturation between monitor and print can be caused by a number of factors. First, you need an ACCURATE printer profile and must be sure to print with the proper rendering intent. If you are printing on matte fine art papers, you will lose some dynamic range (ie, contrast, Dmax, etc) and you will have a more limited color gamut, which shows up in print as less saturated, less pop, etc. The soft proof can help you evaluate this, but the technology isn't perfect at this point. So, you screen may appear more saturated than your print. If you toggle the 'Simulate Black Ink' checkbox on and off in the Proof Preview setup, you will notice a shift in density and saturation, especially on matte type papers. I find the truth usually lies between these two extremes. Like I said, it isn't perfect, and many different factors will affect the soft proof. (read my article again).

If you print on higher dynamic range papers, such as Epson Premium Glossy, Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, etc, you should get a closer match to your monitor preview, since these papers have a better Dmax, higher dynamic range and wider color gamut. So, it is likely your will be able to reproduce all or most of your colors in print. In this case, there is usually no need to check the Simulate Black Ink checkbox.

If you were to make two exact duplicate prints, light one with daylight and the other with incandescent light, and place an effective divider between them, you'd be floored by how different they look. The eye cannot adapt in this situation since you have two different light sources in the same environment. I've done it, and I can assure you the difference is night and day (sorry for the pun). It's complex and always has been. In our film days, we didn't have the luxury of a monitor for comparison, so we probably let a lot of lousy color slide, courtesy of white point adaptation and lack of a comparative original. But, if we wanted good color, we had to pick the right film (daylight or tungsten), use color correction filters, gels, etc.

You're now getting close. Don't expect perfection. The keys to me are a reasonably close white point, a good representation of whites and blacks, and good neutrals. If you've got that, you're in business.

I have two articles on my website in the color management section. Read them both if you want a deeper understanding. Hopefully, it is reasonably clear and helpful.

<http://www.DinaGraphics.com/color_management.php>

Lou