Untitled Document

I am a photography student that is looking for a calibration system to get my laptop corrected. I want something that is going to work for me right now and also be affordable on a student budget, however I don't want to buy something that is going to give me consumer results or leave me short handed in the first years out of school. Currently looking at one of the ColorVision Spyder2express as a possibility. Thank you for any help or advise that anyone can provide.

--

Thanks

Stephen Thaxton

___________________________________________________________________________

Stephen,

I would personally invest in an Eye-One (i1) Display 2 if I were in your shoes. The cost is not that much more than other colorimeters ($229.95 with software), and the quality is proven. The Spyder2 Pro ($199.99) is another option, but I would stay away from PrintFIX and not let that influence your decision-making. I personally prefer X- Rite (GretagMacbeth) products - I own and use the Eye-One Pro and ProfileMaker, and I use i1 Match for laptop calibration. It generally works well and is easy to use. Be forewarned, though. The gamut of many laptops is much smaller than desktop displays, and laptops are not ideal for color correction.

If you missed the sold-out talks at Photoshop World and can make it to Andrew Rodney's all-day ASMP workshop in Tucson next month (Digital Workflow: from Capture to Print), X-Rite is giving away two i1 Display 2 units. Feeling lucky?!!! Then check out www.asmptucson.org/events/event.html The workshop is aimed at pros and not students, but if you're hanging out here, I would expect that you would get a lot out of it.

I would certainly avoid the Huey, especially if your laptop is a Mac with a glossy display. If you are looking at a career in photography, you need to buy a professional-level tool that will serve you well for the next several years.

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Stephen,

If you can, buy Dan's PP5 book and check the section where he talks about calibration.

Bottom line, it's all in the numbers. By this I mean that you can skip buying a calibration system right now and use Apple's control panel. That can get you very close. As long as you know how to correct by the numbers, you will be OK. Maybe spend the money on an external drive which might allow you to have a safety net in case of emergency.

All the best!

Paco

___________________________________________________________________________

One other note: Laptops are notorious for banding/pixelation, especially in the shadows. Because of their design, it is often better to calibrate them to native color temperature and gamma, rather than forcing them to fixed values. I don't think the SpyderExpress can do that.

--Rich

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Steve:

Another option is the Pantone Eye-One Display 2, which is very good. It has and auto and a pro mode which allows you to interact for each step of the calibration.

I find it quite versatile.

Fine Photography by

Michael Demyan

www.mikedemyan.com

610-758-9769

___________________________________________________________________________

If you want to save a ton of money and get an excellent display for accurate color editing, search around for used CRT's at thrift stores like Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul, etc. They can run as low as $4 to $50 bucks and all of them made after 1996 come close to the sRGB space where all you need to use is an eyeball calibrator choosing sRGB colorants within the software and visually neutalizing the color temp using the display's OSD.

If on Window's Adobe Gamma will suffice but search the web for better eyeball calibrators, on Macs SuperCal is far more advanced even for LCD's.

When you can afford it, buy a hardware calibrator. The majority of which work fine for any display.

From what I've read on the web for several years laptop displays can't be calibrated well enough for accurate color editing. They work in a pinch for previsualization.

Tim Lookingbill

___________________________________________________________________________

Hello Paco,

You quote Dan's "By-The-Numbers" correction system and you continue by saying: "By this I mean you can skip buying a calibration system..., etc." All is well and good as long as you make it clear that this is not Dan's suggestions, as far as I know Dan is not against calibrating a monitor with whatever tools are available.

Richard Wagner has made some very pertinent suggestions to Stephen, I also use a X-Rite (GretagMacbeth) Eye-One Display 2 and find it very adequate.

André Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

This is simply not consistent with best practice in contemporary colour management. A properly calibrated and profiled monitor is a fundamental building bloc for achieving predictable colour and luminosity of printed output, and to achieve this you need a satisfactory package consisting of a colorimeter and profiling/calibration software. A decent quality package can be purchased for about 300 to 350 dollars, and it will save at least that much in wated time, ink and paper within a short time period. If you read the books written by colour management specialists you will have a better understanding of what I am saying in short here. You can't colour correct properly unless you colour manage properly.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Mark:

Let's agree to disagree.

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

Paco Marquez wrote:

Really? So you'll let me know the numbers for something real easy. What numbers would you recommend for a middle, neutral gray for the following output devices:

Epson 3800 using Luster paper

Epson 3800 using Enhanced Matt

Canon iPF5000 on the above papers

CMYK for the contract proofing system used by half a dozen different print vendors who don't conform to any standard process.

You get the idea.

Define 'close'.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:38 PM, MARK SEGAL wrote:

I do not agree with this statement, but don't want to start a flaming argument over it. Color management has little to do with color correction techniques (process control is a different matter). The post suggested doing by-the numbers corrections. Professional quality color correction and printing can be done without the aid of profiles. High quality printwork is not always a result of accident, or luck, and furthermore, the best color management to be found can't guarantee quality printwork. Algorithms are not the same, nor are they a substitute, for judgment.

Paco Marquez wrote:

I would evaluated the work produced before I suggested that it was less than satisfactory. I understand the time and waste assumptions, but the gist of color correction is not color management.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

From: "MARK SEGAL"

While colorimeters are helpful, excellent color images were being produced long before screen calibration devices were available.

Mike Russell

www.curvemeister.com/forum/

___________________________________________________________________________Re:

On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Mike Russell wrote:

Sure, but not as easily or in the kinds of open systems we have today. As has been said, I don't read Dan as being in any way against calibration, just against trusting calibration over your own knowledge and logic or believing that it's an answer to anything other than getting your output looking consistent day to day within the limitations of the systems and their variables. With his experience of what the numbers mean and what an image should look like on screen to match previous press output I have no doubt he can adjust his monitor to be as accurate as he needs it to be without a colorimeter. Not many of us fall into this category. I personally find the Spyder 2 to do a fine job. I also have an Artisan monitor, so I think I know whether the Spyder is giving me a good monitor calibration. I use it to make my other monitors match the Artisan and take it with me whenever I work on location.

For me, the most important thing is getting a monitor to a known standard so I can exchange files with others working on properly calibrated systems and trust they will see something close to what I intended. Someone working in a closed system might be fine adjusting their monitor to match their own printer's output. I believe there are fewer and fewer of these kinds of users in professional environments, but perhaps more of these kinds of users in the amateur market (at least until they buy a new printer).

On Apr 6, 2007, at 3:45 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

Don't get your point here. I think this argument works for any color other than gray. I assume there's a profile for these Inkjet papers, in which case I'm working in an RGB color space and I can use the info pallet. If there isn't a profile how does a calibrated monitor help? For the CMYK unless you have a profile I think you have to assume the gray balance matches some kind of standard output and can again use the RGB info pallet numbers. However, what kind of red is 207, 108, 89? That's a question I prefer to answer with a calibrated monitor.

Ric Cohn

___________________________________________________________________________

on 4/6/07 7:45 PM, Henry wrote:

So should we tell Steve Thaxton, a photography student, to ignore monitor calibration (the original question at hand) ???

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/6/07 8:51 PM, "Mike Russell" wrote:

Of course they were. But with how many proofs? Given enough back and forth between correction and output, anyone can correct an image. Its highly ineffective. Its expensive. Its time consuming. But its your time and money.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Paco,

In some situations today, imaging can be all by-the-numbers, but IMHO you would be foolish to use only that approach when today's color management is not that expensive and works well.

There is a lot of evidence that if you use color management (for say a monitor and a proofer) and then go-by-the-numbers your imaging system becomes more productive. Then using both color management and going-by-the-numbers becomes a bottom line issue.

That is, you get the job completed faster because of less wasted proofs because the monitor provides a close visual relationship to the proof. It all equates to saving money.

Jim Rich

___________________________________________________________________________

If you look at the Colorvision web site, you can download the earlier version of the S2X software which does do native WP - I tried this out on my Powerbook (G4 1.25) and it gives superior results.

If you are on a tight budget, then the fact that the S2X uses the same sensor as the SpyderPro is worth noting.

While I don't do any direct comparisons, there is info on quite a few calibrators I've looked at at: http: //www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews.html that might be of interest if you are looking at options.

bye for now

Keith Cooper

___________________________________________________________________________

OK, let me explain.

If there is a grey area in your shot, then try to get the #'s as close to each other as possible when in RGB and as close to each other but with a higher Cyan when in CMYK. This is a rule which is practical in its purpose in the same way that "with the sun on your back, use f16, and then use the shutter speed which most closely matches your ISO." It will get you to a safe starting point and with experience you will be able to get perfect results based on this simplification of things.

Most of you are way out in the edge of the envelope and I feel that that position makes you see a situation like this one from a highly technical and complicated one.

Andrew's questions border on the extreme end of calibration but I would bet good money on his being able to answer all his own questions "by the #'s" just because of his experience in dealing with this on a day to day basis. There is a saying in Spanish which goes like this: "Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo." Translated it means that the devil knows as much as he knows because of all his experience and not because he is the king of evil.

I am not trying to tell anyone not to calibrate their monitor. I have used high end monitors ever since I was able to buy them and have even bought one from Andrew. They are the window through which we look into the digital realm and as such it should be as pristine as posible. But that window is held in place by an assortment of other parts.

The reason for my answer is that in my day to day professional experience, one has to do wonders with one's budget, and I'd rather have my data safe and backed up in triplicate. What good will a high end monitor be if I lost all my data. For all I know Stephen might already have Terabytes of storage space but I'd definitely would advise him to start learning early on in his career to rely on understanding the numbers and trusting them more than his eyes or his monitor.

Finally, I did not mean to have my comments understood as implying that Dan has a stance similar to mine regarding this. He does go into explanations which help the reader question a lot of preconceived ideas and allow for a more informed perspective on this topic. If it was understood by all to mean something other than this, then I really do apologize.

All the best!

Paco

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mike,

"Helpful" ? is not adequate to describe colorimeters or monitor calibration, "very useful and almost essential" would be much better.

I would tell Stephen that any monitor in good working condition can display beautiful images, any scanner in good working condition can produce beautiful scans and any printer in good working condition can print "excellent color images".

However if Stephen wants to *accurately* reproduce (print) an original image from a scanner or camera then the easiest way to do that is with a (1) properly calibrated/profiled scanner or camera, (2) a properly calibrated/profiled monitor, (3) a properly calibrated/profiled printer.

To do that you need the right tools such as a good colorimeter and good color management software. That is my advice to Stephen: Don't waste your time with Adobe Gamma and making multiple test scans and prints, get the right tools!

André Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

I recently read a review of monitor calibration systems by Macworld and their conclusions were not helpful in that each system seemed to come up with a different profile for the same monitor. Some were close to the output from their printer and some were not. My own experience is similar and I have reverted back to using the presets on my lcd monitor and adjusting mentally for the differences between it and my printer as the presets are a lot closer a match to my printer than the profiles generated with my Spyder or with Adobe Gamma.

PC laptops being what they are, usually lacking any presets to control the color temp of the screen, my recommendation to the original post is to buy the best calibration system you can afford but realize none of them are perfect and that every couple of years you will be buying a new one hoping it will actually work the way everyone says they should, and, considering that you are young, it's highly possible that in your life time one of them will. My own belief, however, is that all but the cheapest of the new lcd monitors introduced in the next year of so will have built in calibrations systems that will out perform any external system now on the market.

If Stephen Thaxton is the lucky owner of a new Mac powerbook he could do worse than use the built in calibration system which, in the powerbook belonging to a friend of mine, is actually quite good and consistent when not used in the advanced mode.

Regards,

John Denniston

___________________________________________________________________________

Your can't colour correct properly unless you colour manage properly because without the latter you will never know what you are achieving when you try the former until you print the image. Without a calibrated and profiled monitor you run a much higher risk that the image you thought you corrected properly will not come out of the printer looking the way you expected. I don't know if there is an easier way of explaining this rather fundamental and self-evident proposition. I agree that colour management and colour correction are two different things, but the original poster was asking for advice about the former, presumably to help him with the latter, so that is the advice I provided, based on years of personal experience with and without a properly calibrated and profiled monitor. Furthermore, you should be aware that every part of the digital imaging process uses profiles in one way or another. There is simply no such thing as working without the aid of profiles. They are always there whether you wish to recognize them and know them or not. It is best you know what is under the hood so you can chose them and use them properly, so as to maximize the probability of getting what you expect in your printed output. The whole idea of this is to minimize accidents and maximize the probability of success. And finally, no one ever argued that colour management is a substitute for colour correction, so why posit straw-men?. Colour management is a serious aide to achieving predictable colour correction.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Mike this is true, just like people read books and understood what they said well before the invention of the electric light bulb.

Mark Segal

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Russell

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:51 PM

Subject: Re: [colortheory] Monitor Calibration System Help

While colorimeters are helpful, excellent color images were being produced

long before screen calibration devices were available.

___________________________________________________________________________

Paco,

(1) Not all images have any grey in them. Then what? If you need to replicate a beer for an ad image that has a certain Pantone colour, fine, the numbers are enough, but for the rest of photography colour correction is a matter of what works artistically and photographically, and it is best to have a calibrated and profiled monitor for making those judgments.

(2) The "envelope" you say we are "way out" on is now mainstream, basic digital imaging 101.

(3) There is nothing so complicated about it that any one capable of using Photoshop couldn't master how to calibrate and profile a display.

(4) There is nothing extreme in the examples Andrew gave. If you believe in soft-proofing for the various papers on which you may print, it is best to soft-proof through a display that shows you quite correctly what the soft proof says, otherwise the whole purpose of soft-proofing isn't in the window, it's out the window.

(5) The original poster did not raise the budget issue in the sense of trade-offs; you are positing a straw-man.

(6) Whatever Dan thinks, all kinds of other professionals think certain things too, and they are often conflicting, and not only on this subject is that true; BUT, none of it influences my observations or advice - I simply say what I observe from my personal experience.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/7/07 1:54 PM, "Paco Marquez" wrote:

Sorry no that doesn't work expect in well behaved RGB working spaces. Output color spaces and most input color spaces can have RGB neutral values where RGB values are not the same, not even close. ICC device profiles provide the recipe for the correct mix of either RGB or CMYK values for neutrals or any color you hope to reproduce.

But in your analogy, we don't know the ISO! The profile is nothing more than a means of defining the scale of the numbers. That's all color management does (its number management)

You are of course free to answer my questions and provide the right numbers here. IF you have a paper profile for the devices I submitted, getting the numbers is easy. If not, its very difficult to 'work by the numbers' because you're basically guessing. Now you could send a pile of numbers to the device, print them out and I would suggest measure them to find the true neutrals. Then you have those numbers for that color. But if you can do this, you can build a profile and have ALL the numbers. And going back to display calibration and the straw man argument that its not necessary to produce good output of which I agree, it's a big waste of time and money not to mention paper and ink!

And again, based on finding the numbers for more than a few devices, its going to be very expense to do this kind of work without the correct tools. IOW, you don't need to use them but in the short run, you'll save a heck of a lot of time and money doing it this way from the get-go.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

From: "Mark Segal"

[re necessity of fancy calibration devices]

Uncalibrated light, I might add :-)

Mike Russell

www.curvemeister.com/forum/

___________________________________________________________________________

John,

Several points here:

(1) One of the fundamental purposes of a colour-managed workflow is to replace the need for "adjusting mentally". Only the most experienced professionals can pull that off successfully, and I doubt that describes Stephen, otherwise he wouldn't be concerned about what to do. I wouldn't use a Spyder (first edition) or Adobe Gamma as a benchmark against which to measure any calibration practice, because neither of them are particularly useful in their own right.

(2) Your recommendation to him to buy the best calibration system he can afford I think is correct advice, provided he recognizes that the very cheap ones are most likely a waste of money. It is better to save-up for a good one (and not necessarily the most expensive) than to blow money on a piece of junk. Of course like everything else these things will improve over time, such that in general for the market as a whole technological change determines the life-cycle of equipment; that said, some of the stuff on the market now provides very satisfactory results. Hence, any one individual's rate of replacement will depend on the quality of what one starts with and future means and needs rather than the usability of the device/software.

(3) I would be interested to know the source of your information underlying your belief about forthcoming built-in calibration systems and whether they will function without a colorimeter, as this is news to me and could be of broader interest to this community.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Yo Stephen-

I have personally used most of the Spyder, Monaco, and Gregtag systems over the last 4 years. Many pro-amateurs hire me to help them get started on CMS and they have usually already bought a calibration system, and I use whatever they have.

The results each one gives are so close to the other that it's indistinguishable. What separates them is the UI and manufacturing of the unit itself.

This Spyder system sounds like a good choice you've made for yourself. I've used them, and they definitely get the job done, and will fulfill your needs. They feel a little "cheep" and look ghastly, but my clients who have them, have kept using them over the years.

That's my technology advice, as far as buying advice, get whatever fulfills your needs now. Imagining what you will "need" in 3-4 years is a bottomless pit, especially in the technology field.

party on playboy,

party on...

Alan Klement

___________________________________________________________________________

Hi Mark,

I have been led to believe by statements on this list by Andrew Rodney that it is impossible to match an RGB monitor to a print and I believe this to be true. Calibration devices and soft proofing will get us close but there is always a mental adjustment needed when we colour correct. So, where do we make this metal adjustment from. In my case it is easier made from the presets that came with my monitor than it is when the monitor has been calibrated. This might change as my lcd monitor gets older.

Your characterization of the original spyder as junk is correct but it wasn't, when I bought it, a cheap device. Macworld has a similar opinion of the The Eye-One Display 2 which is also not exactly cheap. Macworld recommends the X-Rite’s Monaco OptixXR Pro as best bought by professionals who will be able to get the most from its controls but maybe a quote from their review is best; "Spending a bit of time with the adjustment curves yielded some great profiles, but the test image was a bit warm on screen compared with the reference print". Not exactly a ringing endorsement but I guess a "mental adjustment" can be made to compensate.

My belief that built in colour management devices will be coming soon came about a year ago as I looked at the specs of some mid level lcd Viewsonics which had a built in calibration system. I don't know how well these systems work but obviously those who manufacture monitors are getting interested in accurate colour and I believe this is coming about because of the web. Companies want their corporate colours to look the same on everyones' computers and right now they don't. The same can be said for watching movies on a laptop. The only way the manufacturers can guarantee this is to have a built in system. On the professional level, soft proofing is becoming a major potential source of saving money but it is being found to be impractical on many levels because there is no guarantee that consistent proofing conditions are being met. I refer you to a position paper by the International Digital Enterprise Alliance dated 5/24/06 for more details.

Regards, John

___________________________________________________________________________

I can't believe this argument is still going on. It's like arguing with a printer about whether or not they're going to strip all the profiles out of your RGB files before they send them to their RIP (something that still happens with surprising frequency...) Hello?!!! Is anybody in there?

It's 2007! It's OK to use the current technology! We don't have to make believe it's still 1950.

Jim Rich offered the most balanced response a few posts back:

There are many valid 1950's techniques (like knowing the relative values of the CMYK numbers) that are best used in combination with current 21st century techniques (like color management.) To rely on either one blindly and exclusively will result in something less efficient in terms of accuracy, cost or both. To advise a "newbie" to dispense with calibrating their monitor and rely on "the numbers" in this day and age is malpractice, pure and simple.

Anecdote from the salt mines:

I just finished an annual report (I'm the photographer and also supplied corrected CMYK file ready to drop into InDesign). The printer supplied me with an ICC profile of their press (yes, the press, not their proofer). I did my color correction (I still use CMYK read-outs to get my skin tones right) and retouching in RGB, converted to their press profile, performed minor tweaks to the black plate, applied some selective black plate sharpening, proofed those CMYK files on my custom profiled Epson 3800 (GMG SemiMatte 250 proofing paper). The printer used my proofs as guides. After the initial make-ready, it required only one or two pulls of each form before the client signed off on the color. The match between my monitor, my proof and the press sheet was scary accurate. In a nutshell, I pulled one proof off of my Epson (not several rounds), and the printer pulled between one and two sheets off the press to get the color. That's how color management works - a nice blend of 1950's and 21st century. I can't imagine doing this as efficiently or accurately in a non-CMS environment.

Rick

RICK MCCLEARY PHOTOGRAPHY

201 Orchard Drive

Purcellville, VA 20132

v 540-338-4895

c 540-454-7180

www.rickmccleary.com

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/9/07 10:14 AM, "John Denniston" wrote:

100% match? True. That would break the laws of physics. We've got a backlit, glowing set of phosphors (or an LCD using a Fluorescent light) meaning an emissive device and a reflective print. But you can and should be able to get in the mid 90% range if you do everything correctly, the rest is an easy exercise in making a mental adjustment. That said, getting two quite dissimilar reflective printing devices to match 100% is probably impossible too. Ever see a contract proof and press sheet match perfectly? I haven't. But they can get pretty darn close and the idea is to remove surprises.

Apple had this supposed self calibrating display ages ago and it didn't work. You really need some kind of external instrument to measure the emissive color. Now we probably could have a self calibrating device but calibrating to what? There's no fixed or correct target calibration aim point. Sure, you could leave the white point and TRC gamma alone although to build a profile, you need to know what those native values are. But luminance is based on the ambient light you view your prints and around the display. And If you really want to nail this, you'd measure the white point of the viewing booth and build that info into both the paper profile and define this in the display profile. You'd also need to adjust the dynamic range of the display to match the print.

Until web browsers by and large are color managed, its not going to help much. In fact, if we just had more than two or three Mac only web browsers, all you'd need to do is work as we do today with a good display profile.

Devices that change their behavior all the time are super problematic for obvious reasons and color management can't help here. Nothing can!

On 4/9/07 10:15 AM, "Rick McCleary" wrote:

I recall the old, old days when prepress shops were sort of thinking of using Iris Ink jets as proofs. The majority of shops thought that was a silly idea, there's no way you could pull such proofs from an ink jet. Then the Iris became an expensive ink leaking door stop. Shops started to use Epson's for the same task. Of course I recall the old days when folks would say you couldn't possibility do quality retouch work in Photoshop 1.0.7 or even 2.0 on a Mac. You HAD to use a Quantel Paint box. Those old devices are also being used as door stops. We hear this over and over again. Digital SLR's are toys, no one can get good quality from Raw files, or anyone who knows anything can correct a JPEG better. It never ends. Of course those people are historically proven wrong. Where are all the old typesetters working these days?

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 8, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Mark Segal wrote:

I disagree. There are principles involved with color correction that are independent of output. In the case that the output device is so, very so marginally normal, then the by-the-numbers kind of thinking is meaningless - which is the direction color management ideologies have tended for some time.

If extended, the science of profiled output could be reduced to:

The numbers by which you work are meaningless - they only have meaning within the context of the particular device. Image editing and color correction are, therefore, limited to the judgments made solely based on the display.

Adding or subtracting Cyan from a specific color, even before output, can be proper color correction. The previous point is relevant here again: An output device that is developed that is so very unusual that it cannot render without the aid of color management might be thought of quite fondly in some circles.

Neither can I. Adding more Cyan adds more Cyan. Reducing Cyan reduces Cyan. The exception is when color management situations reduce by-the-numbers correction to meaninglessness. The most straightforward situation is where there are no profiles used, wherein, color values are what they are. When something is what it is, that something is more "self-evident", to my way of thinking.

I disagree. And, no, I am not anti color management.

I'll not ask why, but I see that this portion of my post was omitted:

"I understand the time and waste assumptions, but the gist of

color correction is not color management."

Again, my post read:

"I do not agree with this statement, but don't want to start a flaming

argument over it. Color management has little to do with color

correction techniques (process control is a different matter)."

I understand how sensitive some on the list are towards anything that, by even a stretch, can be considered threatening. My post was a case in point. Nowhere did I say anything negative about the usefulness of color management, yet some responses indicate a real testiness about the subject - even when it hasn't been maligned.

As for the accusation of my positing of a straw-man argument, well, I'm afraid I missed that. Just where did I do this? By saying that color correction is not the same as color management. Sorry, but this isn't a straw-man. The point of my post was that they are not the same, which is what you said yourself:

I am not trying to strike a nerve. The very worst thing that I have suggested is that color management is not a magic solution as some folks might be led to believe. As for the Color Theory list, I believe that more effort should be made in the direction of distinguishing the act of color correcting from the topic of color management. Saying that one cannot properly color correct without color management makes about as much sense as saying that adding Cyan actually reduces Cyan (which may or may not be the case when profiles are used).

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Henry,

You say: Professional quality color correction and printing can be done without the aid of profiles." Theoretically speaking your statement is correct, but practically speaking, if it is taken to mean that we should dispense with profiles, then that is not good advice to Stephen.

Would you define "quality color correction and printing" as used in your statement, I'm working on a project to *accurately* reproduce watercolor originals and I cannot see how this can be done without using profiles and properly calibrated equipment.

Student Stephen Thaxton is asking for our suggestions and advices regarding a calibration system, what would you recommend and what are your advices to him?

Andre Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/9/07 10:14 AM, John Denniston wrote:

on 4/9/07 12:36 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

Maybe what we're talking about here is a "black-box" to compensate for drift. The word "calibrate may be misleading us.

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

I'll have some of that as well, please.

Cheers,

_andrew

On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:53 PM, Henry arranged some pixels so they

looked like this:

___________________________________________________________________________

On 4/9/07 5:16 PM, "Henry" wrote:

If you're not working based on an output device then you're working in an editing space which is what Adobe calls a working space. And like all color spaces, we use profiles to define the scale of the numbers. R255/0G/0B is the most saturated color we can define in an 8-bit system but that's a totally different location for sRGB compared to ProPhoto RGB. But they share the same numbers. Color management is simply the process by which we define arbitrary numbers with a color appearance. Profiles give the same numbers a scale so we know what we're talking about. IOW, R255/0G/0B isn't the same color in those two color spaces, without defining the scale of the numbers, they have no true meaning.

If you're talking Cyan, you're talking output color space. So you're talking a device and again, you need to define the scale of the numbers.

Color management is just number management. All computers understand are numbers. Numbers alone don't provide enough information to define a color for the reasons I expressed above. Numbers without a scale are RGB or CMYK mystery meat.

True but that's like saying you want to describe a recipe for chocolate cake and adding sugar is adding sugar. OK but you haven't defined the scale, only the ingredient. A cup of sugar is a lot different than a tablespoon of sugar. Until you define a scale, you're not providing useful information. As soon as you tell me to add half a cup of sugar (or talk in other units like liters), you're no longer giving my a mystery meat recipe I can't follow. All profiles do is define the scale of the numbers within human vision.

Andrew Rodney

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry,

I guess it boils to this: regardless of the numbers and how people use numbers, when doing colour correction it is helpful to be able to visualize on your monitor with reasonable predictability what will emerge from your printer, otherwise what's the point? And to do that, you need to make conscious and intelligent use of a monitor profile and a paper/printer-specific printer profile. All these devices use profiles - there is nothing to argue about that - it is technical fact. To get those right and move beyond the hit-and-miss, you need to use some hardware and software. There is really little useful substitute for a decent colorimeter/profiling package for the monitor if your objective is to achieve a high degree of predictability. Printer profiles one can make, buy, or use what comes with the printer. Stephen was asking for advice about monitor profiling and that is what some of us have been trying to provide, in a manner that is relevant to best practices in the year 2007. For the thousands of prints I've been making over past several years I can only say that the OptixXR colorimeter and ColorEyes Display software I bought back then was one of the best investments in digital darkroom productivity I have made. No regrets and no second thoughts. But there are other good packages on the market as well. The important thing is to get a decent one and use it properly.

I'm tuning out of this discussion now, because I have nothing more to contribute to it.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 9, 2007, at 4:16 PM, Henry wrote:

Really? I'll give you an image, you correct it, then I'll chose the output device and we'll see how it looks.

What are you talking about? What is an output device that is "marginally normal?"

Henry,

I read your entire post 3 times and I still have no idea what you're talking about. To me, this is "ideological garbage." Just what is this "color management ideology" that you're talking about? Color management has always been about making visually accurate reproductions and transformations - "What you get is what you expect" being the goal. Digital imaging *by its nature* is about math. Everything you do in Photoshop has solid mathematical underpinnings. The goal of color management is to use the numbers and the math to keep the image looking as much the same as possible on physical devices that have very different characteristics, be they monitors, inkjets, scanners, or printing presses. Did you ever read Steve Upton's The Color of Toast?

Without an output device, of some kind, a digital image is just a pile of numbers. The output device can be a monitor, an inkjet printer, a color copier, an offset press, or a lot of other devices. Color correction *can* be done without a display - if you want to burn a lot of media making prints.

If color management is so bad, why don't you delete all the profiles from your computer and avoid it completely? No printer profiles, no monitor profile, no working space profile... just "edit the numbers." And then take a look at your prints. Of course, you still really can't turn off color management in Photoshop...

Sorry, but this is so far out in the right field bleachers that I don't know what else to say.

The printing industry is moving to *colorimetrically* defined standards. I would strongly encourage you to read the new G7 training guide.

Calibrating, Printing and Proofing by the G7™ Method

http://www.gracol.org/resources/G7_how-to_v6[final].pdf

If you have doubts about the future of soft proofing, check out page 37, on remote soft proofing. You might also take a look at Remote Director.

http://www.icscolor.com/products/director/

A lot of agencies are moving in that direction. Why? Because it works, and it saves time and money.

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:03 AM, colorman042000 wrote:

I don't find it reasonable to conclude that my posts could in any way be taken to be that of advising anyone to dispense with profiles.

My advice is that he not mistake color correction for calibration, and not lean on calibration as a crutch. That, regardless of the system he chooses, a student should learn the fundamentals of color, how to "see" colors and how to work with their interactions. There are "whys" and "hows" that can be studied and learned about the subject of color without any reliance on the topic of calibration, profiles or color management.

As can be seen from this thread, a discussion of this topic can only be expected to generate knee-jerk, and reactionary responses. Some of the members might benefit from reading the words in posts rather than searching for ammo from between the lines. They do not need to expend so much effort on an ongoing defense of something that my posts haven't challenged.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Mark Segal wrote:

I appreciate the effort to which you have gone in trying to convince me that anything in this reply has anything to do with: the principles of color correction. There is, however, a lot in the reply that is dedicated to the subject of color management.

This thread has become rather pointless, except for the point that I hope some will take to heart: that we see color even when we are not looking at monitors. Learning how to see them and how they interact is not color management. Applied human judgment is the root of the best, most professional, most appealing color correction that occurs - outside of nature.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Richard Wagner wrote:

Isn't this what I said? I don't know what you read, but I will say it over again:

"The numbers by which you work are meaningless - they only have meaning within the context of the particular device".

I would like to add that the relationship of color values is meaningful and is something that the principles of color correction can address.

How silly. Did I say that color management was bad?

I don't believe that anything I have said rates this kind of paint job.

Thank you for the recommendation, but the assumption that I haven't read it is an incorrect one. Furthermore, foisting these kinds of assumptions upon the list could be damaging to reputations. There are some folks who might have something to offer but may avoid doing so.

Earlier on, I was accused of positing a "straw-man" argument. Isn't it really the case that the straw-man argument has actually been generated by others, and not by me? I have drawn the distinction between color correction and color management. However, some can't seem to leave it at that. No, they go on and on with assumptions and accusations that have nothing, nothing to do with the principles of color correction, but have a great deal to do with color management. Where then, is the straw-man? Maybe they know so much about color management that the topic of color correction is passe?

The Applied Color Theory list is a fine place to learn, and maybe the principles of color correction aren't passe for all of us.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry,

I've gone over your post, and response, several times and I'm still not sure what point(s) you were trying to make. Let me go slowly, one last time (as allowed by the rules).

What do you mean by your qualifier, "If extended.."? And "the science of profiled output?" Sounds like a backhanded slap at color management, to me.

The "relationship of color values" only has meaning when the context is defined. If you look on Wikipedia under "color correction," the context is modifying light with colored gels. With digital images, the context is equally important. If you do not have a well-defined system, "color correction" is meaningless, unless it is to apply only to the device on which it is done (say, for example, a kiosk display). Regardless, I don't see the connection between your comments on "color correction" and the OP's question about colorimeters and monitor calibration (the title of this thread).

Well, you would be unable to "add or subtract cyan" on your RGB monitor if not color color management. If you are working in a CMYK color model, something has to translate your intentions to your output device. So is an RGB monitor "so very unusual?" Or do you ignore the appearance of the image on the monitor and work "strictly by the numbers?"

You seem to imply that it is of little value.

Well, not so clearly. I still don't understand what your point is concerning "color correction" as opposed to "color management." The two go hand in hand. If you color correct without color management, all bets are off if you pass that image along to another device. If the device that you are working on is not calibrated, again, all bets are off if you pass the image along, even *with* otherwise good color management.

Color correction is still dependent on the output device. If you "color correct" a high-res, high-quality image for an Epson 3800 with Luster paper and then try to print that image on web offset, it will likely look like crud. If you "color correct" the image for web offset and then print it on the Epson 3800, it will not look as good as the first print. Output matters. This is why soft-proofing is important (unless you have a lot of media to waste, or a ton of experience and good luck.)

Perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by "color correction" as opposed to "color management."

I agree with this. There are a lot of new tools available for color correction in CS3, ACR4, and Lightroom that have never been discussed here at all. However, color correction in the absence of color management is an exercise in futility.

Best,

--Rich Wagner

___________________________________________________________________________

This thread has now gotten entirely away from what the OP asked into areas of political correctness, so we ask that it be stopped. We will keep it open for 24 hours and request that those participating limit themselves to one further post.

The OP indicated that he is a STUDENT who wishes to calibrate the monitor of a LAPTOP. Although I don't use hardware calibration myself, AFAIK there isn't any hardware that reliably calibrates a laptop monitor.

Also, the recommendation for a STUDENT may reasonably be different for that of a professional studio photographer. He may well face future situations where he is forced to do some kind of calibration where machine assistance is impossible or ineffective. Even if, for the sake of argument, he could get a better result with hardware, it would probably be worth his while to gain the experience of calibrating it himself.

Of that which was posted in direct response to the OP's question I agree with the comments of Ric Cohn. With respect to the comments on calibration vs. color correction I agree with the comments of Henry Davis. Nobody has suggested, contrary to some posting, that people shouldn't calibrate monitors or output devices.

With respect to "modern" practice, I first calibrated a monitor to reliable match to print in 1981. The problem of monitor-to-print match to many different conditions was completely solved in the high-end community in the late 1980s. I managed color at several different operations between then and 1996. Even at those that were poorly run, calibration was not a problem--the waste was caused by individual operators who thought that a calibrated monitor excused them from having to set proper endpoints or measuring neutrals for accuracy. I found it effective to force these people to correct color on grayscale monitors (properly calibrated for darkness) until they wised up.

In that entire time I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of jobs that had to be redone due to faulty calibration on the part of the company; this out of maybe half a million jobs to maybe fifty different output conditions. Calibration can be made more efficient than that, but not more effective. When the first profiling packages came on the market, complete with claims from their peddlers that they would end all color issues forever and eliminate the need for process control, they were offering an expensive, time-consuming, error-prone solution to a problem that did not exist. Not to mention, the profiles they generated were very inferior.

The packages are much better today, of course. Calibrating a CRT monitor is easy enough that a machine can do it adequately without human intervention, which is more than can be said for print conditions. But for a high-end user, it's certainly not standard to use a machine to do what we can already do perfectly well with our eyes and experience. The only question is whether it's more convenient, just as Ric says.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Dan Margulis wrote:

Wait a second. Before I answer OP's question, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. You don't use hardware calibration AND there isn't any hardware that reliably calibrates a laptop monitor? That's based on what testing Dan? It is IMHO nonsense. Calibration is the process of putting a device into a consistent and repeatable state. This is absolutely possible with a number of devices on a Laptop. I've been doing it for years. Is the laptop a good display for color critical work? Not really. It's a far cry from my Sony Artisan! But I can consistently produce the same color appearance from the same numbers, using a laptop. These devices CAN be placed into a r