Monitor Profiling Tips

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=58664.0

Title: Need help with ColorMunki Preferences on iMAC 27" CLUELESS HELP!
Post by: buckikiddies on October 17, 2011, 12:09:22 PM

I just upgraded my Spyder 3 Express to the new Xrite Colormunki. I am using the new 27" iMAC and I don't know if my monitor type should be RGB LED or White LED in the Advanced settings of the Colormunki. I am trying to get a lab print to monitor match and I'm not seeing it yet when I calibrate so I think something is off in my settings. There are three things I just need clarification on that I'm able to make a selection for within the Colormunki settings, if you are familiar with the iMAC screen please let me know what I should be choosing here:

White Point: Native or D65 (recommended setting)

White Luminance: use default or select my own cd/m2? (I can choose anything between 80 - 140 or Native)

Tone Response Curve: 1.8 or 2.2 (default)

Display Technology Type: White LED, RGB LED, CCFL, Wide Gamut CCFL

ICC Profile Version: Version 2 or 4

Any direction on which setting to use when profiling would be appreciated.

===

Title: Re: Need help with ColorMunki Preferences on iMAC 27" CLUELESS HELP!
Post by: shewhorn on October 21, 2011, 01:30:42 AM

In terms of Color Temp you can completely disregard what anyone tells you is "right". While the number may be ideal for a certain situation, your colorimeter may not be capable of hitting that target. If I calibrate and profile one of my screens to D65 using a Spectrophotometer and then measure the exact same spot with a Spyder 3 and a DTP-94, the numbers I get back are 7200ºK and 5600ºK respectively. Luminance is also all over the place. If the luminance is measured at 110 cd/m^2 with the spectro, the Spyder 3 will say 120 cd/m^2, the DTP94 agrees, and my i1 Display Pro tells me it's 96 cd/m^2. So, the instruments themselves can vary from unit to unit a great deal. Ethan Hansen has done some great work analyzing the consistency of the current tools on the market. You can read it here:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/MonitorCalibrationHardware.html

So, in addition to colorimeters being all over the place, you also have your illuminant to consider. If you proof with a 3500ºK bulb like John Paul Caponigro likes to do... D65 is most likely going to be way too cool. If your illuminant is D50 and you're looking at a traditional RA-4 print then D65 is what you want but the best way to get there is to use a known print and then adjust the white point until your screen matches paper white (same goes for luminance). Keep in mind that you might have an optimal luminance for proofing which might give you a headache when editing.

The best settings for white point and luminance are the settings that best match the conditions in your print viewing booth.

As for the other settings, type is white LED as mentioned. Set the gamma to 2.2. Again as mentioned, stick with the V2 profile.

Now... there's another HUGE part of this equation.

Quote
I am trying to get a lab print to monitor match and I'm not seeing it yet when I calibrate so I think something is off in my settings.

Your settings could be spot on, but unless you're using your lab's soft proofing profile in Photoshop, the print and the screen will never match. Photoshop needs to know how the output device (your printer) behaves so that it can make the appropriate adjustments to what you're seeing. There's a few settings in the soft proofing setup. One of them is "simulate paper color". It does a few things but one of the biggies is that it adjusts the contrast to match your paper's contrast. Your screen might have a contrast ratio of 500:1 or 600:1. Your print probably has a contrast ratio of 250:1 so you need to account for that when comparing a print to your screen. If you're just looking at the image straight up in PS you won't be seeing the changes that result from the printing process.

Cheers, Joe