color calibration, is it over rated?

[Sam Carleton]

The subject says it all, is calibrating your monitor over rated? Last
week I bought a Coolscan 5000 ED. My objective is to shoot portraits on
film, scan them in via the scanner, and then send to my lab for
printing.

My lab gave me a profile for Photoshop and a real photograph with
instructions as to how to get the image on the screen to match as
closely as possible the real photograph. The only difference I can see
is that the real print has more saturation then what is on the screen.

I do want to get the skin tones as perfect as possible. Considering my
situation, would color calibration pay off? My guess is that it would.

If it will pay off, which of the many, many different color calibration
units should I consider?

Sam

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

The subject says it all, is calibrating your monitor over rated?

The trouble with colour calibration and profiling is that people expect
it to be the miraculous solution to all their colour problems. Some kind
of magic that will deliver the 'right' colours, spot on, no matter what
the subject, lighting or other circumstances have been. All this at the
flick of a switch.

It's somewhat like the frenzy around colour analyzers in the days of
RA-4 printing.

Nothing replaces a trained human eye. Colour correction is and will
always be a painful business. But a calibrated and profiled system can
help a lot if you know what it will and won't do.

You might want to read up on the subject before spending your money so
that you can make an informed decision.

Ralf

 

[Sam Carleton]

The trouble with colour calibration and profiling is that people expect
it to be the miraculous solution to all their colour problems. Some kind
of magic that will deliver the 'right' colours, spot on, no matter what
the subject, lighting or other circumstances have been. All this at the
flick of a switch.

It's somewhat like the frenzy around colour analyzers in the days of
RA-4 printing.

If I understand what you are say, even with color calibration it is
very possible to get a TIFF off to the lab and get back a picture that
looks different. The color calibration will help narrow the gap between
my systems and the labs, but not eliminate it. Correct?

Nothing replaces a trained human eye. Colour correction is and will
always be a painful business. But a calibrated and profiled system can
help a lot if you know what it will and won't do.

You might want to read up on the subject before spending your money so
that you can make an informed decision.

I found this book "Real World Color Management", do you know anything
about it? Is it a good place to start learning about this stuff? I
have a link on my web site to the book:

<http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/photo/books.php>

Sam

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

If I understand what you are say, even with color calibration it is
very possible to get a TIFF off to the lab and get back a picture that
looks different.

No.

You appear to be one step further than the majority of people who still
expect colour calibration to be some magical tool to help them get those
awful colours right in the scanning process. That's what I was referring
to.

I found this book "Real World Color Management", do you know anything
about it?

No, I don't. I know a few decent websites on the subject but I'm sorry
to say none of them is in English.

Ralf

 

[Sam Carleton]

No.

Ah, ok, good. I really did not believe, no hoped, that was not what you
where saying. The only other interpretation I can come up with is that
you are saying that most folks don't have an eye for "color balance".

Are you saying: The first step in good color is understanding the
difference between good color and bad. It matters not how well
calibrated the monitor is to the lab if the person in front of the
monitor doesn't know the difference between a green cast, magenta cast,
and a cyan cast?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my impression that either you can
see the subtle changes in color or you can't. If one cannot see a
subtle change in color, can they learn to see it or are their eyes
simply not capable of it? Any thoughts?

You appear to be one step further than the majority of people who still
expect colour calibration to be some magical tool to help them get those
awful colours right in the scanning process.

Well, I down own my own wet darkroom and in years past spent some time,
painful, printing color. I fully understanding that color balance
really is in the eye of the beholder, as long as s/he has a good light
source that does not skew the results.

Sam

 

[CCD]

When I calibrated my monitor with a friend's Optical Spyder I had to adjust
my brightness (turn it down), and my Red Blue and Green controls were all
way way off. He calibrates his pro lab every week with the device, but only
once every six months at home, and he says when it's done once correctly
you're usually okay for a while, monitors will "drift" with time. I send my
photos to a lab via the computer now and the before and after was noticable.

 

[Philip Homburg]

Ah, ok, good. I really did not believe, no hoped, that was not what you
where saying. The only other interpretation I can come up with is that
you are saying that most folks don't have an eye for "color balance".

Are you saying: The first step in good color is understanding the
difference between good color and bad. It matters not how well
calibrated the monitor is to the lab if the person in front of the
monitor doesn't know the difference between a green cast, magenta cast,
and a cyan cast?

The thing about calibrating your monitor is that you get a more or less
objective reference. (Assuming that can you trust your calibration device).

Of course, you may want to have reference (D50) light source as well
for judging prints.

The first target is to go the whole process repeatable. If you color correct
a negative to get a nice skin color and the print becomes too red, and the
next time, you correct another negative to a nice skin color and again the
print becomes too red, then you know that something is wrong with the
printer profile (assuming you have a printer profile).

With an uncalibrated monitor, mixed lighting, etc. there is no way of
knowing what is happening.

Of course, at the end of the day, getting a great print requires artistic
judgement, and not some mechanical translation process of colors. The fancy
term for this (if you try to do it automatically) is 'gamut mapping'.

 

[Chris Cox]

The subject says it all, is calibrating your monitor over rated? Last
week I bought a Coolscan 5000 ED. My objective is to shoot portraits on
film, scan them in via the scanner, and then send to my lab for
printing.

My lab gave me a profile for Photoshop and a real photograph with
instructions as to how to get the image on the screen to match as
closely as possible the real photograph. The only difference I can see
is that the real print has more saturation then what is on the screen.

Calibration can certainly help you get more reliable output - but
you're still dependent on the quality of your display (it probably
can't display all the colors you can print), the quality of your own
color judgement, the quality and process control used for printing, the
quality of the profile supplied by the printer, etc.

I found this book "Real World Color Management", do you know anything
about it? Is it a good place to start learning about this stuff? I
have a link on my web site to the book:

It's a lot to learn - but it is the best reference for an end-user.

Chris

 

[Sam Carleton]

Of course, at the end of the day, getting a great print requires
artistic judgement, and not some mechanical translation process of
colors. The fancy term for this (if you try to do it automatically) is
'gamut mapping'.

I do intend to learn the techie stuff, I am a computer geek, too, make a
living writing software. But my focus with photography is to be able to
make an image look exactly the way I want it to look and then have the
print look the exact same, too.

With an uncalibrated monitor, mixed lighting, etc. there is no way of
knowing what is happening.

too true

Of course, you may want to have reference (D50) light source as well
for judging prints.

Man that sounds like a digital photography geek thing, where do I get
one?

Sam

 

[Sam Carleton]

Man that sounds like a digital photography geek thing, where do I get
one?

Don't you love it when you can answer your own Q:

http://www.gtilite.com/

More helpful links can be found at:

http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/links/index.php?action=displaycat&catid=4

Sam

 

[false_dmitrii]

If I understand what you are say, even with color calibration it is
very possible to get a TIFF off to the lab and get back a picture that
looks different. The color calibration will help narrow the gap between
my systems and the labs, but not eliminate it. Correct?

From my limited understanding, it's better to say that with *proper*
management, meaning regular calibration and profiling, you'll do two
things: get the best possible conversion between different color
spaces (think "media") for your purposes and desired lighting
conditions, and ensure consistency from one conversion to the next.
Your calibrated monitor can never match *any* printed page 100% (or
even, under different lighting, itself), but by using color management
in conjunction with your lab you can be sure of your output before
your lab ever sends it back to you. Likewise, you can ensure that
your profiled RGB scanner converts CMYK prints using *your* desired
approach each and every time, and that your profiled monitor will then
display those colors properly, once again enabling you to predict and
control how your profiled printer (or your lab's) will output them.
Of course, it's quite possible and perhaps desirable to restrict your
RGB working pallette to match the printer's even more closely--check
for "out of gamut" colors using the printer profile.

That's all I'll say, for fear of being horribly, horribly wrong.

I found this book "Real World Color Management", do you know anything
about it? Is it a good place to start learning about this stuff? I
have a link on my web site to the book:

I'm over halfway through and find it very informative, though for my
decidedly non-professional requirements true color management seems
far too expensive. The book is excellent at describing what *not* to
expect from a color management system, and why. Keep in mind that not
only is it impossible to convert every color from one "space" to the
next, it's also impossible to isolate that color from the lighting
conditions around it. All proper color management can do is guarantee
consistency and the best *possible* conversion accuracy (toward your
desired target) during your production process--your image files and
prints are still subject to the "real world" once they're put into
use.

Regards,
false_dmitrii

 

[Philip Homburg]

I do intend to learn the techie stuff, I am a computer geek, too, make a
living writing software. But my focus with photography is to be able to
make an image look exactly the way I want it to look and then have the
print look the exact same, too.

The problem is that the gamut of a monitor is not strictly larger than
the gamut of a print.

You don't want to limit yourself to the intersection of the gamuts of your
monitor and your printer.

Soft proofing in a color managed application is supposed to help you
visualize what is going to appear on paper. But in the end, monitors
and printers are completely different devices. Sort of in the same
way slides and prints are also completely different.