What do you guys use to calibrate your monitors? I never really thought about it until ordering some test prints as it was never something that crossed my mind. I started out as a gamer so accurate color reproduction was never an issue I ever saw, but now it is. Was thinking of maybe budgeting about $500 give or take for a calibrator and monitor, though getting a calibrator first and seeing if it could even fix my monitor. Pic related, seems decent for the price based on reviews, but was curious as to what you guys use. Also, any sub $500 monitor suggestions are appreciated as well. [:
I never got really into it but does anyone have any experience with DisplayCAL and ArgyllCMS?
>>2858245
>>2858245
I am using this very combination, ColorMunki with the Dispcal and Agryll... gotta say Dispcal is a way more thorough application than the original software it came with.
Also, I wouldn't pay anyone to get my screen calibrated, this is something that should be done on a monthly basis or so, the very point of having calibrated screens is that you know you are pretty much on spot.. if you don't calibrate your screen regularly you can only hope.
>>2858259
This is exactly why I am starting to look in to it. Since I got my test prints back, they look quite a bit different than on my monitor. And so before I do any more editing on new pics or can get any stuff actually printed, I feel I need to have my monitor calibrated and may even just need to get a new monitor and calibrate that as well.
>>2858259
Is there any tutorial you can recommend? Preferably one that give you good results without having to know too much about the physics behind the whole process.
I was worried too the first time I printed 75*50 digital, but I always make my Eizo monitor automagically switch to sRGB mode whenever an image editing program is used (all the workflow is in sRGB) and didn't have bad surprises when I got the prints, so I never bothered fiddling with those calibrators since then, especially because it's a thing you use once and then put it in the closet the rest of your life...
I have an Retina display MacBook pro. I'm good.
>>2858308
here you go, this is the one that got me going:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uDPEPQ8H2g
>>2858334
>>2858338
Thanks a lot! I'll check it out.
>>2858241
I struggled with this for awhile. There was actually a time where I didnt know what monitor calibration was, and I didnt understand why my images looked so terrible on others' devices, but great on mine (great, imo, anyways).
Not only should you get some kind of calibration hardware (I have the i1 2 by X-Rite, which I picked up used for about $100 off amazon), but you also have to make sure that your 'puter loads the profiles after doing the calibration. It is burried under several menus in your color management menus, which makes it hard to get to. I had trouble with this too, because I calibrated my monitor, but the profile didnt load every time I started my computer up. Also, if it went to sleep, the calibration profile would not load back up when I woke the computer.
For this, I would recommend that you download a display ptofile picker, like the one shown in the attached file.
Once you are all calibrated up, it will change your life. It is also important to understand the difference between color spaces. Even if you edit in RGB, it is mostly true that 'the internet' automatically converts everything to sRGB, which will also change the appearance of your photos. For the most part, I mainly edit in sRGB mode, since most of my images only ever get displayed digitally, as opposed to print.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Gordon Image-Specific Properties:
>>2858414
yeah, I am a special needs child. Didnt work at all like I intended. Use your imagination...
I use pic related and edit in a pretty dimly lit room. At this point, I know my monitor pretty well so it is second nature.
Knowing your monitor is a lot like knowing your camera.
>>2858411
Unfortunately calibrating your own display does not solve this issue, unless you can verify that every member of your audience is looking at an identically calibrated display or print of your image.
>>2858715
> every member of your audience is looking at an identically calibrated display
Yes, I agree with you on that. But then it becomes their problem and not yours. And at least you know that you are editing and publishing your photos based on the standards set forth by the International Color Consortium. That's the point of standards, is that hopefully everyone adopts and adheres to the same standard. Also, if you ever send your photos to a newspaper or magazine, etc, you wont get laughed out of town by their photo editor.
The reality of this whole deal is though, that even the ICC pretty much chose a more or less arbitrary combination of color values to go with and stuck with it.
