Remember the days when you had to use the Adobe Gamma Control Panel to calibrate your monitor and conform the gamma to a lab or printing device? If you used 3 different labs, digital prepress, or in-house printer, for the most part you had to load a different Gamma Control Panel setting (unless you were an advanced color management user), and then you had to re-adjust your already adjusted image to come close to simulating what you were seeing on your monitor. Back then it was called WYSIWYG, pronounced wizzy-wig.
The term Wizzy-wig was with us until the mid 2000′s and sort of stopped being a calibration term so frequently when monitor calibration took on a new level of accuracy. Today, monitor calibration is a normal procedure for nearly half of the photographers, both pro and serious. Devices to calibrate monitors include several devices on XritePhoto.com and colorvision.com, are easy to use, and just about the least expensive piece of digital equipment you will ever own, adapts to various operating systems and cross platform, create consistency so you can finally see your images more accurately.
A properly calibrated monitor is only as good as the graphics card that feeds it data to be displayed. And the dynamic range or contrast ratio or a monitor will translate the graphics card data to give you the most accurate image color and tonal values.
In my opinion, a properly calibrated monitor is half the battle in color management. The other half is more complex and for the most part, is in place either automatically, or by equipment or services. So in effect, the best thing you can do for your workflow is at least properly calibrate your monitor using a calibration device.
The next level to conquer is learning how and when to use color space profiles and output profiles. 14 years ago you had to either be an expert in color management or hire someone who was to get great results consistently. Color science and manufactures have made it much easier today to take advantage of keeping a consistent means of obtaining predictable results.
Todays cameras are capable of capturing a wider gamut of color than can be seen on a display or even used in an image file upon export. The color space we use confines or expands the color gamut that we can process, and the output limits how much of that gamut can be used ultimately.
Happy trails to you…
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi, I agree with your post and there is some good info. I too am from the old school and remember vividly the use of the Gamma Control Panel to try and profile to various labs outputs. However we are still in a WYSIWYG world when it comes to monitor calibration, at least I am. Yes color can be matched, however its the brightness and contrast where these devices fall so short. I think the problem is with the monitor technology that we all use on a daily basis, the back-lit LCD’s are just too bight from the start. Combined with the automated solutions that most Labs have in place to insure the proper brightness for a print, they mask brightness issues from the photographer.
I myself work with a custom print house WHCC who does not apply any sort of correction at all. What you send them is what you get back. Soft proofing with .icc paper profiles will help with colors that may fall out of gamut, but they will not help you match luminance.
In 99% of all color managed workflow content, you always hear about profiling is a must, and I do agree. However there almost never any of good information oh how to set the proper luminance to match a output of another calibrated device. Two devices (a monitor and a printer) can be profiled by the same exact device (i1 pro) and the output can still be miles off. All because of brightness and contrast.
There is no amount of profiling I could of ever done to get my monitors dark enough. I tried every non WYSIWYG solution such ad the i1pro, ColorMunki Photo, Spyder Pro III to read and ambient, and try to set the proper luminance/brightness and contrast via the software. The most intuitive software, i1 Profiler has automated corrective solutions but never come close.
In the end, what I had to do was use my initial test prints from WHCC and knock the brightness and contrast down to match the print (WYSIWYG) then run a new color profile. Instead of letting the software set brightness and contrast, I locked the luminance to 90 cd/m2 and now my output is much closer. But I want an exact and measured match. I do not want to guess ever.
I do not know why most monitor calibration posts don’t discuss the proper way to adjust your contrast and brightness settings to match a specific labs environment. Color calibration is simple, its the brightness controls that are a real pain in the neck. I think X rite should build a specific device that profiles brightness and contrast of a monitor so those setting can be matched to a working environment as a reference standard, much like a standardized color space (like sRBG, and ProPhotoRBG),. The contrast controls of a monitor have more effect on luminance than the brightness control seems to and I know manufacturing tolerances are different on every unit. This is why we need a device to measure and match the Brightness and Contrast settings to a standardized viewing environment at the face of the LCD screen.
Maybe I am looking at this whole problem in the wrong way. I always thought you calibrate to a known and exact reference. While this is true for color information. Burning up paper and ink trying to match a dark print to a monitor is no exact science not to mention frustrating. Yeah WYSIWYG still is alive and well when it comes to monitor calibration. Don’t believe me call Whcc and ask them what to do if your prints are too dark, even if you profile with a professional solution such as X rite’s best offering.
Your thoughts on this is greatly appreciated. Tom
Tom, These are really great points and I totally agree with you that the brightness controls are the most difficult bridge to cross. You bring out issues most dance around and pointed out the syndrome of “my prints are too dark” very well. And even thou i1Profiler can indeed build a profile to control brightness, when it comes to a variety of customers such as you have, keeping everyone on the same luminance balance i.e. 90 cd/m2 as you mentioned, is a strong step forward. The real challenge now is to get everyone using a display that can properly disseminate this brightness data consistently. I’m glad my buddy WYSIWYG is still being remembered these days… Thank you for your informative post… Eddie
Thanks Eddie for taking time to respond, with the limited information of the subject, I just figured I was doing somthing wrong. When you are on the phone with X-rite or Data Color they walk you through the process of profilfing like you are doing something wrong. Then at the end when their results are exactly as your own effort. They pass the blame on to the printer. Then the cycle of blame starts ending with monitor brightness as the culprit, resulting in a WYSIWYG solution of trying to match a back lit monitor to dark print with limited detail in the shadows because it’s so dark. There just ha to be a better way than the Eye ball reference standard.
Mr. Tapp I think being the well known and influential person that you are could get the manufactures on board to develop a device calibrated solution for the brightness woes in a lot of peoples lives. Again thanks for taking time to respond, Tom