Calibrating my monitor?

CarlosGilbertos

CarlosGilbertos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
182
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
I've seen a couple of posts recently mentioning calibrating monitors to produce an accurate picture when editing photos.

Does anyone find this necessary or does your monitor simply 'exist' without any calibration? Can they really be that far out?
 
If you want colour consistency throughout the processing of your images, then each stage has to be calibrated. How far you go with this depends on how accurate you want the results to be, and a small amount of tweaking of the monitor controls may get you close enough for your own purposes.

Say (for example) that your monitor has a slight green cast. When processing your images you could easily compensate for that by turning down the green so your images look good on the screen, but if you send them away for printing, the prints will have a magenta cast, and if you share them on the net other people will see a magenta cast.

So there's really no alternative to calibrating your monitor if you care at all about colour consistency.
 
I've recently calibrated a couple of monitors and the change was significant.

In both occasions the screen prior to calibration was far too bright.

Post calibration I edited and printed off some pictures (DSCL) which were true to my screen.

I would certainly recommend that you calibrate your screen.
 
It all depends on how seriously you take your photography, and how much you spend in both time and money on it.

If all you are doing is taking snaps on auto with a cheap compact to share on Facebook, etc. then no, it's probably not worth calibrating.

If, like many here, you spend hours taking and editing your shots, using gear worth several thousand pounds, then having a good monitor and regularly calibrating it is a 'no-brainer' - it's all part of getting the end result (the image) right.
 
I would always work on a calibrated screen, the difference can be huge. For example, my old dell studio 17 laptop was incredibly warm before it was calibrated, and then when I made the investment in the 27" iMac with its IPS display, it was very cool before I calibrated it.

Its one of those things that you simply can't see until you do it. You will think the screen looks great, until you are shown the before and after ;)

I use a Spyder 3 Pro by the way and highly recommend it :)
 
Most monitors straight out of the box are

Far too bright. Looks good for viewing web pages but not really good enough for good screen to print match

The contrast is usually a bit high as well for the above reason

The white point is far too blue usually around 8,000- 9000 kelvin

All this is fine if you simply want to look at you pictures on the screen as the human eye is very adaptive. However if you want prints, either from a good lab or print them yourself you are going to find problems.
 
I've been experiencing issues with my prints - always coming out darker and less saturated than they appear on-screen. Clearly my i-Mac monitor needs calibrating :( I recall running through the inbuilt calibration tool not long after I bought it but I found it very difficult to differentiate between the tones at various stages of the calibration process. I had to resort to an element of guesswork. It's always been in the back of my mind, so after reading this thread I think it's time to bring this issue into full focus and sort it out. :)

Faldrax said:
If, like many here, you spend hours taking and editing your shots, using gear worth several thousand pounds, then having a good monitor and regularly calibrating it is a 'no-brainer' - it's all part of getting the end result (the image) right.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that, once properly calibrated, a monitor would remain that way for its functional lifespan. Is that not the case?
 
mangolicious said:
I've been experiencing issues with my prints - always coming out darker and less saturated than they appear on-screen. Clearly my i-Mac monitor needs calibrating :( I recall running through the inbuilt calibration tool not long after I bought it but I found it very difficult to differentiate between the tones at various stages of the calibration process. I had to resort to an element of guesswork. It's always been in the back of my mind, so after reading this thread I think it's time to bring this issue into full focus and sort it out. :)



I would have thought that, once properly calibrated, a monitor would remain that way for its functional lifespan. Is that not the case?
Click to expand...

Sadly not, the back-light will deteriorate over time and more significantly, unless you are working in a room with no natural light at all, the ambient light will change your perception of the brightness/exposure of an image too.

I have a dual monitor set-up, a Dell U2410 (24" wide gamut) and a Dell 2001FP (a good few years old now). Despite them both being frequently calibrated with a Spyder 3, the difference between them both is easily noticeable. The 2001FP (as you would expect) just isn't capable of anything like the colour accuracy of the U2410.

However, the U2410 was a warranty replacement for a 2408WFP in December. When I first got it I just couldn't calibrate it to a standard I was happy with at first. Whites were always very over warm, pinkish almost. However, each time I redo it, it gets more acceptable. It's not just me getting used to it either as the RGB values change each time.
 
Last edited:
ChrisJ_SLH said:
Sadly not, the back-light will deteriorate over time and more significantly, unless you are working in a room with no natural light at all, the ambient light will change your perception of the brightness/exposure of an image too.
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting! As far as calibration tools go, I'm seeing multiple references to Spyder 3, but having done a quick search I am shocked to find that the Pro version costs over £100 :eek: Are there any good alternatives for monitor calibration to suit a more restricted budget?
 
It seems that calibration is a costly business. I've not found a cheap but good option so I'm hoping someone here suggests one. Would it be possible to get together with some mates and share something like a Spyder 3? You'll miss out on the ambient light monitoring it does but still get most of the benefit.
 
mangolicious said:
Hmm, interesting! As far as calibration tools go, I'm seeing multiple references to Spyder 3, but having done a quick search I am shocked to find that the Pro version costs over £100 :eek: Are there any good alternatives for monitor calibration to suit a more restricted budget?
Click to expand...

Spyder 3 Express £65 ... will do the job LINK
 
ding76uk said:
Well worth it, even more so if you print your work regularly. There are several options out there, if you have a budget in mind someone can advise you what products to look at.
Click to expand...

Wow, it looks like i've opened a can of worms I didn't know existed!

What sort of monitor would people recommend for around the £200 mark?

I ask because i'll be starting printing and selling my work soon and want it to be absolutely spot on!
 
CarlosGilbertos said:
Wow, it looks like i've opened a can of worms I didn't know existed!

What sort of monitor would people recommend for around the £200 mark?

I ask because i'll be starting printing and selling my work soon and want it to be absolutely spot on!
Click to expand...

you want an IPS panel to start off with - they calibrate a lot 'truer' than other panels. The Dell 2410 is generally well regarded and you can pick one up from evilBay for around £175-180 if its a refurb (£300+ new). I picked one up and am very happy with it - in fact, I've just recalibrated it today and it's hardly changed from 6 weeks ago.
 
I re calibrate my monitors every 2 weeks and check my printer A3 calibration before any major print job
I use Spyder3StudioSR for screens and printer

I also use X-Rite Colorchecker passport when shooting to set white balance and color profile adjustments in LR when shots are imported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top