New Monitor Just Calibrated But ....

L

Lepus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,074
Edit My Images
No
Hello All , Just upgraded my Monitor , I am happy with the quality ect , my other Monitor was getting long in the tooth . So I have just calibrated the new one . Is it normal for the whites to look an off white ? Is there anyway of checking me and or the Spyder pro got it right ? I can see a difference , but I don`t find it as pleasing to my eye as I did before I calibrated it . It`s a Dell monitor if that makes any odds .
 
Well..................

Perhaps if you put some details in:-
  1. What model of monitor?
  2. What software are you using with the Spyder Pro and which Spyder model version is it?
  3. Most calibration software has a guide as you use it:-
    So what settings did you use ~ in regard to colour temp, Gamma etc
    And in regard to the monitor, what did the guide 'tell you to do' in respect of brightness and contrast?
  4. When you finished the calibration did the software show you a in software pictures (test panel/chart of pictures) with a before and after 'switch' to see the visual results of the process?
  5. Lastly, when you say the whites look off white are you saying:-
    The whites in the browser now?
    The whites in the calibration test chart image(s)?
    The whites in your images seen in what editing program?

    Oh, and how long ago was it that you calibrated your old monitor........................just maybe the new one is now showing a truer "picture" than the old one you were used to???
PS this page has some good info and charts to check/confirm a monitor and its calibration http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ ;)
 
Thanks for coming Box Brownie . I am not the brightest of people but will attempt to answer so you may help me further .
1. It`s a Dell UltraSharp 25 Monitor: U2518D
2. I am using the software that came with the SpyderXpro I hope that answers what you were asking ?
3. This part was a touch beyond , I couldn`t find a place in the menu to change in regard to colour temp, Gamma etc , though I was asked to change the brightness to get a marker in the middle , I did get the grey slider to sit in the middle , but could not get the two green lines to move much , so not sure how right this was .
4. Yes I got the test and switch between .
5.Yes they look off in my browser now .
The whites in the switch panel look warmer and less bright .
Bit hard to be sure about the editing side of it for me , I shoot Canon which I think are notoriously warm raw files , and I use Canons DPP to edit and change / tweak white balance ect .

I calibrated the other monitor only last month , I think I was a little unsure for similar reasons then , but got used to it , and was not unhappy in the end .
Thanks for the link , will take a look and hope it`s not beyond me . I am using Windows 10 , if that is of any relevance .
 
Hi Lepus im not sure if this will be of much help to you, but I use a Dell UP2516 monitor.
Mine has a button on the bottom r/h/s of the screen to enter the menu.
If you use the menu to go in to the colour pre set modes you will see a Colour Temp pre set option which by entering you will see a sliding scale option to change the colour temp.
My monitor is set to 6500k which looks about right to my eyes.
 
Last edited:
NorfolkAndy said:
Hi Lepus im not sure if this will be of much help to you, but I use a Dell UP2516 monitor.
Mine has a button on the bottom r/h/s of the screen to enter the menu.
If you use the menu to go in to the colour pre set modes you will see a Colour Temp pre set option which by entering you will see a sliding scale option to change the colour temp.
My monitor is set to 6500k which looks about right to my eyes.
Click to expand...


This is the reason we don't calibrate :) what you are seeing is the difference between how you have been used to seeing your monitor, how you like to see your monitor and what a potentially correctly calibrated one looks like, and the results are VERY different.

Calibration we found made the images darker than how people actually used their monitors, so we went with the default settings, and check images we feel may be off with something that cannot be changed an iPad for example.
 
Thanks for the useful advice so far , I take it all into consideration , as I am very novice at this side of things .
 
Well the proof is in the pudding , how do these look to you guys ?

First up is the not calibrated version .

not calibrated IMG_4310 by Mark Powter, on Flickr

And the Calibrated view .

calibrated IMG_4310 by Mark Powter, on Flickr

I struggled to see much difference , but the calibrated seemed to take more brightening for me to look right , the red looks off in both , probably I over saturated and both still look a little warm . Anyway I will be very interested and grateful to hear opinions .
 
I would give it a go using DisplayCal software, fully compatible with the Spyder calibration tool
https://displaycal.net
Always found it gives much more accurate results as have many others on here
 
Lepus - I appreciate you have 'no' ticked to edits so I'll happily remove this if you want.

However, I thought I'd try and process this using your first post as the starting point. After that I just made my usual adjustments - and these are on a recently calibrated screen. Might be worth downloading it to your hard drive and seeing if there are any significant differences to your versions

49187533178_f514f4216a_h-RP.jpg

Mike
 
Thanks for all the comments , If I switch on the Calibrated view they all look a bit dim / dark and lack punch , it can not be calibrating it correctly , or I must be doing something wrong somewhere . They all look better in the non calibrated view on my screen . My printer prints a little dark anyway , so am guessing if I tried Printing one it will come out even darker . I will try and calibrate it again , and see if I can improve it . They not cheap those calibrator things , beginning to think they more hassle than they actually worth .
 
Lepus said:
They not cheap those calibrator things , beginning to think they more hassle than they actually worth .
Click to expand...
I'm no Luddite, but I rather hope that nobody feels that they must have one if they are to think of themselves as a 'serious' photographer. I've never had one myself, and I've been sending image files for print 'without lab adjustment' since the turn of the millenium, the first ones being the product of my own film scans processed using a crt monitor.

What's pretty certain though is that you have to set up your monitor by some means or other, and get screen display to tally with output on various media.

But I feel that there's a sort of bandwagon these days with calibration devices (amongst much else) being promoted just by being talked about, and if they're featured in photo magazines (I wouldn't know), remember that photo magazines are complicit in advocating the consumption of the products of their advertisers, which is their main raison d'etre.
 
Lepus said:
Thanks for all the comments , If I switch on the Calibrated view they all look a bit dim / dark and lack punch , it can not be calibrating it correctly , or I must be doing something wrong somewhere . They all look better in the non calibrated view on my screen . My printer prints a little dark anyway , so am guessing if I tried Printing one it will come out even darker . I will try and calibrate it again , and see if I can improve it . They not cheap those calibrator things , beginning to think they more hassle than they actually worth .
Click to expand...

Why not try the DisplayCal software I suggested, it's free so nothing to lose
 
droj said:
I'm no Luddite, but I rather hope that nobody feels that they must have one if they are to think of themselves as a 'serious' photographer. I've never had one myself, and I've been sending image files for print 'without lab adjustment' since the turn of the millenium, the first ones being the product of my own film scans processed using a crt monitor.

What's pretty certain though is that you have to set up your monitor by some means or other, and get screen display to tally with output on various media.

But I feel that there's a sort of bandwagon these days with calibration devices (amongst much else) being promoted just by being talked about, and if they're featured in photo magazines (I wouldn't know), remember that photo magazines are complicit in advocating the consumption of the products of their advertisers, which is their main raison d'etre.
Click to expand...
Your not on your own, we have a "proven" track record of not calibrating and we work in a very colour sensitive arena (fashion). Sometimes common sence is the way to go :)
 
Lepus said:
I struggled to see much difference , but the calibrated seemed to take more brightening for me to look right , the red looks off in both , probably I over saturated and both still look a little warm . Anyway I will be very interested and grateful to hear opinions .
Click to expand...

What editing difference is there between these 2?

Mike
 
I can appreciate and understand all the comments , the biggest adjustment on these calibrators seems to be the brightness , but I am not clever enough to understand all the other non obvious things that are probably going on with it . I recalibrated with it again , and am a little happier . I think if I knew what I know now , I probably wouldn`t bother with it . I don`t print masses , and I don`t think 95% of people could tell if you had calibrated it or not anyway ….:thinking:
 
The first time I calibrated my laptop screen (admittedly not so high tech as many monitors), I was horrified at how dull the image looked. Occasionally I redo a calibration if it doesn't look right, but mostly I'm happy that my prints come out as I expect them after soft proofing, and I've got used to not seeing such a bright bluish screen.

I usually set mine to 6500 as I found 5000 gave me prints that were too warm and I lower the brightness according to what the calibrator says.

If your screen is set too bright then you are very likely to end up with dark prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top