Hi, I have received my Spyder3Pro and put it to work on the calibration of my screen. The ambient light in my workplace is "Moderate Low", and the target settings were 120 cd/m2 and 5800K, as suggested by the program. I continued the calibration and had to lower the brightness control of the screen quite a bit in order to center the indicator. Pictures as I pp'ed them before calibration now look too dark for me. This is also the case of some prints I had recently made, and that came back darker than expected. What I would like to ask, but only to people having calibrated screens : which version looks best on your screen, the original (before calibration) or the new one (after calibration). Original after cal TIA for your cooperation ! Rafael
"Better" is a subjective term. The 'after cal' image looks better to me, even though the whites are closer to being blown out (that has nothing to do with calibration though, that has to do with the original exposure). The second image shows slightly more detail in the shadows. The two images actually looks quite close on my (calibrated) monitor, but the second image would be my pick. I'd like to emphasise that fact - the two images *look very close in brightness* on my monitor, so if your monitor shows a marked difference, then the calibrated image is definitely the correct setting. HTH.
I agree with the conclusions drawn by Rudi, the calibrated shot is rather better, although the differences aren't pronounced. I use a spyder 2 to do my calibration and it sounds as though there are obvious and basic differences between the software. At the end of spyder 2 a screen appears with a collage of photographs and the ability to switch between calibrated and prior to calibration which is how I judge the success of the calibration exercise. Also I have found that the adjustment of brightness and contrast can lead you to make large corrections to the screen. I have now stopped doing this and just accept the factory defaults for the monitor, I find that with a decent monitor (Dell) the end results are perfectly satisfactory. Barrie
Thanks for your fast and interesting input, Rudi and Barrie ! The difference between the two images corresponds to +10 brightness and +5 contrast done with Corel PaintShop Pro Photo X2. You're right, on the forum display, the differences seem minor, and it's hard to pick the "best" image. But, on the Full Res pics, the difference seems rather larger, IMHO. And the whites are less close to blowout. Maybe the resizing software (BDResize) and the software @ Photobuckett (my pichost) and here also contribute. In the end, for me, it is important to hear that both of you prefer the pic in the version "after cal" on your calibrated screens. I'll have some comparative prints made in due time, to see if I got rid of my "too dark" prints. Or, to make sure that any "wrong" prints are not due to me sending "wrong" files to the printing service Have a ncie day, Rafael
I'd agree with the other responses - I marginally prefer the second image, but it's a very subtle difference. By the way - I still suffered from 'dark prints' when calibrated to 120 cd/m2. I'm down at 100 cd/m2 now, and would prefer to go a little lower!
Rafael, I was going to suggest in my initial response that downsizing for the forum was likely to have reduced the bit depth and number of colours shown which would have reduced any subtle differences when viewed here. Your pro version certain contains many more adjustment options than my simpler version. Prints, being the end result, will be the ultimate way to judge the success of your calibration exercise. I've certainly been able to get good correlation between my home produced prints and the screen image so hopefully that will be your experience as well. I have also taken the .icm profile file produced in Windows by the spyder 2 calibration process and copied it to a Fedora 13 OS and with the same graphics card and monitor achieved comparable screen images when running in Linux. Good luck, I'm sure it will be worth it in the end. Barrie
Hi, just another thing that surprised me in the process of calibration : the software suggests 5800K @ 120cd/m2 Isn't it recommended to use 6500K for postprocessing when using a external printservice ? C U Rafael
Rafael, Spyder 2 certainly uses a default setting of 6500 deg k and that's where I leave it when doing my monitor calibration. It has no mechanism for setting the illumination level, i.e. cd/sq m, at least not in those measured terms. Barrie
It does if you have a monitor with all the controls. Usually that means a CRT, since most LCDs these days are driven digitally and do not have all the controls (depends on video card, too). The software is mostly hands-off in that case.
You'll probably find that 5800K is the native colour temperature of your monitor. There are reasons for using the native value, and it's normally recommended as long as it's not too far from 6500K. (Adjusting an LCD monitor to 6500K is internally done by manipulating the 8-bit digital RGB values, and this can cause banding/posterisation). I'm happily running at ~6000K, so you should be OK as long as you can get used to the colour of the whites! Alternatively, adjust the monitor to 6500K - any detrimental effect will be pretty hard to spot in practice.
Okay, I actually prefer the "before" picture in this shot, but it's simply because there's more texture in the white highlights and less blowout.
I think it depends on which version you have. It is my understanding that the Spider 2 came with different software versions depending on whether you bought the "PRO" version or one of the other versions. I have the "PRO" version and it most certainly provides for setting the illumination level. I have my 1st generation G5 iMac screen set for 90 cd/m2 and it works fine. Regards, Antonio
I use the most basic version of spyder 2 so the options to change various parameters is limited, however I find the results obtained from the monitor calibration are more than acceptable. Perhaps at the level that many of us operate at this set up with less variables to choose from is more than adequate for purpose, or is that keep it simple idea some form of heresy :smile: Barrie
Hi, I have just sent the pic as "after calibration" to the printing service I want to use. I choose professional quality on Kodak Royal glossy paper, and discarded the option of the automatic correction in the lab, to make sure they print the pic exactely as I pp'ed it. In a few days, I'll let you know ! C U Rafael
I for one will be interested in the outcome, I don't print as much these days as I used to and for cost of running a decent photoprinter it might be better to use the services of a printing lab, though not if the results don't match what you see on your own monitor. Barrie
The Calibrated image has a little more contrast in the whites. Very little between the two as viewed on my EIZO S2433W LCD a screen that shows no variation in contrast with viewing angle. Dell and HP both have 24" screens using the same type of advanced LCD panel as the EIZO at much lower prices, they also have a wide colour gamut and contrast ratio like the EIZO Oddly the Spider 3 does not improve some of the top quality LCD screens but can improve the common low end screens. Its a very nice image btw.
No problem at all with keeping it simple. However, if you have a "too dark print" problem like I did, calibration software that allows you to properly set the luminance level of the monitor is of great help. The point of my post was merely to point out that the Spyder 2 does allow you to set the luminance level depending on the software utilized. Regards, Antonio
No problem at my end either, perhaps the real message behind my post was that we are dealing with so many variables that cutting those variables down to an essential minimum might yield the most easily obtained acceptable results at the end of the day. I know that I'm slightly blue/green colour blind, not that I see green skies or blue grass, but that I can't differentiate between the subtle shades where green merges into blue. How do you cater for that problem? I understand that 10% of the male population has some form of colour blindness, almost all being in the mild category. This probably means that I'm not able to correctly identify or indeed correct colour casts for example. No two persons eyes are the same so that very fine adjustments might be good for one person but leave another person unimpressed because of a slight difference in their vision. Does calibration with a spyder equipped with more comprehensive software that allows adjustment of the illumination level in numerical terms achieve better results than just adjusting screen brightness on the inbuilt monitor controls to cater for prints that come out too dark, in other words are we using too complex technology to solve a simple problem, perhaps that just reflects my feelings about the modern world and or approach to so many things in it, but that's a much wider and philosophical discussion that has no place here :smile: Barrie
