Kevin,

Both the 214T and 244T Samsung SyncMaster models have about the best build quality of any of the consumer LCD's currently available. The on-screen image quality is also the best I have seen in consumer models, both in terms of color with a gamut that equals the best of CRT's, but with more green and blue range than red in comparison. The native whitepoint is about 7000K which is usual for consumer LCD's in this category. On-screen controls are extensive providing adjustment for gamma, brightness, contrast and RGB balance.

No software is needed really if the interface connection is digital using aDVI connector. Apple Mac OS 10.4 supports the monitor fully including the rotation capability (depending on which video card your Mac has). So far, other than Apple Cinema Displays the Samsung SyncMaster 244T is the only LCD I've tested which works as effectively supporting Photoshop and doing digital photography as the best pro-graphics CRT's. I'd buy one myself today if I didn't have a couple of 21" Sony G520P monitors that were new just a couple of years ago and have at least another year of good life in them.

Thanks for the reply David!

Good info...couple of more questions and I'll leave you be.

Can you adjust the whitepoint? I have the Spyder2pro? And can you adjust the individual colors? You said it displays less red than green and blue...I guess that is taken care of by the RGB controls.

I had thought getting the 23" Apple display but this one seems better...you think the Eizo s2410 would be worth the extra $300 over the Samsung? It has 14bit correction and 6 color controls...not sure I want to spend that much more though...B & H photo has the 244t for like $1400

Also, I'm planning on hooking up my PC to the analog VGa connection....could I calibrate the PC too while hooked up to the 244t? Or can you only calibrate one computer, like my mac? My video card is a Radeon 9600 btw.

One more thing...if I get it, can I bug you with questions if I have trouble getting a good match to a print on my epson 2400?

Thanks again!

Kevin,

You may want to take another look at my recommendations in the thread that you refered to; my 12/29/2005 post. I no longer support the LaCie 319, or any other LaCie LCD monitors, as they have obsoleted the PhotoVision versions and 2 recently introduced monitors are now on hold due to "legal technicalities".

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Kevin,

The color gamut is how much of the visible spectrum is reproduced by a device like a printer or LCD display. It is important largely from the perspective of whether the colors you are seeing on-screen represent most of the colors in the image you have open in Photoshop from a scan of film or a digital camera capture, as well as most of the colors that your printer can reproduce. If the display gamut is very much less, which was the case with some earlier LCD models then you are "blind" to too much of what you are working with and errors in adjustment in Photoshop can result. That the gamut of the Samsung Syncmaster 244T/214T is very close to that of a good pro-graphics CRT should assure that problem will not be experienced.

The controls provided that function through buttons and an interactive menu on-screen include the adjustment by means of three sliders to individually control the intensity of each RGB color channel. By this means using the advanced manual functions of monitor calibration software you should be able to set/adjust the whitepoint (color temperature in Kelvin) of the display. Will the range of adjustment allow adjusting from the native whitepoint, which is about 7000K down to 5000K, I don't know because I was only concerned with what most photographers use, is 6500K consistent with Adobe RGB (1998). In addition, everything I have read as well as heard from from technical experts in LCD display technology is that the adjustment of the RGB balance very different from native balance involves lowering the intensity by shutting down the "light valves" of some colors, which also lowers the overall performance of the display. In other words using a colorimeter and software to calibrate and profile an LCD that has a native whitepoint of 7000K only involves a minor adjustment if the aim points are 6500K and a gamma of 2.2, which is standard for photography.

If you want to run an LCD display at 5000K and gamma 1.8 to avoid being disadvantaged in performance it may be advisable to purchase an LCD brand and model that has a native factory set whitepoint of 5000K, like the Eizo ColorEdge CG210. I am not familiar with the specs for the Eizo s2410, so I cannot say anything about it (Eizo has so many models I really can't be expected to know the spects for each).

The Apple Cinema Displays are factory configured to provide close to ideal performance parameters as shipped to do critical color work for pro graphics and photography. But the Apple displays assume the user will calibrate and profile to the 6500K gamma 2.2 standard. so all you have to do installing an Apple Cinema display is adjust the brightness to suit your perception and then calibrate and profile to the 6500K gamma 2.2 aim points and you have an ideal environment for working with Photoshop.

With any high performance LCD I would not recommend connecting it to an old analog D-sub connector video card. Without digital output (DVI) from the video card running the display the performance takes a serious hit. I have an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro installed in my G5 and an older analog only ATI Radeon 9700 in my IBM NetVista pro graphics PC and the difference is very evident when I use the LCD's I test with the PC. For Photoshop use the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro which supports both Macs and PC's has a dual display output with two DVI connectors, includes support for display rotation, and is under $200.

Sorry, this message is long, to detail a workflow that will produce reliable, optimum print matching with an R2400 would involve a couple of pages, and is best expressed with included screen shots.

Thank you David...

That was very insightful...I think I may just get the 244t.

As far as the connections on my PC...I think my PC video card does have a DVI connector but since the Samsung 244t only has one DVI connection and a VGA connector I guess I would need to hook the PC up tothe VGA connector...? Or does the 244t have 2 DVI connectors? I am not too concerned about the accuracy for prints on the PC as I will be working on the Mac for that...I just used the PC for testing websites....

I plan on calibrating the monitor to 6500 so the problems you mention calibrating the whitepoint from its native whitepoint of 7000 should not be problem.

It seems to be kinda confusing as far as whitepoint is concerned...some people recommend 6500 for photo editing and others recommend 5000...isn't 5000 too yellow? That's what I read.

Kevin

Kevin,

I really cannot say anything definitive about hooking two computers to a Samsung SyncMaster 244T. I know with my CRT's you can do that and switch back and forth between the two with a button control on the front of the monitor. I did not see any provision of that kind on the Samsung.

There were essentially three standards for a long time. All the early Apple computers and monitors were 5000K, and Apple did dominate the DTP (desktop publishing) field from the beginning. PC Windows have always been 6500K and gamma 2.2. And in desktop publishing with 5000K both the gamma 1.8 and 2.2 were used, the ColorMatch RGB is gamma 1.8 while Apple RGB (old) is gamma 2.2.

Today most of the proponents of the 5000K gamma 1.8 standard are "traditionalists" from the pre-press industry. But they are going against the tide because Apple switched to the 6500K and gamma 2.2 standard several years ago, and the current Apple Cinema Displays are factory set at about 7000K and there is no display hardware means to adjust them to a 5000K whitepoint.

The preponderance of experts in display and color management fields agree the majority of users find 5000K is a too warm (yellow-orange) environment for doing digital photography editing and processing. So the majority today have adopted the 6500K and gamma 2.2 standard that is consistent with Adobe RGB (1998) and Photoshop recommendations. If most can accomplish color critical work and output with this working environment evidenced by what you see published every day, I see no reason other than a personal perceptual preference to use 5000K and gamma 1.8.

Of course for some the 6500K and gamma 2.2 does not match a 5000K print viewing booth illumination. But the primary function of the print viewing booth is now almost obsolete in practical terms because its primary purpose in the past was to provide scanner operators and pre-press users with a way to match prints scanned to a digital file to edit the scan file on-screen to provide matched input for CMYK output to an offset press. Now most pre-press editing is applied to image files from outside sources like digital cameras and stock photo files or scans made by photographers, so the original is not available, and the print viewing booth is little used compared to the past.

At the other end for printing from RGB with an inkjet, the print output matching to a 5000K illumination standard has a dubious purpose simply because most print output will be seen or exhibited in a very different kind of illumination ranging in color temperature from 3000K household lighting to up to 7000K for daylight window illumination. And 5000K is rarely found in the reality of illumination environments in which photographs are likely to be viewed, it would seem to be in pragmatic terms an illogical standard to print to.

David,

I have to disagree with you because there are other reasons besides personal preference to use 5000K.
First, the highest color temperature available for high-quality, spike-free lighting (special low-voltage tungsten-halogen) is 5000K and many people find that the best monitor-to-print matching is achieved when the color temperature and brightness of (high-quality, spike-free) lighting and the monitor are the same.
Second, 5000K is closer to most common viewing environments than 6500K, given the following examples of the color temperatures of typical viewing environments in homes, offices, museums, galleries,etc.:
- incandescent lamps: 2500 to 2900K
- photoflood lamps: 3000 to 3400K
- generic low-voltage tungsten halogen: 3000K
- special low-voltage tungsten halogen: 3500 to 5000K
- "cool" compact fluorescent: 5000K

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

I realize you disagree, and in what I last wrote accommodated that in what I said.

As to your information about artificial lighting I also would not disagree in principle with the technical specifics.

However, I think it would be very rare indeed the prints most photographer make will be illuminated by special ideal lighting.

But I really question your presumption that photographs will be seen MOSTLY via warm artificial lighting closer to 5000K than 6500K. That would only be true in rooms during night time or rooms with no windows. MOST of the time people are awake there is daylight at least providing much of the light in rooms people occupy most of those waking hours. And window light tends to be quite cold in color temperature much of the day. So where the balance is that suits the most likely illumination a photograph will be viewed in, to be critically on target would really take a massive research project to determine precisely, something that is not likely to happen because who would pay for it?

A good, clean light source for viewing prints in a digital darkroom is an advantage I agree. We do not agree on what that source might be in terms of available products, so let's leave it at that.

That most of the photographers will go to the trouble and expense to install any special environmental lighting in their digital darkroom I think is unlikely from the feedback I get from readers, just a small percentage are serious to that level.

What is really critical to all is that their monitor provides a clean perception of a neutral white down through all of the shades of gray to black so their perceptual editing is not skewed by an less than neutral perception. Then it is imperative that their monitor and Photoshop RGB working space are all consistent using the same parameters if effective print matching is to be expected.

David,

I guess we will disagree until the proverbial cows come home. I would like to comment though on your statement that "it is imperative that their monitor and Photoshop RGB working space are all consistent using the same parameters if effective print matching is to be expected". Photoshop RGB is a hypothetical color space not representative of any input device like a camera or scanner nor is it representative of any ouput device like a monitor or printer nor is it representative of human vision. With proper color management in place, images from input devices are translated into the editing work space and then are translated again from the editing workspace to the output device color space. There is no need whatsoever for the input or output device color space to be the same as the editing workspace; there is no need for the monitor color space to be the same as the editing work space. Images will not somehow be deformed or compromised as long as the color management module was designed properly and makes no errors in the translation from one space to the other and vice versa.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

From your remarks you obviously do not understand the function of an RGB working space profile like Adobe RGB (1998). By definition it is and must be a device independent space that is standardized to be able to provide color management capabilities between computers and across platforms as well as over time. Because all of the other profiles used are device dependent they change relative to the specific device they characterize and they provide no means to relate color management information between systems nor are they consistent over time as devices inherently drift over time requiring frequent periodic re-calibration and profiling.

A device independent working space profile, when embedded in an image file provides a reference defining how the RGB data should appear or be reproduced by a device such as another computer and imaging application or a printer.

>>there is no need for the monitor color space to be the same as the editing work space.<<

Maybe no need from your perspective, but if you really understand the function of the RGB working space profile, you realize that if the primary parameters of color temperature and gamma of the monitor profile and the RGB working space differ, the system will display the image according to all of the characteristics of the working space so it appears correct accordingly. In other words if the image is reproduced by a monitor that is set and calibrated and profiled to parameters different from those of the RGB working space the system will display them corrected to those of the RGB working space.

I recently re-checked all of the archived documentation of RGB working space that was released with both Photoshop 5.0/5.5/ and 6.0 when Photoshop was upgraded to use RGB working space profiles, and the specifications of function were quite specific and clear. Images open in Photoshop will be displayed correctly according to the characteristics of the RGB working space profile.

In addition I did a series of tests with monitors set, calibrated and profiled at 5000K and gamma 1.8 and also set, calibrated and profiled at 6500K and gamma 2.2. Photoshop CS2 was set to use the Adobe RGB (1998) colorspace which has a whitepoint of 6500K and a gamma of 2.2. Then an ICC IT-8 reference image was opened in Photoshop converted to Adobe RGB (1998). The output of the the video card was captured using each monitor setting and monitor profile. The measured values of the IT-8 were virtually the same with just a few minor variations in some of the 100's of patches. This indicated that the RGB working space profile does in fact display the image according to its space parameters and characteristics (but makes a few minor errors if the monitor colorspace is different). To double check this with the monitor set, calibrated and profiled at 5000K and gamma 1.8 I opened the ICC IT-8 reference image in PS Elements 3.0 with color management turned OFF so the image was displayed in monitor space. The capture of the video card output data when measured provided distinctly different values for all of the color patches compared to the two samples captured from Adobe RGB (1998) colorspace.

The bottom line is that if you are using Photoshop and the RGB working space Adobe RGB (1998) you might as well set your monitor and calibrate to 6500K and gamma 2.2 because that is what you will get on-screen anyway, and if your monitor is set to 5000K and gamma 1.8 you are just making your system's CMM and video card LUT's work very hard for nothing. If you want to work in 5000K gamma 1.8 colorspace then you should use an RGB working space profile that has the same primary parameters, like ColorMatch RGB.

I seem to have started a heated debate

Anyways...good info...I think I am getting the Samsung 244t.

Dang...I saw on the Dpreview.com in the forums that there was a sale on some refurbished NEC 2180ux for only like $699 awhile back but they are sold out...what a deall...they normally sell for like 1400 new. This is one monitor I was looking at too. How does the 244t compare to that monitor? Would it get the same quality of image as the NEC?

Thanks again for the info...I have my mouse on the buy button for the 244t at B & H...just doing some last minute research.

David,

Maybe you should hold off on asserting that I do not understand the function of an RGB working space. Let's walk through the following exercise:
1) With the Photoshop working space set to Adobe RGB (1998), create a new file consisting of only white pixels (R, G and B values all 255)
2) Display this file on a monitor calibrated to 6500K, gamma 2.2 and a white point of let's say 90cd/m^2; when you measure the monitor you will find that it has a color temperature of 6500K and a brightness of 90cd/m^2; sofar so good
3) Now display this same file on the same monitor, but now calibrated to 5000K, gamma 1.8 and white point of again 90cd/m^2; if what you say is true then the monitor should still measure 6500K and 90cd/m^2, but you will find that the monitor measures 5000K and 90cd/m^2
The color management module translates the 255, 255, 255 data in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space to the color temperature and white point of the monitor color space of your choice, wether 6500K/2.2/90cd/m^2, 5000K/1.8/90cd/m^2 or any other values that you choose to calibrate your monitor to.
You may want to go through this little exercise yourself.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Kevin,

I have not yet gotten to the NEC models other than a model that was made for LaCie. So can't say.

Frans,

I already did that because that 255-255-255 value is contained in the ICC IT-8 color reference. And as I said the capture of the output of the video data was identical except for a small sampling of color values.

And, my findings were forwarded to a high level technical manager in the color management field, and there was no question of what my method or data results findings revealed.

Frans, I think what you are attempting to convince me and yourself of is that if you set and calibrate and profile your monitor to a particular standard (in your case 5000K and gamma 1.8) that Photoshop then does NOT display an image correct and true to the Adobe RGB (1998) profile when it is designated as the RGB working space profile. If that is what you think, then there would be no reason for the workspace profiles to exist, and color management would only be possible inside a closed system, and not across systems and platforms as it obviously is. The working space profile has to control entirely how an image appears on-screen for color management to work at all as intended. To simply obtain print matching on one system does not really require present day color management as Adobe and others have configured it according to the ICC standard. You can do controlled print matching just using a calibrated and profiled monitor space, and an application like Elements 3.0 with color management turned off.

David,

So, I guess what you are saying is that if I display a 255/255/255 file on a monitor that has been calibrated to show a 255/255/255 file with a color temperature of 5000K that miraculously that file is shown instead with a color temperature of 6500K. Interesting that, when I actually do what I described, I get the results that I described, but you believe that that cannot be the case! I guess there is no use discussing this issue any further.

Frans Watelander
pixographer

Frans,

With all respect, on the argument you and David are having, David has the more logical argument...David seems the more open minded...and is not saying no one way is right....all that matters is if the print matches what you see on screen...if you get that either through 5000k or 6500k, it doesnt matter....it's obvious that David has gotten matching prints with 6500k and you with 5000k...so it's obvious your way is not the only way....

it's important to keep a open minded in things like this...I learned that in art school.

I just made the purchase of the 244t...thank you David for all the advice. I am sure it will be a awesome display...I will bug you for my advice if I have trouble getting a good match.

I'm excited...finally getting rid of these space heater CRTs!!

Frans,

Unfortunately there are many factors involved in what you described is your experience that are not the same as what I am dealing with, so getting an apparent different result does not surprise me.

Because what I do is a kind of journalism is try to access as many experts in the field as I can to help in understanding something that is as challenging as color management is to most people. And what I find is those who are the most respected experts are not all that sure and dogmatic, and readily admit they don't have all the answers.

It is what works that counts. And I am not trying to convince you that what you are actually doing does not work.

You have proposed several "tests" you have thought will provide me with evidence that supports your way of understanding color management functioning. I realize I am not going to influence you to change your preferred monitor settings, and I would not want to, it works for you. However I would suggest trying something. Why not work with an RGB working space profile in Photoshop that is consistent with your monitor setting, like ColorMatch RGB? All of the people I know who use the 5000K gamma 1.8 monitor setup choose and use an RGB working space profile that matches those settings. There are any number of standard profiles to choose from besides ColorMatch RGB, but it is the most popular.

It can't do any harm to use ColorMatch RGB instead of Adobe RGB (1998). The gamut is just a bit smaller, mostly in greens and blues, but that's not enough to really influence output. The fact that digital camera files in raw are usually Adobe RGB, is not a problem. They can be converted from Adobe RGB to ColorMatch RGB on opening in Photoshop and it does not change the RGB values in the digital camera files at all.

David,

First, let's go back one step. Am I correct to understand that you believe that a 255/255/255 file created in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space will display on a monitor calibrated at 5000K as a white field with a color temparature of 6500K? If so, I really would like you to explain that to me.

Second, what would be the reasons for me to use a Photoshop work space that, as you state, "is consistent with my monitor settings" like ColorMatch RBG? As I have said before, I don't see any problem with monitor settings that are different from the editing work space. You appear to have grave misgivings about that, but you never really explained why. I can set my Nikon D70 color mode to either sRGB or Adobe RBG (1998), so why should I introduce another, unnecessary conversion? And why would I want to loose color information because the ColorMatch RGB gamut is smaller than Adobe RBG (1998)?

Thirdly, I disagree with you when you say that the RGB values in the digital camera file don't change when the file is converted from Adobe RGB to ColorMatch RGB on opening in Photoshop. The RGB values are changed because of the conversion to a different color space. Also, there is the potential loss of color information I mentioned before.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Kevin,

I cannot imagine you will not find the Samsung Syncmaster 244T is to your liking. If you run into any difficulties working with it you are welcome to bring me in and I'll try to help as best I can.

Your mention of art school in an adjacent post makes me think of when I went to photography school in the mid 50's. Then it was predominantly B&W and we had to learn densitometry and its use to establish control over exposure and development to achieve quality prints.

Densitometry was then a bit like color management is today, hard to understand and challenging to master. When Ansel Adams taught photography at the Archer school in Los Angeles (in the 40's I believe), he devised a method of dealing with densitometry which he called the Zone System. Many years later as fine arts large format photography became very popular there were dozens of classes and workshops offered that taught the Zone System. So far there has been no Ansel Adams of digital color photography who has devised anything comparable to the Zone System to make dealing with color management easier to comprehend and understand.

I've been studying and working with color management for almost 15 years and keep finding new problems to solve and more to learn. But so far I've not found any magic bullet that will make expressing what color management is and how it works so it is really easy to understand and use effectively.

>>First, let's go back one step. Am I correct to understand that you believe that a 255/255/255 file created in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space will display on a monitor calibrated at 5000K as a white field with a color temparature of 6500K? If so, I really would like you to explain that to me.<<

Frans,

First of all let me explain what you asked me to explain, by defining what profiles are and how they function in relationship to RGB color values in an image file. In the beginning of color management some 15 years ago the first problem that was tackled was that all computer color reproduction devices like monitors, scanners and printers were color independent. Given an RGB color value like 128-128-128 each device will reproduce that value with a different observable and measurable color. So the solution was to characterize by measurement what kind of color each device produced relative to a standard color reference, the ICC IT-8 color reference. Then based on that measurement (calibration) a text file was created that defined how the device differed from the ICC standard colors, and that file was named a profile. What a profile does is provide an objective reference to its unique way of reproducing color so standard colors can be displayed correctly. That's the function of a device profile.

PROFILES NEVER CHANGE RGB NUMBER VALUES IN A FILE, they just tell a device how the RGB values should look. The only way you can change the RGB values is by doing so by deliberate application software editing applied to and saved to a file, PERIOD. There is one partial exception, and that is by converting from one profile to another as an editing change in Photoshop and then saving the file with the new profile embedded. That is the same as generating a new image file from a particular RGB working space profile, the RGB values will be limited to those supported by the gamut of the profile.

Later in the 90's when Adobe released Photoshop 5.0, then 5.5, a new layer of color management was introduced that used a different kind of profile, a working space device independent standard profile. It's purpose was to standardize how RGB image information appeared in the Photoshop workspace. The purpose was so that the entire graphic world could pass image files back and forth and the files open in Photoshop on any computer would LOOK the same. This strategy was accomplished with the workspace profile being embedded in image files. What this embedded profile does is tell Photoshop how the image should look as displayed by defining the colorspace it is seen in, including the prime parameters of whitepoint and gamma.

>>Second, what would be the reasons for me to use a Photoshop work space that, as you state, "is consistent with my monitor settings" like ColorMatch RBG? As I have said before, I don't see any problem with monitor settings that are different from the editing work space. You appear to have grave misgivings about that, but you never really explained why. I can set my Nikon D70 color mode to either sRGB or Adobe RBG (1998), so why should I introduce another, unnecessary conversion? And why would I want to loose color information because the ColorMatch RGB gamut is smaller than Adobe RBG (1998)?<<

First of all, when you calibrate and profile your monitor and a monitor device profile is placed in your Color/Colorsync folder, that profile only establishes what the monitor colorspace is. If you use a non-color managed application you will see in the application's workspace, monitor color. As soon as you launch Photoshop and open an image file the colorspace you are seeing on-screen is DICTATED by Photoshop and is either the colorspace of the file embedded profile or the RGB working space profile, not monitor space. Photoshop has its own translator, the CME, and it tells the system 'these are the way the colors should look for each RGB number value'. The system CMM and the video card then make the translations referencing the monitor profile to display those values CORRECTLY as they should appear in the colorspace Photoshop has identified. In fact you can open two or more images in Photoshop CS2 with different embedded profiles, selecting to NOT convert on opening, and Photoshop will display each in its own colorspace correctly and simultaneously.

You want to see the photographic images you are working with in Photoshop displayed with the values of a display setting of 5000K. The only way using a current version of Photoshop to achieve that is to use a working space that has the same parameter. If the embedded profile of a file, or the RGB working space is a profile with a 6500K whitepoint. Photoshop will display it that way and it should be seen on-screen with the 6500K value. There are about a dozen standard working space profiles along with Colormatch RGB you can choose from, some with a large gamut some with smaller gamuts.

I say should, which means that not all computers will support what Photoshop does. In fact I would estimate a substantial percentage of the computers Shutterbug readers use DO NOT meet the full hardware requirements to support all of Photoshop CS2 functions. Does Adobe really make this fully evident in their documentation? No, they would sell fewer copies of Photoshop if they did.

>>Thirdly, I disagree with you when you say that the RGB values in the digital camera file don't change when the file is converted from Adobe RGB to ColorMatch RGB on opening in Photoshop. The RGB values are changed because of the conversion to a different color space. Also, there is the potential loss of color information I mentioned before.<<

There is only one way and mechanism that could cause a loss of image file data. As I said before profiles do NOT change RGB number file values. However if you make a Photoshop conversion from one working space profile to another, and then SAVE from that new space, some data may be lost ONLY if the new space has a smaller gamut. With most of the standard working space profiles, with the exception of sRGB, the gamut size differences are very small except for some that are much larger like Wide Gamut RGB.

If you want specific details on nearly all of the standard available working space profiles, I would suggest looking at "RGB Working Space Information" published at http://brucelindbloom.com

David,

We disagree on the issue of working space and monitor color space.
Here is my position: these spaces do not have to be the same; the color management module translates the image to the monitor color space. To be more precise, the monitor hardware settings determine the basic color temperarure and brightness and the color management module applies the monitor profile, which is a fine tuning to correct for hopefully small color and intensity inaccuracies of the monitor. A 255/255/255 image file in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space (or any work space for that matter) will display on a monitor calibrated at 5000K as a white field with a color temperature of 5000K, not 6500K.

You are correct that profiles do not change the RGB numbers in a file; I was mistaken.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

>>the color management module translates the image to the monitor color space<<

Frans,

I am sorry all of the documentation available including from Adobe who devised this system, says otherwise, and my tests established it functions as I have said.

Cross computer and cross-platform color management would not be possible if the function of the RGB working space were limited by the hardware setting of the monitor as you say. It does not matter what the hardware setting is the monitor will display whatever the application, CME/CMM and video cards sends to the display.

However, the range of the LUT's available may be quite limited with some less sophisticated and simple, basic computer video cards, limiting how much difference in color interpretation can be accommodated as displayed. And, that is a very good reason not to push the limits by using a monitor setup and profile that differs greatly with the parameters of the RGB working space.

David,

Your assertions just don't make sense to me, so let's drop it, okay?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

Is that because you want to protect your rationalized justification for putting the cart before the horse? In this regard it seems to me you want everything about color management to support and revolve around your desire to use an obsolete monitor configuration. Unfortunately color management was not designed around you or to specifically accommodate your choices, unless of course you accept the options that are provided, which I have suggested.

It is not you or I who determines how color management is configured and how it works. If you want it to work for you accept the essential principles that govern what color management is. I'm not your problem, I didn't write the rules. I have just tried very hard to help you understand what they are and why they function as they do.

David,

Are you the keeper of the truth for color management, the spokesperson for the industry? I don't think so. Your opinions are just that, opinions; nothing more and nothing less. Maybe you ought to ask yourself if there could be some truth in what I am saying.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

>>Maybe you ought to ask yourself if there could be some truth in what I am saying.<<

Frans,

I have. I went to the extra effort to do some practical tests. It's pretty easy to see obviously how an RGB workspace profile functions by setting up two of the same kind of computer with the same make and model monitor side by side. No problem for me I run 4 computer systems. Then one of the pair has the monitor set at 5000K and 1.8 gamma, and the other the monitor at 6500K and gamma 2.2. Just booted up with no applications running and the desktop background the same neutral gray value (RGB 128-128-128), one looks warmer than the other. Then launch Photoshop CS2 in both with the RGB working space set at Adobe RGB (1998), and open the same file of an ICC IT-8 target with an embedded Adobe RGB profile, and that image on screen looks identical, one is not warmer than the other. Do a capture of the video card output to monitor of each computer resulting in a TIF image file, and you will find the all of the color patches virtually identical. Then with the computer that has the monitor set at 5000K and 1.8 gamma, launch Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 and in Color Settings turn Color Management OFF and open the Same ICC IT-8 image file. It will look much warmer and make a capture and all of the values will read differently - because the image was in monitor space not Adobe RGB space.

If you were close by I'd invite you to visit and run the tests with me and you could see for yourself.

But now I will ask you, because your prime concern is print matching to a print viewing light that is 5000K, are you using Photoshop to print? If you are, and the RGB working space is Adobe RGB (1998), then in color management of the printing process, Adobe RGB (1998) is your Source Space profile, it is the colorspace your image is in that is transmitted to the printer, and of course Adobe RGB (1998) is a 6500K 2.2 gamma space, so that is what you are printing. Then why do your prints match your monitor with Photoshop displaying the image? Because what is being displayed on your monitor in Photoshop is an image in Adobe RGB colorspace.

David,

Based on what I know about color management, a file displayed on a 5000K monitor should look warmer/more reddish than the same file displayed on a 6500K monitor. So on this issue you and I continue to have a basic disagreement. I carefully read what you tried out and try as I might, it doesn't make sense to me. I would expect you to see a very clear difference. Anyway, I redid for the umpteenth time the testing on my system: displayed a test image (gentian flowers) on my monitor calibrated to 5000K/1.8 and shot an picture of it with my D70 camera set at Direct Sunlight white balance (NOT on Auto white balance of course!); then recalibrated my monitor to 6500K/2.2 and again shot a picture; then I put both pictures simultaneously on my monitor and lo and behold, the first picture shows a warmer color than the second, just as I expected. So, where do we go from here?

As a side note, when I calibrate my monitor I first set it to the closest choice for color temperature in hardware (as instructed by the ColorVision calibration program), so the corrections in the actual calibration are the smallest possible.

In terms of printing, I disagree when you say "Adobe RGB (1998) is a 6500K 2.2 gamma space, so that is what you are printing". Yes, Adobe RGB (1998) is a 6500K/2.2 work space, but that is NOT what I am printing - the color management system translates the file in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space to the color space of the Epson paper that I am printing on; it may seem nitpicking to some, but this distinction is quite significant.

Why do my prints match my monitor with Photoshop displaying the image? Because what is being displayed on my monitor is an image at 5000K color temperature, not 6500K and my print is being illuminated by 5000K lamps.

I am very interested to hear your reactions.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

When an image on-screen in a monitor is displayed in MONITOR SPACE at 5000K for the monitor setting as profiled it does look warmer than if the monitor is set and profiled to 6500K.

All I am saying is that in Adobe RGB (1998) space the image will appear the same regardless of what the monitor is set and profiled at, 5000K or 6500K, because that is the function and purpose of Photoshop working spaces.

>>n terms of printing, I disagree when you say "Adobe RGB (1998) is a 6500K 2.2 gamma space, so that is what you are printing". Yes, Adobe RGB (1998) is a 6500K/2.2 work space, but that is NOT what I am printing - the color management system translates the file in the Adobe RGB (1998) work space to the color space of the Epson paper that I am printing on; it may seem nitpicking to some, but this distinction is quite significant.<<

Yes you are trying to nitpick, but that's OK. I was only speaking of the Source Space, in this case Adobe RGB (1998), and did not mention the Print Space because that will be different for different media. And regardless of media the system matches and plots the Source Space to the Print Space, so you are printing an image in Adobe RGB (1998) according to all of its parameters.

David,

I used Photoshop CS to display the flower test image on my monitor calibrated to either 5000K or 6500K. The image has an embedded Adobe RGB (1998) profile. The Photoshop CS workspace is Adobe RGB (1998). I also used Photoshop CS with the Adobe RGB (1998) workspace to look at both images from my D70 camera simultaneously. The images from my D70 have not been edited in any way, shape or form. As I said before, the image shot with the monitor calibrated at 5000K shows as significantly warmer than the image shot with the monitor calibrated at 6500K. Just as I would expect. This was already very obvious by eyeballing first one image and then the other, but it became even more visible when both images were displayed simultaneously.

I did an additional test to measure the actual color temperature of my monitor settings. Using a 255/255/255 test file with an Adobe RGB (1998) profile embedded and working in Photoshop CS with the Adobe RGB (1998) workspace and colorimeter function of my ColorVision Spyder with OptiCAL, I measured the color temperature of this test file. It measured 5140K for the 5000K setting and 6510K for the 6500K setting.

So, it looks like I did everything you believe should yield images of the same, 6500K color temperature (because you believe under these conditions Photoshop forces the monitor to display with a color temperature of 6500K, the same as the color temperature of Adobe RGB (1999)), but the results are quite different and according to what I expected (that the color management system converts the image data to comply with the monitor color temperature chosen for the monitor calibration). The way I see it, either I am making a mistake in my setup and/or thoughtprocesses or you do or we both do. I really like to understand what is wrong with this picture (pun intended)!

Let me repeat that I believe that for my digital darkroom setup my prints match my monitor with Photoshop displaying the images, because my monitor displays images at 5000K color temperature, not 6500K and my prints are illuminated by 5000K lamps.

Could you please comment?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

David,

I've attached a jpg file of the two screen shots to show you the marked difference in color.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans,

First of all, regardless of the fact you make an adjustment in color temperature of a monitor using the monitor controls, it does not physically change what the monitor is able to display, it still has the same gamut, you have just changed the center point of the red/blue balance. The monitor still has the ability to display all the same colors according to what is sent to it by the video card.

I have never said, or would I say that the working colorspace changes the setting or the monitor's color temperature, it only changes the signal to the monitor of what colors to display. Again let me repeat, the working space profile does not change the RGB values in a file, and according to a recent post, we agree on that. What the profile does is tell a device for any given RGB value what color it should look like when displayed. The purpose and function of the monitor profile is to identify what colors it does display relative to the ICC standard, so the RGB values are displayed correctly according to the source profile, and that source when Photoshop is running are colors as they should look in Adobe RGB colorspace if it is the selected RGB workspace profile.

Let me put it another way. Regardless of how a monitor is set up and profiled its color gamut is not changed, it can still reproduce all of the colors it is capable of. The monitor profile really only has one function and that is to provide the system with information about how it displays color relative to a standard the whole system recognizes. The purpose of the color management system is to display or reproduce RGB values that are consistent with that ICC standard. So it translates using the CME/CMM and the video card LUT's in the case of the display so that what is displayed or reproduced is consistent with the source.

The primary purpose of the working space profile is to provide a means, when it is embedded in a file, so that files RGB values will LOOK the same as it did on the computer/monitor that generated the file, on any computer running Photoshop, regardless of the monitor or its settings. And, to facilitate that in Photoshop CS2 you can open files with different embedded workspace profiles and display them in Photoshop's workspace side-by-side and each will look true to how it appeared on the source computer. The profile embedded in each image tells the system how it should look (relative to the ICC color standard) in what is sent to the video card and on to the monitor. So you can actually have two images on screen at the same time, one with a colorspace thats 5000K and the other 6500K, and both will appear CORRECT whether the monitor is adjusted to 5000K or 6500K, it doesn't matter.

David,

Your position is that the monitor image has the same white point as the Photoshop workspace, regardless of the white point of the monitor calibration and that you did some practical tests that prove this.
My position is that the monitor image has the same white point as the white point of the monitor calibration and not the Photoshop workspace white point and that I did some practical tests that prove this. (I actually measured the white points of the monitor images, something that I am not sure you did)
Assumed are an Adobe RGB (1998) workspace, image files with embedded or assigned Adobe RGB (1998) profiles and calibrated and profiled monitors.
Continuing to repeat our opinions and their justifications won't resolve anything. Unless you are willing to work with me to actually resolve these mutually exclusive positions and results, I will no longer participate in these arguments.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

May I suggest a time out? As a non expert I really value the input and If there is a bit less confrontational tone it would be much better. Debate is one thing, arguements are another.

Can we agree there is a difference in these two camps on monitor white point. Maybe trying both ways will let the end user decide which is best for them.

As a non expert and hopefully neutral observer, Frans you tend to force your views a bit more than necessary.

Step back and look at the size of the posts and responses involved in this issue. Its like two giant trees spreading out over the lanscape, and some seelings are in the shade. I feel I need to post privately to address some questions I have.

Thanks for the forum and the wonderful responses, and don't make it a battle field.

Thanks
Tim

Tim,

Thanks for your perspective. I wish we had made more progress on this subject. As I see it, this is not an issue of differences of opinion or an issue of what works best, but an issue of understanding how color management really works, at least this particular part of it and how to reconcile the drastically different results between Dave's and my tests. In the interest of clarity and understanding of color management, we need to figure out how it actually works. I hope Dave and I can work together to resolve this.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Maybe this issue would be a good subject for an article in shutterbug.

I have found at some point after I have debated my position to let it stand and let the recipients be the judge. If I try too hard to push my position it sometimes turns others away and I loose the people I was trying to educate.

Just my take on it.

Thanks for listening
Tim

Tim,

I've proposed a couple of times to George Schaub, editorial director of Shutterbug and David Brooks to publish an article on digital darkroom lighting, the issue of monitor color temperature being a part of that subject, but they have not been interested so far.

The narrower issue of what color temperature the monitor will display is not an issue of position or opinion but a matter of mutually exclusive answers that needs to be worked out.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

I got the display...seems awesoem so far...very rich colors and no dead pixels it seems.

I have one problem though...my mouse seems slow, like there's a lag...I even turned the settings all the way up for the mouse...I am using a older logitech optical mouse and apple's mouse software...I don't remember mouses being slow on other LCD screens...could it be my video card? I have a radeon 9600

I havent calibrated yet
Kevin

remember, your mouse has to move farther ( more pixels to cover ) with a larger monitor

kman

ps - i think Frans needs a time out ( dude - u r really to agrumentative with David on every issue / post - take a chill pill !!!! )

Kevin,

The mouse response may be largely due to the much higher resolution the Synchmaster runs. I actually run Microsoft optical mice with my Macs supported by IntelliMouse software for the Mac from Microsoft. Works very well, and is great with Microsoft Mac applications like Word and Excel and Photoshop as well. Apple recently began offering an optical two button and wheel mouse, which I will try next time around. I doubt it is the video card as I am running the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro, which is pretty much the same as yours but with 2X the VRAM.

Hi David - long time reader of your articles ( I always like your perspective on things ) What do you know about the Samsung 204T - I bought one a few months back for my windows machine and with a DV video card and Eye One Calibration it seems really nice, I was just womdering what your thought are

Kent

I had thought about the higher resolution could be making it slower but when I hooked my PC up to the VGA port, the same mouse on my PC was fine. I installed USB overdrive and it seems to be working better but still not as good as the CRTs.

Can I get some tips on calibrating this monitor? Using the spyder2 pro, I tried doing it last night but was confused about some of the options it was asking on screen. It asked for brightness and contrast which I know the 244t has, but it had another option to check for backlight...does the 244t have controls for backlight? Also when it got to the screen where it asked what type of RGB controls the 244t had, it had 3 option to pick from...I think I picked the RGB sliders, it had RGB presets as an option 2...forgot the other one...it then asked me to put the Spyder on the screen, but when it started the calibration it said it was not a LCD screen....any ideas? Maybe if you have time you can give me a quick walkthrough of calibrating this 244t with the Spyder.

THanks!

Kent,

I have not had any experience with the earlier Samsung models so cannot comment on them. But from the specs I would guess the 214T 244T and 970LP are just the next generation after yours, so probably similar.

Kevin,

When calibrating and profiling, of course change the center module adding the piece that has the grid and filter for LCD's. Be sure in the wizard in the beginning to click on LCD as the type of display (I think you maybe missed doing that). The Samsung Syncmaster 244T does NOT have backlight control. You are correct the MagicColor control is 3 sliders one for each Red,Green and Blue. I think the Spyder software references what it has done in the past, so when you go from CRT to LCD I too have noticed it pops up the question screen window. Just ignore it and go on.

All I can really say is to go through the CV Spyder wizard process reading everything carefully and follow the instructions precisely. And you might want to also review the Help and guide that is installed with the CV software if you are doubtful to fill in as to the details of the procedure.

The 244T is a big, very high resolution monitor, so don't expect your mouse to track from one part of the screen to another as fast as a CRT. But, Logitech makes products to a lower price point, so maybe you might get a bit better response with either an Apple or Microsoft mouse. the latter have always given me better performance than any other brand mouse product.

Quote:
Kent,

I have not had any experience with the earlier Samsung models so cannot comment on them. But from the specs I would guess the 214T 244T and 970LP are just the next generation after yours, so probably similar.

Hi David - actually the 204T is fairly new ( it came out last summer ) it is a 20.5" size monitor and I believe that the 214T is a 21" monitor. I was just wondering if all of the "new" generation Samsung's were up to photo editing quality. My questions are kind of after the fact as I already purchased mine, and I do like mine for photo work.

On to my next comment ( sorry folks ) you guys were discussing color temp of monitors and profiling stuff earlier in this thread. I come from a commercial printing / pre-press background and of course photography. My only observation and comments regarding this discussion ( ie 5000K vs 6500K ) is that in all of my years in dealing with art directors and ad agencies is that there has only been one artist that i deal with that ever set his monitor to 5000K, everyone else including myself and our pre-press dept sets them to 6500K. 5000K is just to "warm" we feel for accurate color work. I know the standard used to be 5000K - but I think some of that thinking comes from the fact that a few years ago almost all of the commercial printing papers ( gloss sheetfed and web grades ) were much more warm looking as compared to todays sheets which are much more of a bluish white. I think that the original thinking was to match the monitor to the printed piece ( in commercial printing )and at one time 5000K did a better job of that then 6500K. But times have changed and now we believe that it is better to use 6500K for your white point. I hope that this helps

Kent

Kevin,

Which monitor did you get?

Thanks
Tim

Kevin,

Would you mind keeping us or me posted on how well your calibrating goes. I have ordered the 214T and will be calibrating using the Spyder2Pro as well. Any insights or comments would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to email me direct.

thanks
Tim

Thanks David..

Ok i got it to the screen where it says to adjust the RGB gain controls and luminance levels...i thas a luminance guide on the left and RGB levels on the right. What I'm confused about is that there are 6 color sliders instead of 3. Under the magic color menu, there's a 6-color option, when I select that there's option for saturation, hue and reset. Both saturation and hue has option sliders for Red, Green, Blue, Cyan, Magenta and Yellow. I tried adjusting the red, green and blue sliders under both the saturation and hue options then updating like it said to read the new values...but it does not seem to be taking effect on the right where it has the red, green and blue bars, it's asking you to make all the bars even...in mine the blue bar is below the red and green bars, which are in the box outline....blue falls below the box. So what controls do I use to adjust this? and how you adjust the luminance? This seems alot more complicated than adjusting a CRT monitor.

Thanks for the help!

Kevin,

Well I did not do what you are trying to accomplish, which is make a color balance white point adjustment in hardware. As I said the native color temperature is about 7000K. So if you set the aim points to 6500K and the gamma to 2.2, and then do not check that you have RGB sliders, the Spyder2 Pro software will calibrate and profile so the adjustment for whitepoint is made from the profile on boot-up. Same process as if you were calibrating and profiling an Apple Cinema Display which only has a brightness adjustment.

So once you have adjusted brightness and contrast, (be sure the MagicColor is set to default) and then continue with the easy mode of calibrating and profiling. It should provide a good and effective working environment.

If you wanted to run the SyncMaster display at 5000K then you would probably have to do the whitepoint adjustments with MagicColor in hardware, but a 500K adjustment can be handled by the display profile easily.

thanks David,

Ok I did what you said...I did not select the RGB slider option and hit continue..it then asked to put on the calibrator on the screen. I did and clicked through the screens...a screen popped up saying it is not a LCD screen...etc...even thought I made sure I selected LCD...I checked it twice...but I went ahead and selected continue....and it's reading the color values now....so should I just ignore that message?

One other question...where it says to adjust the brightness down to the lowest you can still distinguish distinct boxes..I did this and adjusted the brightness all the way down to 0, where I can still see 4 shades...is setting all the way to 0 normal?