Ok the sequence got towards the end, when it was measuring the gray samples, when a dialog box came up saying there was a problem calculating the correction curve for the monitor [-2(FFFFFFFE) | Gamma.cpp | 881]

I must be doing something wrong...

Ok I think I got it working...I totally started over...I even made sure the usb cable was in right...which it was.. no dialog error messages popped up and it completed fine. Maybe I had the calibrator on the screen wrong.

My brightness is set to 52 and the contrast is set to 69...is that set about right?

thanks!

Kevin,

First of all, have you downloaded and installed Version 2.0 of the Spyder 2 Pro software? If not it may help somewhat getting a smooth result.

To be candid, I don't recall the exact number settings for contrast and brightness, other than the final settings I got to reduced contrast by about 60% and brightness about 20-25% from default.

The main thing now is to use Photoshop to color correct and adjust a raw scan or digital camera file to what looks ideal to you on screen and then make a test print. If the print is too dark then your perception of the screen is influenced by it being too bright. So if you can see good highlight detail leave brightness the same and reduce contrast a bit more, and recalibrate without making further adjustments to brightness and contrast, and do another raw image in PS and a test print.

Glad you are progressing. But sorry, I think the ColorVision software remembers what the settings were for your last monitor calibration and profiling, and that's why the LCD/CRT warning window pops up. I doubt it will happen again as long as the LCD remains on that system.

Hi Kevin, Hi David,
New member here. I found this forum when I was researching the 244t a couple of weeks ago. David, you write very well, I learned a lot from you and you helped cement my decision to get the 244t-- maybe I can contribute in return, and possibly help Kevin by posting my calibration experience...

Here's my setup. 244t and Eizo cg210 on ati 9800pro, XP with Color Management Applet. The 244t is on an analog output because the eizo gets the digital. I'm using eye-one photo to calibrate ... hopefully, that won't keep my experience from being relevant.

I didn't install any of the Samsung software other than the drivers. I set "MagicBright" to Custom, and "MagicColor" to off. Gamma to zero, Color Tone to normal. Then ran calibration set for 6500K, 2.2, and 120cd/m2. The calibration software led me to 244t settings of 68 for contrast and 30 for brightness. I told the calibration program the monitor only had temp presets and made it live with whatever "normal" meant under Color Tone (temp). When done, temp measured 6400. I recalibrated using Tone Contol Warm1 and found it measured 6500. Never touched any of the 6 color controls.

I'm very pleased with the 244t's color .... it's very, very close to the coloredge when I calibrate the coloredge with eye-one to the same 6500, 2.2, 120 settings. There's a slight difference in contrast I don't quite understand, but otherwise it's hard to see a difference between the two.

Sharpness is also similar, which surprised me since the samsung is on an analog line. But it is at native resolution .... I'm wondering if native resolution isn't far more important than digital vs analog?

Anyway, maybe you want to give it a try ... that is setting temp through the Tone control presets and leaving the 6 color settings alone. Worked for me. Hope this helps, and best, mark

That sounds close, and good to know you are experiencing good performance. the only difference from where I was with the Samsung SyncMaster 244T is a balance of somewhat lower contrast and more brightness. but that may be because I like to see all of the detail I can in highlights and shadows.

Just FYI information I have already done my evaluation work with Apple Cinema Display and am about ready to start looking for another LCD brand and model to review.

Kevin, the mouse lag you are seeing on the 244t is a problem a lot of other people are noticing lately (mostly gamers). It seems to mainly plague the larger late-model LCDs (21"-24") and may be an artifact of the "overdrive" technology used to achieve faster pixel response times. If you hook up a CRT and the LCD to the same dual-output video card, you will actually see the lag on the lcd. Here are a couple posts on the subject:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=937127&page=1&pp=20

http://weblogs.asp.net/ryanw/archive/2004/09/23/233681.aspx

The mouse lag is due almost entirely to the fact a 24" LCD monitor runs about twice the resolution as a 21" CRT, so the speed of the mouse is really about the same, it is just traveling across twice as many pixels.

David,

A while back you indicated that you are about ready to start looking for another LCD brand and model to review. I suggest that you look into the NEC 19" MultiSync LCD1980SXi and 21" LCD2180UX combined with the SpectraView II calibrator. These LCD's are top of the line from NEC and are reasonably priced. They have a backlight adjustment, 10 bit gamma correction, a gamma range of 0.5-4, large viewing angles, wide color temperature adjustments (between 5000K and 9300K) and guaranteed pixel-out specifications per ISO13406, Class II.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Sorry David, but the mouse lag has nothing to do with the difference in resolution. It lags when both screens are running the exact same resolution (1600x1200).

Resolution is a factor in cursor performance, but from what you say your experience is obviously due to other factors. Those can be many, the mouse itself, the mouse driver, the video card and VC driver software.

But I would also ask is 1600x1200 native resolution? And, sorry, is the LCD connected via DVI or analog?

And from your remarks, should I assume you are running two monitors? And if you are on Windows the second monitor does not get the same OS support as the primary.

Thanks for the interest in this. The 244t has a native resolution of 1920x1200 but was running at 1600x1200 to match up with the CRT. The 7800gt has two DVI ports, so the lcd is connected via DVI and the CRT via a DVI/VGA adapter.

So yes, running two monitors in clone mode under Windows. I did tests with each monitor having a turn being the primary - and the results were the same. The 244t display noticeably lags the crt when moving windows around on the desktop.

I've started to look into the overdrive technology a little more in depth and found an interesting article about it, refers to it as 'Response Time Compensation'. From what I could understand, this technology uses a frame buffer to support the process to give better pixel response times. Wondering if this could have a hand in the delay...

I just ordered a 244T on the reco of a friend who has one, and after reading up a bit. I own an older PC with a GEForce4 Ti4400 that has DVI, so I am hoping I can drive the monitor with it until I upgrade the PC Rig..

BigWoolyG,

When you get it and have it installed an running. let us know if the video card supports the monitor and it runs satisfactorily.

I've been researching a replacement LCD monitor for my elderly LG Flatron, but unable to find a review that I thought said something meaningful to digital photographers, or for that matter any photographer. And especially to those who are making prints from their photos.
So it was a big relief to me when I came upon your evaluation of the 214T. Ironically, I've been reading your Shutterbug articles for years, but never thought to look on its forum.
In any case, let's just say that I trust your (vendor-independent)judgement to the extent that I plunked down C$838 for this monitor.

Kurtzone,

So once you've used it a bit let's hear what your experience has been, and we'll see if I got it right. I am sure others would like to know as well. My review should be coming out in the magazine pretty soon, I hope.

Well, I've had a week's experience with it. I've set it up as a dual monitor with my LG Flatron 795FT. I have an Asus EN6600 video card with the NVidia chip on it. The 214 is running at native 1600X1200 true colour.

I can tell you two things for sure: it has phenomenal rendering of small fonts, and there is a significant difference between text rendering in analog and DVI connections - digital being better.

But calibration gets less clear. If I use my Monaco V1.6 program, and set contrast to 100%, I have to set the brightness to about 91-94 to get a just noticeable difference in the two black patches. This profile seems too hot, and it shows on the white end of the B&W stepwedges on Norman Koren's website:
http://www.normankoren.com

Blacks render better ie the black-grey differences are noticeable.

On the other hand, the colour reference file he lists on the Digital Dog site seems to look right, esp. the flesh tones.
So, qualitatively, colour rendiiton seems very good, but first results of B&W tone rendition are less than perfect. Monaco tells you to set the contrast to 100% prior to calibration. Is this necessary on LCD monitors? It always worked doing my LG calibration.

I can see where this is headed: I'm going to have to spring for a spectrophotometer.

Try reducing the contrast. It would help of you have an accurate gray 20 step tablet image to have on screen in RGB mode to view to make these adjustments.

Hello all...again...

Had this monitor for like 3 months or so now and overall I am pleased....it's a great LCD for the price, till i can afford an Eizo

A couple of problems maybe you can help me with.

I have a problem with gradients not being smooth, they are like banded...some worse than others....I have read that LCDs can do that. Any suggestions on how I can reduce the banding? Maybe I should've gotten the Eizo s2410, i heard it has a 14-bit correction....does that help with gradients? Don't get me wrong, it's a awesome monitor, maybe I dont have it calibrated right.

Another problem I have is like a bright pink red "glitches" or lines show at some edges of a certain contrast or color....likd on the very edge of the frames on this site, http://www.annapodris.com/, there's a red pink like that goes down the left side...that is not on there on other monitors....any ideas?

thanks!

Kevin,

Two questions that may be relevant as I did not see any of the artifacts in several weeks of intense use. first what video card are you driving it with and are you using one with a DVI interface. And are you running the monitor at native resolution or something else.

Hi David,

I am running at the default 1920 x 1200 resolution and the video card is a stock 9600 Pro for the dual g5 2.5.

I am using it with DVI KVN switch that switches between my mac and my PC...the KVN is a B-system model...used to be compucable.

Thanks!

Ah, just noticed...I dont see the red/pink glitch problem on my PC, only on mac...I do though have the gradient problem on my PC like on the mac.

Any ideas?

Kevin

Nothing like anything I have experienced. However, with my G5 Dual I had to put in a new ATI Pro 256 graphics card after installing Aperture. Aperture revealed a defect in the video card. When I installed the new one, which came with a CD and software support for the card, I obtained cleaner, artifact free and improved performance. Pretty expensive fix.

Hi David,
I'm new to this site, and have poked around on it a fair bit. I'm looking at getting a new monitor, and have been mesmerized by the number of choices. I just read your review of the samsung 244t, which you seem pleased with. I have been considering the apple cinema display, which I believe you had good things to say about within this forum. I'm not sure if you have reviewed the apple displays, I couldn't find it if you did. Either way, I was wondering if you had to choose between the samsung or apple which would it be. I greatly appreciate any advice or direction you could offer me.
Thanks
Tim

Tim,

The review of the Samsung SyncMaster 244T/214T is a part of an ongoing series of LCD display reports that goes back a year or so. The Samsung is so far the most effective LCD display among those that are general consumer products and provided distinctly fine performance with superb image quality supporting digital photography. But because it is a consumer product intended for a wide range of uses including general home and office, it demands quite a bit of tuning of the available adjustments as well as calibration and profiling using an effective sensor (colorimeter) and software to become effective applied to digital photography processing.

I have also tested the Apple Cinema Displays, which are also in a sense general consumer targeted products. However the Apple Cinema Displays are designed and factory configured to specifically serve a more defined use, that of Apple Mac users primarily, a good portion of whom are graphics professional and photographers. Thus Apple has not found a need to provide a wide range of adjustment, just for brightness, and that with just an adjustment to match display brightness with the environment in which it is used, it can then be calibrated and profiled to the Apple and most generally PC standard of D65 color temperature and gamma 2.2 to achieve excellent performance when used for processing digital photography. In other words, out of the box, the Apple Cinema Displays are readily adapted to use in pro graphics and photography applications. My report on the Apple displays will run this summer in Shutterbug.

I just finished testing the Eizo ColorEdge CE210W LCD display. This is an LCD product factory designed specifically for pro-graphics and photography applications that includes addition digital controls built into the display, which in conjunction with Eizo Color Navigator software that comes with the display provides through a USB connection direct control of the display's performances settings as well as precise calibration and profiling. The Eizo ColorEdge CE 210W display is the most directly adaptable to both pro-graphis and photography processing I have used, the easiest and most effective to adjust, calibrate and profile, and provide the best reproduction of photographic images I have yet seen, and with very precise print matching performance.

Thanks David,
I greatly appreciate the tips. Sounds like you need to know what you are doing (which I don't) with the samsung monitor. The Eizo monitor sounds great, but its a little pricey (around $1100). I'm planning on buying a bunch of stuff, macbook pro, monitor calibration tool, wacom tablet, and a second monitor. I don't know that I can justify spending the extra that much on a monitor along with all the other stuff, I can get the apple display for $700. However I think I'll wait for your review this summer before I take the plunge on the monitor.
Thanks again
Tim

Tim.

Everything you can possibly accomplish with digital photography is perceptually controlled. If you can't see clearly and precisely what you are doing the results will suffer. The display/monitor is the cornerstone of a digital photography system ,the foundation. Would you build a house on a weak and inadequate foundation?

David,
I agree, but are the differences between the ezio, apple or samsung monitors that substantial? I don't think I'd have the experience, knowledge, or patience to calibrate the samsung, and theres a $400 difference in the eizo and apple. Do you think its worth the extra coin?

Thanks again
Tim

Tim,

You should take a serious look at the top-of-the-line NEC LCD monitors with IPS (In-Plane Switching) technology. This technology was developed by NEC and according to experts in the field results in monitors best suited for demanding color-critical applications like photographic image editing. You get the best possible color and grayscale accuracy and minimal shift when viewed off axis. In the current 80 Series of NEC Professional MultiSync monitors the 19" LCD1980FXi sells for around $575 without the dedicated SpectraView II calibrator, for around $975 with calibrator. The Series 80 is in the process of being replaced by the Series 90 with improved performance; the 19" LCD1990SXi sells for around $745 without the calibrator. With calibrator, available sometime this summer (the current calibrator software needs to be modified for the 12 bit gamma correction verses the current 10 bit), the price should be around $995. This monitor is at the top of my short list for when my CRT finally dies. These prices are considerably less then for the lowest cost Eizo ColorEdge monitors with comparable or better performance.
The color temperature of the Apple Cinema displays is fixed at about 6500K and cannot be changed; many people want to have the capability to set the color temperature to 5000K or so to match their digital darkroom lighting.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer and printer

Tim,

Considering the long and pricey shopping list you mentioned at the outset, it makes no sense at all to me to scrimp on a critical essential so you can invest in a lot of superfluous luxuries.

Thanks for the info Frans, I'll definitely check them out.
Tim

Thanks again David, I guess $400 is not a lot when compared to the total amount I'm gonna end up spending. Scrimping would no doubt come back to haunt me.
Tim

Frans,
I've been doing this for a long time as well, with photographic color prints before digital. I hated to give up 5000K as well, but there is an important point. I still have a beautiful working 21"crt so most of my knowledge is from these monitors most of which are native 6500K. There is a hardware problem with most of today's video cards. Their LUTs are designed for 6500. In most cases, as David pointed out, they must work much harder to get the colors right, but in some cases they don't even contain the correct numbers and don't render properly. The second hardware problem is that even the best CRTs will not produce strong enough red to allow proper profiling with normal colorimeters after about two years in service, but calibrate quite well at 6500K even after four or five years of service.
Also, there is enough translation from transmissive media like monitors to reflective media like prints to allow for some minor differences in color temperature.
Adobe RGB is the standard for digital photography. It may not be the best solution for everyone especially in a closed loop. If you are dealing with printers or designers or really anyone who doesn't see your monitor, I don't see that you have any real choices. But don't get set in your ways as some colors rendered by digital capture get clipped by Adobe RGB, not that prints could ever reproduce them, but there is talk of changing the default color space to Prophoto RGB, just to make things more obtuse!!!
Neil

Neil,

There is nothing magical about the concept of "native" color temperature and is misleading at best. It just means that at higher color temperatures most monitors can be set at higher brightness levels and manufacturers love to publish high brightness numbers so they invented the term native color temperature.

Video cards don't have to work hard if the monitor has the capability to be properly calibrated before a profile is generated. The better CRT's have independent gain controls for red, green and blue so a particular color temperature can be pre-set before actual calibration/profiling and can do so at reasonable brightness levels in the 90-100cd/m^2 range. The better LCD's have sufficient controls to allow for a very wide range of color temperature settings at decent brightness levels. So, from a capability standpoint there is no issue to work with a monitor color temperature of 5000K.

My Sony 21" Trinitron's red electron gun has had enough intensity for over 5.5 years to calibrate/profile at 5000K and 90cd/m^2. Only now is it starting to run out of oomph. Am I willing to sacrifice some useful CRT life for the benefit of working with the color temperature that I prefer? You bet!

I too can live with "some" difference in color temperature between the monitor and digital darkroom lighting. However, depending on the image involved, I can see a distinct mismatch at only a few hundred degrees K and with a difference of 1500K the monitor-to-print mismatch is stunning to the point that any image editing becomes totally useless and counterproductive. A mismatch of 1500K is what you typically get when using the typical recommendations by many experts of a monitor setting of 6500K and using digital darkroom lighting of, at best, 5000K. The issues of the quality of the lighting only adds to the problems.

Adobe RGB (1998) is an arbitrary and theoretical color space not representing any actual scanner, camera, printer or other product. The fact that it is based on a color temperature of 6500K and a gamma of 2.2 doesn't mean that those numbers are the end-all for photographers.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

There is nothing misleading about the native color temperature performance of either a CRT or an LCD. The term simply refers to what levels of performance, like color temperature, the monitor/display exhibits based on its hardware design and construction. In other words as far as color temperature is concerned if no controls are available to adjust performance, what color temperature is produced. In the case of CRT's the typical is 9300 degrees Kelvin, and in the case of all of the LCD's I have tested the unadjusted color temperature is just under 7000 degrees Kelvin.

To achieve any other color temperature, what the adjustment controls do is reduce the efficiency of some of the functions. In other words to obtain a 5000 degree color temperature from a CRT the efficiency of the green and blue electron guns are reduced. The same principal applies to LCD but a different mechanism is involved. At an unadjusted hardware default the individual pixels open to let backlight through at the same rate. If the color temperature is lowered the green and blue pixels are arbitrarily shut down to a percentage of their efficiency.

Video cards do work at all times when a monitor is calibrated and profiled, as the video card is the device that adjusts the monitor/display to the requirements of the calibrated profile. If the monitor's hardware settings of the monitor/display correspond with the parameters of the calibration and profile, the adjustments at boot-up are small. But even if not small, the video card does not work any harder, it just makes the LUT adjustments larger, substituting one number for another, which does not require any more "effort".

The "issue" with using a 5000K monitor/display setting is that the monitor or display is functioning at considerably less of its potential efficiency than it is at native default color temperature.

I think if you made a survey including a test, the great majority of photographers would prefer working with a 6500 degree color temperature monitor/display setting. Apple in the beginning for all their computers employed at 5000K 1.8 gamma standard, which they abandoned just a few years ago in favor of 6500K and 2.2 gamma.

That some individuals strongly prefer a warmer 5000K screen performance environment to work with just reflects the variability in perception among different people, nothing more. We are all different in many ways in what we prefer and works for us. That standards like Adobe RGB (1998) are adopted IS NOT ARBITRARY, it is carefully considered in terms of what functions most effectively for the majority of users. That it leaves some users out says nothing other than not everyone belongs to the portion of humanity that resides within the main body of a bell curve.

David,

I disagree with you on the issue of "native" color temperature. CRT and LCD monitors are inherently capable of displaying images with a very wide range of color temperatures; 5000 to 9300K for most and 2600 to 10000K for many. Any limitations to these monitors' color temperature ranges are deliberately put in place by manufacturers. Whatever your opinion is on the wisdom or desirability of these limitation, putting those limitations in place and then justifying them by introducing the term "native" color temperature is in my opinion misleading. There is nothing in a monitor's hardware design or construction that limit's it's basic color temperature capability as described earlier.

If a manufacturer like Apple decides to sell Cinema LCD monitors with a factory set color temperature of about 7000K and no adjustment feature and call that 7000K the monitor's "native" color temperature then that term is totally arbitrary and not based on any inherent product limitation or potential. It also is indicative of an attitude toward people that want to operate their monitor at a different setting.

You will also notice that there is no consistency about the limitations or factory settings that manufacturers apply. Some only work at 7000K, others at other and sometimes not even specified values. Some have very limited setting choices like 5000K, 6500K and 9300K. What is very clear is that higher-end monitors aimed at color-critical applications like image editing give the user a choice over a very extended color temperature range and don't claim any particular "native" color temperature.

Your use of the term efficiency in regards to changing a monitor's color temperature is misleading. The R, G and B channel gains (or output levels, same thing) are changed either in hardware or software/LUTs. Efficiency has nothing to do with it.

The fact that some individuals prefer to work with a 5000K screen has nothing to do with variability in perception among different people. It has everything to do with monitor-to-print matching; apparently some people put a high value on such a match, while other people don't care or don't understand that the lack of monitor-to-print matching is caused by a lack of a match between the color temperature of their monitor and the color temperature of high-quality digital darkroom lighting.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

On numerous occasions both private and public you have mentioned a background in science and engineering. But your arguments are entirely contrary to any rational basis of what you claim.

Displays and monitors are in this respect like an electric motor. It runs at a particular RPM rate when normal current is applied. You can slow it down by putting a rheostat in the line and reducing the current to the motor. Then the motor is functioning at a percentage or fraction of its capacity. The same principle applies to a monitor or display, CRT or LCD.

The fact there is in some monitors and displays the ability to adjust parameters of performance functions by the same principle. If no adjustment is applied, or there is no adjustment available, the monitor or display performs at its maximum capacity according to its physical capabilities and how it was manufactured with fixed physical attributes. An adjustment capability cannot change the physical attributes of a CRT's phosphorous inner screen lining or physical nature of the electron guns. Adjustment controls can only reduce a dimension of the power or signal that activates the electron gun and hence the screen image, it cannot increase it beyond 100% of capability.

Your statement to me is not about facts but just word games trying to make variations between products and their specifications mean something they do not. An example being "There is nothing in a monitor's hardware design or construction that limit's it's basic color temperature capability as described earlier." Which you have denied in your description of the Apple Cinema Display's performance.

>>Your use of the term efficiency in regards to changing a monitor's color temperature is misleading. The R, G and B channel gains (or output levels, same thing) are changed either in hardware or software/LUTs. Efficiency has nothing to do with it.<<

I am afraid you would have to substantiate that with fact and logic, because otherwise it is totally false.

>>The fact that some individuals prefer to work with a 5000K screen has nothing to do with variability in perception among different people. It has everything to do with monitor-to-print matching<<

The establishment of the D50 /1.8 standard used in pre-press and pro-graphics was long before desktop computer color printing was in use. It was established entirely for input purposes to match transparency and flat art illumination sources (that had been standard in the industry long before the adoption of computers) to a computer screen image.

You may discount perception as a primary factor in photography but about the only support for that approach you'll get is Dan Margulis and his by the number approach to pre-press computer graphics, and whose only value to photographers is among the few who are color blind.

David,

Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to me to take a monitor that has the potential to operate over a wide range of color temperatures, restrict it's operation to one or a couple of color temperatures and than call one of those it's "native" operating point. And I don't care if that magical operation point is the maximum setting or something else. What is the significance of this magical operating point anyway? I'd rather have the whole possible range of color temperatures available to me so I can make my own choices, based on my preferences, color temperature of the digital darkroom lighting, etc. In the case of the Apple Cinema display I have no choices at all; what kind of approach is that?

With regards to efficiency, you imply that when a monitor is not putting out the maximum amount of red, green and blue light, like when you tweak one or more color channels to adjust the color temperature, it is somehow less "efficient". Using the same logic, you are not making an "efficient" use of the monitor if you are not running the backlighting at full brightness, something you would normally not want to do for color-critical editing.

Since when do I discount perception as a primary factor in photography? The whole issue of monitor-to-print matching is a major perception issue, an issue that you repeatedly try to wipe under the rug by claiming that it is a "perception issue", as if that makes it OK to have a major mismatch between the color temperature of the monitor and the digital darkroom lighting. What kind of twisted logic is that?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

I have to conclude from your contrarian arguments which turn the reality of LCD characteristics on their head that you are seeing only what you want to that supports what you think is essential to print matching. I find that not unlike some political ideologies too common today that would have one believe the world is flat.

Effective print matching is not dependent on a color temperature match between the the print viewing illumination and the display/monitor, unless they are immediately next to each other and viewed together simultaneously. The reason is very simple, if the print is viewed in a different space and illumination from the display human perception almost instantly compensates for moderate differences in color temperature, so the colors in the image will appear to be the same.

If what you say were true then any print made to match at one particular viewing illumination color temperature if moved to another location with different illumination would not exhibit the true colors of the photograph, by falsely assuming human perception does not adjust and compensate for different color temperatures of illumination.

The fact is that the preponderance of digital photographers working with computers do not limit themselves to the antiquarian standard of monitor and print viewing illumination you favor and limit yourself to, and they produce what is to them effective print matched results and fine photographic results. Even on a professional level of excellence I see those results reproduced every day.

By making your very narrow, limited print illumination requirement the axis upon which all else must revolve you make it a tail that wags the dog.

David,

Well, well, well. I wonder if you can find any more judgemental words to "answer" my inputs. Do you want me to reply to you using similar, belittling phrases? I can do that probably as well as anybody else, so just tell me and I will gladly oblige.

So, now that that is out of the way, I will ignore the nasty wording and try to reply in an objective, professional manner.

<<Effective print matching is not dependent on a color temperature match between the the print viewing illumination and the display/monitor, unless they are immediately next to each other and viewed together simultaneously.>>
I couldn't agree with you more. The crucial issue is indeed whether or not the monitor and viewing area are next to each other and viewed simultaneously. Now I am going to make an assertion that you are welcome to disagree with (you probably will): most people doing image editing and printing will do so where the monitor and viewing area are next to each other and viewed simultaneously. I'm also making the assertion that most people that do NOT view their prints in the same area do so because they have noticed a monitor-to-print mismatch which they either can't figure out to resolve or don't bother to (again you are welcome to disagree). Personally, I do all my printing and viewing right next to my monitor and yes, I have a very close monitor-to-print match using settings and lighting that you are well aware of.

<<If what you say were true then any print made to match at one particular viewing illumination color temperature if moved to another location with different illumination would not exhibit the true colors of the photograph, by falsely assuming human perception does not adjust and compensate for different color temperatures of illumination.>>
I am not saying anything that would contradict what you are referring to! I'm well aware of this phenomenon called color constancy and you may remember that I have refered to it several times in earlier discussions in exactly the same context that you are using here.

<<...do not limit themselves to the antiquarian standard of monitor and print viewing illumination you favor and limit yourself to...>>
Are you saying that striving for the best possible monitor-to-print match is antiquated and limiting or can't you just admit that my approach may have validity and may work well for many people? Talk about "very narrow, limited" thinking!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

I am sorry you are offended but I characterize what you say objectively and on the merits. And actually I am sympathetic because I think from what you portend in all that you delude yourself and cause yourself considerable unnecessary grief. I'll explain why I see it that way at the end, but first I'll deal with the points you made.

1. >>Now I am going to make an assertion that you are welcome to disagree with (you probably will): most people doing image editing and printing will do so where the monitor and viewing area are next to each other and viewed simultaneously. I'm also making the assertion that most people that do NOT view their prints in the same area do so because they have noticed a monitor-to-print mismatch which they either can't figure out to resolve or don't bother to <<

In response I can only speak for myself and the few setups of friends and acquaintances, which is anecdotal evidence and is not representative of the whole. I don't think any assumptions can be made one way or the other about how people configure and use a digital darkroom, as there is no research done to produce objective data. To make any assumption about how others deal with print matching from the considerable feedback I receive would be foolhardy as the examples that are described to me are very diverse and cover just about every imaginable possibility. The only generality that may be objectively true is that most users want and strive for a WYSIWYG result, and will adjust their workflow to obtain print-matching if at all possible.

2. Then if we both agree on the function of color constancy, that the eye accommodates differences in color temperature, logic would dictate there is NO necessity that the print viewing illumination must match the color temperature of the monitor/display if print and screen are NOT in the same field of vision. And I would add that is a more likely scenario, especially with larger printers, and with Pro printers it is just about the only possibility. And then one must add that many paper/ink combinations "dry-down" is a significant factor, and print viewing for matching should not be done as the print exits the printer and is still wet.

3. >>Are you saying that striving for the best possible monitor-to-print match is antiquated and limiting or can't you just admit that my approach may have validity and may work well for many people?<<

The "best" possible monitor to print match is what works most effectively for most people. Most people do adhere to the contemporary color temperature and gamma standard recommended and supported by Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe of 6500K and gamma 2.2. The 5000K gamma 1.8 monitor standard is an older, obsolete standard that is now only maintained by some pre-press and pro-graphics shops because it is comfortable and traditional. To continue to adhere to the 5000K 1.8 standard is in the present world a disadvantage because it does NARROW the choices of products you can select from and use successfully.

4. You suggested I am familiar with your workflow settings, which unless they have changed include using the Adobe RGB digital camera colorspace setting, and using the Adobe RGB (1998) workspace profile as Photoshop's workspace. Adobe RGB is a colorspace which has the prime parameters that are today's standard of 6500K color temperature and gamma 2.2.

This is a mismatch then with the monitor settings you use of 5000K and gamma 1.8.

In your arguments on this subject you have claimed that the Adobe RGB colorspace that is displayed when Photoshop has an image open is converted to your monitor's 5000K color temperature, so that you are actually seeing the image in the warmer 5000K monitor colorspace.

That is contrary to how color management works. Regardless what the monitor settings are and calibrated and profiled to, the colors displayed in a color managed system will be true to the colors of the Source space.

Because this function of working spaces was only generally defined in Adobe's documentation, I spent many, many hours running a double parallel set of tests to establish exactly what colors are displayed by an image open in Photoshop in the Adobe RGB working space. The results confirmed Adobes statement that the on-screen appearance of color will be true to the colorspace of the working space profile. Adobe RGB color displayed on a monitor set at 6500K and calibrated and profiled to that setting measures within a 1% variation the same as displayed on a monitor set at 5000K and calibrated and profiled to that setting. These test results have been confirmed to be acceptable by two independent experts in color management.

Frans, you are of course free to come to any conclusion you choose to.

David,

>>I am sorry you are offended but I characterize what you say objectively and on the merits.<<

So I guess you see yourself as an impartial judge of how objective and knowledgeable you yourself are. That's quite an interesting assumption.

>>I am sympathetic because I think from what you portend in all that you delude yourself and cause yourself considerable unnecessary grief. I'll explain why I see it that way at the end, but first I'll deal with the points you made.<<

You brought me to tears with this one. Too bad you didn't share your wisdom about how I cause myself considerable, unnecessary grief. I'm really looking for somebody, anybody, to please, please show me the way to relief. I'm so tired of deluding myself!

>>...that most users want and strive for a WYSIWYG result, and will adjust their workflow to obtain print-matching if at all possible.<<

Another point that we agree on. However, I venture to say (please feel free to disagree) that most people in the Shutterbug audience, yes even most non-professionals, more than likely print their images right next to their monitor screen.

>>...NO necessity that the print viewing illumination must match the color temperature of the monitor/display if print and screen are NOT in the same field of vision.<<

We agreed on that already.

>>And I would add that is a more likely scenario, especially with larger printers, and with Pro printers it is just about the only possibility.<<

Not very likely for the average Shutterbug reader or any other non-professional digital darkroom user, don't you agree?

>>And then one must add that many paper/ink combinations "dry-down" is a significant factor, and print viewing for matching should not be done as the print exits the printer and is still wet.<<

I don't know what printers you are using, David, but I venture to say (usual caveat) that most of today's inkjet prints (mostly used by Shutterbug readers and other non-professional digital darkroom users, I venture to say) don't show any noticeable changes once they exit the printer. My Epson prints certainly don't.

>>The "best" possible monitor to print match is what works most effectively for most people.<<

Sorry, hate to disappoint, but I have to disagree on this one. The best possible monitor-to-print match is the one that creates the least possible difference between the colors and tonality of the monitor and print. And I even dare to inverse your logic: The best possible monitor-to-print match will allow most people to work most effectively. And there is a subtle but important difference.

>>Most people do adhere to the contemporary color temperature and gamma standard recommended and supported by Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe of 6500K and gamma 2.2.<<

Most people may be wrong. Most people may not understand all the issues involved. Most people may not have the necessary information to have an opinion one way or the other. Most people may have developed bad habits without realizing it. Most people may have monitor-to-print mismatch problems and don't know how to get rid of it and gave up.

>>To continue to adhere to the 5000K 1.8 standard is in the present world a disadvantage because it does NARROW the choices of products you can select from and use successfully.<<

All the better CRT and LCD monitors (with a few glaring exceptions like the Apple Cinema displays - the reason why I personally don't consider these displays to belong to the "better" category) allow for a wide range of color temperatures and gammas; hardly a narrowing of choices.

I also venture to say that the ONLY high-quality light sources without spikes in the color spectrum are 5000K or less, making it impossible to match a 6500K monitor with a high-quality 6500K light source.

>>You suggested I am familiar with your workflow settings, which unless they have changed include using the Adobe RGB digital camera colorspace setting, and using the Adobe RGB (1998) workspace profile as Photoshop's workspace. Adobe RGB is a colorspace which has the prime parameters that are today's standard of 6500K color temperature and gamma 2.2. This is a mismatch then with the monitor settings you use of 5000K and gamma 1.8.<<

If you had read some of our other exchanges more carefully, you would know that I changed my monitor calibration to 5000K and gamma 2.2. Reason being that Photoshop converts the image data to the workspace gamma, but not to the workspace color temperature. Since Photoshop converts the image data to gamma 2.2 anyway, there is no need to calibrate the monitor to gamma 1.8. I even asked you to work with me to get to understand why Photoshop does what is does but you declined.

>>In your arguments on this subject you have claimed that the Adobe RGB colorspace that is displayed when Photoshop has an image open is converted to your monitor's 5000K color temperature, so that you are actually seeing the image in the warmer 5000K monitor colorspace.<<

I prefer to say that Photoshop does not convert the image data to the Photoshop workspace color temperature. A subtle but important difference.

>>That is contrary to how color management works. Regardless what the monitor settings are and calibrated and profiled to, the colors displayed in a color managed system will be true to the colors of the Source space.<<

You have said this many times before, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. My own experiences and measurements tell me differently.

>>Because this function of working spaces was only generally defined in Adobe's documentation, I spent many, many hours running a double parallel set of tests to establish exactly what colors are displayed by an image open in Photoshop in the Adobe RGB working space. The results confirmed Adobes statement that the on-screen appearance of color will be true to the colorspace of the working space profile. Adobe RGB color displayed on a monitor set at 6500K and calibrated and profiled to that setting measures within a 1% variation the same as displayed on a monitor set at 5000K and calibrated and profiled to that setting. These test results have been confirmed to be acceptable by two independent experts in color management.<<

Again, my own experiences tell me otherwise. And again you declined to work with me to try to understand why you and I got different results when doing presumably similar tests.

>>Frans, you are of course free to come to any conclusion you choose to.<<

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Frans Waterlander

pixographer/printer

>>>>Frans, you are of course free to come to any conclusion you choose to.<<
Thank you, thank you, thank you! <<

Frans,

Obviously! You come to the wrong conclusion on several counts. Your assumptions about Shutterbug readers is belittling and in error, based on numerous reader surveys done in the past, and confirmed by my contacts with a good representation of a large number of readers, they are more skilled, knowledgeable and better equipped than your remarks give credit. As to my testing, I described exactly what I did, which has no relation to what you said you tested, and if you are really interested (and I think you're not) you could do the same set of tests, it just takes a pro colorimeter and software that reads out LAB values and a copy of an ICC IT-8 reference file.

Quote:

Frans,

Obviously! You come to the wrong conclusion on several counts. Your assumptions about Shutterbug readers is belittling and in error, based on numerous reader surveys done in the past, and confirmed by my contacts with a good representation of a large number of readers, they are more skilled, knowledgeable and better equipped than your remarks give credit. As to my testing, I described exactly what I did, which has no relation to what you said you tested, and if you are really interested (and I think you're not) you could do the same set of tests, it just takes a pro colorimeter and software that reads out LAB values and a copy of an ICC IT-8 reference file.

David,

OK, let's get down to business. Please explain the following:
1) How are my assumptions about Shutterbug readers in error?
2) Where can I find the results of past, numerous Shutterbug reader surveys?
3) How are Shutterbug readers more skilled, knowledgeable and better equipped?
4) How are my tests incorrect?
(My monitor calibrated to 5000K and gamma 1.8 displays a Photoshop image as 5000K and gamma 2.2)
5) How do you explain the different results from your and my tests?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

1. Your previous statements indicated average Shutterbug readers "most people" are not getting matched print results and don't even realize it. I think you are misled by what you read in this forum and other similar venues, because people who are just getting into digital printing are the ones who have a motive to look for information from other users. Those many more photographers who have a handle on what they are doing and getting are less likely to participate in a forum or send questions to a help column.

2. The address of Shutterbug's editorial office is published. Whether they will provide you with the results of past reader surveys or not, I cannot say.

3. The readers of Shutterbug in their response to surveys in the past indicate a considerable length of experience in photography, and a quite high percentage consider themselves professional or part-time professional. A sizable proportion reported having more than one camera, and many using more than one format size. In respect of the average for the entire population Shutterbug readers were older, better educated and at a higher income level.
This is consistent with the individual mail and e-mail I receive from Shutterbug readers which identify them as including a much larger percentage of professionals than the general population, particularly medical doctors, as well as accountants, college level educators, lawyers, scientists, etc.

4. From what you described of your tests you were only involved in measuring the color temperature, and the only test object you described is a white file of RGB 255-255-255.

That will not yield any information about the colors in an image reproduced by a monitor/display. You have to use an image object, like an ICC IT-8 target that represents the entire potential gamut. Then you have to measure each different color within the gamut to obtain a LAB color value number for each so you can determine if there is any variation between a monitor set and profiled at 5000K and one set and profiled at 6500K in the way it displays the IT-8 reference image reproduced from Photoshop's Adobe RGB (1998) as the Source space.

5. The results are different because we are measuring different criteria.

Whether a monitor is set at 5000K or 6500K if it is calibrated and profiled at those settings, it will reproduce the same gamut of Source RGB values the same within its physical limits. You would only see RGB values true to 5000K if the source is also 5000K.

David,

Re items #1, 2 and 3:
You do not substantiate your assertions any more than I do, so I'll chalk those up to opinions, unless you are willing to share more information.

Items #4 and 5:
You are right that at one time I measured the color temperature only of a white 255/255/255 image. This is in my book a perfectly valid measurement. However, I decided that I wanted to measure more data points AND calculate gamma using several brightness levels. So I measured both color temperatures and brightness levels of an image containing large patches of 64/64/64, 128/128/128, 192/192/192 and 255/255/255. As you know you can calculate gamma from 2 or more data points on the brightness curve. I calibrated my monitor to 5000K/gamma 1.8 and verified those numbers with my colorimeter. Then I created said image in the Photoshop Adobe RGB (1998) color space and measured color temps and brightness of all patches; color temps were all about 5000K and the calculated gamma was 2.2.
Then I recalibrated and verified my monitor to 6500K/gamma 2.2 and all patches measured about 6500K and gamma was again 2.2.
So, please explain to me why these tests would be incorrect. And don't tell me that measuring pure whites and pure grays in an image are a flawed way of measuring color temperature. I also like to hear your explanation as to why the color temperature doesn't change, but gamma does.

>>Whether a monitor is set at 5000K or 6500K if it is calibrated and profiled at those settings, it will reproduce the same gamut of Source RGB values the same within its physical limits. You would only see RGB values true to 5000K if the source is also 5000K.<<
This assertion is in direct conflict with my measurements, where the source is 6500K but the image on the monitor is 5000K when the monitor is calibrated to 5000K.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

When you measure color temperature using a colorimeter, you are not obtaining any information that specifically defines the color that is displayed. The reading you obtain from any RGB values that are equal like 0-0-0, 255,255,255, or any shade of gray with equal RGB values, will be the color temperature of the monitor/display irrespective of the Source. The Source has no gamma or color temperature other than what is inherent to the RGB values of each pixel.

When your source is a specific working space profile, all of the colors are defined in RGB number values in accordance with that defined color space. Color temperature and gamma are just ancillary attributes along single lines of intersection of a 3 dimensional color space, and are not individually and specifically conveyed from one profiled device to another profiled device. All that is transmitted from the application space to the monitor are RGB number values for each XY coordinate in the image.

Again, when you read the measurement output using a colorimeter for color temperature, the only information you will obtain from any RGB value with equal (same) number values from pure black through all tones of gray to white is the color temperature of the display regardless of the source attributes.

That is irrelevant to color management (print matching) as far as the functioning of a working space source profile is concerned. What you claim is that your monitor profile converts the RGB values sent by the Source to match the characteristics of the display. Or put in slightly different language you claim that if your monitor is set to 5000K and calibrated and profiled to that setting, then what you see on screen is monitor space not the colorspace that is true to the source.

Then to test that assumption you would have to send a target image of color patches from the source space (Photoshop's Adobe RGB) that represents the entire color gamut and read each color patch on screen for its color value (in LAB/RGB number values), with the display/monitor set, calibrated and profiled at both 5000K and 6500K. If your claim is true there would be differences in the values of the patches between the two sets of readings and those differences would be greatest in the blue and red portions of the spectrum.

As I reported to you I conducted these tests, and both ways, with the Adobe RGB (1998) working space profile, and with a profile that has a 5000K parameter, as well as with no profile using a none color managed application.

My findings were that when a working space profile is the Photoshop source the values of each color displayed are the same (less than 1% variation) regardless of whether the monitor display is set to 5000K or 6500K and calibrated and profiled for that setting, but do change significantly and the most in reds and blues if the source is not color managed by the application.

To me this test confirmed that the functional purpose of a working space profile as defined in theory by Adobe is born out in real practice. And that purpose is if a standard working space profile is the source, that any image saved with the working space profile embedded that generated the image, can be displayed by Photoshop with any color managed computer of any kind or platform anywhere in the world and the image will look the same within the limits of the gamut of the hardware involved.

Without this functional capability pro photographers, for instance could not send their images to a reproduction facility (like a lab or publisher) and expect the operator there would see the image on-screen so that it looks the same as when it was made.

And, FYI that is why the working space profile ProPhoto RGB (which is 5000K/gamma 2.2) is popular with professional photographers who work directly with pre-press, agencies and publishing houses that work using a traditional 5000K environment.

David,

>>My findings were that when a working space profile is the Photoshop source the values of each color displayed are the same (less than 1% variation) regardless of whether the monitor display is set to 5000K or 6500K and calibrated and profiled for that setting, but do change significantly and the most in reds and blues if the source is not color managed by the application.<<
This you have claimed many times over and that is not what I experience.

First, my grays and white have the same color temperature as the monitor calibration, either 5000K or 6500K. In my book, grays and white are colors that happen to have the same R, G and B values, so this contradicts what you say should happen.

Second, ALL the colors in an image change dramatically (way, way more than 1%) when I change the monitor calibration from 5000K to 6500K and back, so this also contradicts what you say.

Third, you totally ignored what I told you about the gamma values, let alone attempt to explain it.

I also would like you to tell me exactly how I can duplicate your measurements so we can do a one-on-one comparison.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

I find your response is either disingenuous or based on a complete ignorance of what is involved objectively. Unless we agree on the fundamentals there is no way this can be resolved, and apparently you either can't or don't want to have any common ground from which any progress can be made. Color management functioning is not a matter subject to opinion. It functions within a very narrow definition of factors. And, what it is actually doing can only be precisely assessed by a precise and complete examination of the evidence in measured colors relative to an accepted objective standard. If you do not want to deal with the issues on an objective, measured basis, or do not have the instruments to do so, there is really nothing more to say. You have expressed your opinion based on your personal perceptions, but personal perception and belief does not define what objective reality is, it is just belief.

David,

My opinions are based on observations and measurements, so don't call me disingenuous or ignorant, please.

You may have notice that in my last reply I asked you to tell me exactly how I can duplicate your measurements so we can do a one-on-one comparison. Does that sound to you as if I don't want to deal with the issues on an objective, measured basis? My request still stands.

Also, I can give you the exact details of what I have done so you can replicate what I did. That should take you a minimum amount of time and would go a long way in getting to understand why you and I apparently are getting mutually exclusive results.

So, the choice is up to you, David. Do you want to work with me and resolve the issue?

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans,

I have already specified precisely what tests must be done, and that I have done, to determine precisely what a working space profile in Photoshop does in terms of what is displayed as a color image on a calibrated and profiled display. So why don't you just do it so you have something more than opinion to go on?