I used to be well up with all this monitor calibration malarkey. Over
the past couple of years, though, things have slipped, and I need a
refresher on the current thinking.
Here’s my current set-up:
Relatively old MacBook Pro 15in, hooked to an ageing Apple Cinema
Display 20in.
I have a Pantone Huey Pro and their shonky software extension, using
which I create a custom profile for each screens. These are used by
the various creative softwares as the basis for the colour workflow.
Being an old Mac user, I still adhere to the D1.8 gamma setting.
For my design world, I work with the Adobe RGB (1998) profile up to
final press-ready output and let Adobe convert to CMYK at PDF.
For my photographic world I have adopted Adobe RGB (1998) as the
standard profile for Aperture.
Try as I might, I can’t get the MBP and ACD to agree on the same
colours, but that’s a side issue as my main screen is the ACD when in
desktop and photo editing mode.
Now, my main question is should I be reviewing any of this? Is a gamma
of 1.8 still acceptable in these modern days of LCDs and web delivery?
For my design world, I work with the Adobe RGB (1998) profile up to final press-ready output and let Adobe convert to CMYK at PDF.
This is exactly my working.
For my photographic world I have adopted Adobe RGB (1998) as the standard profile for Aperture.
This is how I work too.
Try as I might, I can’t get the MBP and ACD to agree on the same colours, but that’s a side issue as my main screen is the ACD when in desktop and photo editing mode.
Neither can I. The Cinema Display is rather bright and the brightness needs to be down around halfway whereas the MCP needs to be up around the top end to get the brightness similar
Now, my main question is should I be reviewing any of this? Is a gamma of 1.8 still acceptable in these modern days of LCDs and web delivery?
Good question I would like to know too
Nathan Garner
Creative Director
Austin Wells Design Limited
One Elmgate Drive - Littledown - Bournemouth BH7 7EF
t 01202 301271 e email@hidden w http://www.austinwellsdesign.co.uk
Member of NAPP | Zen Affiliate | Dorset Business Member | YEC
There’s a very good place to find out all you need here:
email@hidden
AFAICR the consensus is that Apple screens are not very good for calibration - they don’t have the relevant controls - contrast for one.
Peter Tucker, Oxford UK - but mobile somewhere
On 2 Nov 2010, at 09:20, Heather Kavanagh email@hidden wrote:
Hi
I used to be well up with all this monitor calibration malarkey. Over the past couple of years, though, things have slipped, and I need a refresher on the current thinking.
Here’s my current set-up:
Relatively old MacBook Pro 15in, hooked to an ageing Apple Cinema Display 20in.
I have a Pantone Huey Pro and their shonky software extension, using which I create a custom profile for each screens. These are used by the various creative softwares as the basis for the colour workflow.
Being an old Mac user, I still adhere to the D1.8 gamma setting.
For my design world, I work with the Adobe RGB (1998) profile up to final press-ready output and let Adobe convert to CMYK at PDF.
For my photographic world I have adopted Adobe RGB (1998) as the standard profile for Aperture.
Try as I might, I can’t get the MBP and ACD to agree on the same colours, but that’s a side issue as my main screen is the ACD when in desktop and photo editing mode.
Now, my main question is should I be reviewing any of this? Is a gamma of 1.8 still acceptable in these modern days of LCDs and web delivery?
I’ve read good things about EIZO, and one place I worked had Barco
which cost like a new car but was extremely accurate. In my considered
opinion, you are not going to get an LCD to behave the way you could a
really nice Trinitron. All of the calibrated monitors I have ever used
(mark me – never could afford to own for myself) were CRT and weighed
over 100 pounds for the extra transformers and giant glass tubes and
what-not. And they came with a black smock to keep your shirt color
from affecting the outcome.
But all that can be tossed aside, and if you listen to the guru Dan
Margulis, even a color-blind person can do a very good job of color
correcting. It’s a matter of looking at the numbers, reading the
histograms like one of the minor characters in The Matrix, and
trusting in the rules of color. What you see on screen is an illusion
anyway.
Walter
On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Peter Tucker wrote:
There’s a very good place to find out all you need here:
email@hidden
AFAICR the consensus is that Apple screens are not very good for
calibration - they don’t have the relevant controls - contrast for
one.
Peter Tucker, Oxford UK - but mobile somewhere
On 2 Nov 2010, at 09:20, Heather Kavanagh email@hidden wrote:
Hi
I used to be well up with all this monitor calibration malarkey.
Over the past couple of years, though, things have slipped, and I
need a refresher on the current thinking.
Here’s my current set-up:
Relatively old MacBook Pro 15in, hooked to an ageing Apple Cinema
Display 20in.
I have a Pantone Huey Pro and their shonky software extension,
using which I create a custom profile for each screens. These are
used by the various creative softwares as the basis for the colour
workflow.
Being an old Mac user, I still adhere to the D1.8 gamma setting.
For my design world, I work with the Adobe RGB (1998) profile up to
final press-ready output and let Adobe convert to CMYK at PDF.
For my photographic world I have adopted Adobe RGB (1998) as the
standard profile for Aperture.
Try as I might, I can’t get the MBP and ACD to agree on the same
colours, but that’s a side issue as my main screen is the ACD when
in desktop and photo editing mode.
Now, my main question is should I be reviewing any of this? Is a
gamma of 1.8 still acceptable in these modern days of LCDs and web
delivery?