I currently own an iMac27", Lightroom v3.6 and shoot with a Canon 1Dmk3 and 5D2. Colors and exposure seem to be a tad off (Oh, I should mention I shoot exclusively RAW). Some subjects appear "muddy" while others are fine, some even have a .. best way I can explain it is what a deceased person looks like color tone.
At home, on my Mac exposre looks OK, but here at the office on a PC things look slightly underexposed. I'll shoot with strobes, and on occation with AlienBees.
I'm seriously pondering this product: Datacolor Spyder3Elite Display Calibration System
I use a competing product (X-Rite i1Pro), so I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the Spyder, although I'm somewhat familiar with it. I know that it works well on Windows systems, I don't know how well it works on a Mac (don't know of any problems with the Mac, I'm just not as familiar with it). Mac displays are somewhat "crippled" (my opinion) in that they only have a Brightness control and don't have a Contrast control like most other monitors do. If you can't get the luminance down to a low enough level on your iMac using the Brightness control, there's not much you can do to get the required luminance using the Spyder software. I have read that ColorEyes Display Pro has the provision to effectively change the contrast to overcome this problem.
Assuming that you setup both your Windows & Mac monitors to the same parameters (luminance, gamma, white point), your images should look virtually the same on both, as long as they are viewed with a color management aware application such as Photoshop. Unfortunately, many Windows apps are not color management aware (they don't use the monitor profile), so images viewed with those apps will likely look different.
Thats not quite true, the spyder software talks to the screen and specifically sets it to the luminance you ask it. I watched it, its creepy. You just have to remember not to play around with the brightness control afterwards (same with any screen) and also need to keep the ambient light sensor in the screen switched off otherwise it will never be stable.
I use the spyder 3 elite. Its fine. Im very pleased with mine and I use my screens professionally for weddings.
Get the Spyder, its fine and is one of the only low cost devices out there that can theoretically manage a wider gamut display however if your pockets are deeper (at least over here) the colour munki or the new X-Rite Display Pro series (not to be confused with the i1D2 at a similar price point to the spyder) are yardstick solutions. The i1D2 is supposed to be less capable in a wide gamut environment - however people have been satisfied with it.
BobCollette wrote:
I use a competing product (X-Rite i1Pro), so I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the Spyder, although I'm somewhat familiar with it. I know that it works well on Windows systems, I don't know how well it works on a Mac (don't know of any problems with the Mac, I'm just not as familiar with it). Mac displays are somewhat "crippled" (my opinion) in that they only have a Brightness control and don't have a Contrast control like most other monitors do. If you can't get the luminance down to a low enough level on your iMac using the Brightness control, there's not much you can do to get the required luminance using the Spyder software. I have read that ColorEyes Display Pro has the provision to effectively change the contrast to overcome this problem.
Assuming that you setup both your Windows & Mac monitors to the same parameters (luminance, gamma, white point), your images should look virtually the same on both, as long as they are viewed with a color management aware application such as Photoshop. Unfortunately, many Windows apps are not color management aware (they don't use the monitor profile), so images viewed with those apps will likely look different....Show more →
BobCollette wrote:
Mac displays are somewhat "crippled" (my opinion) in that they only have a Brightness control and don't have a Contrast control like most other monitors do.
They don't have a contrast control because there's no such thing as contrast control on an LCD.
When you see it on a (typically lower-end) standalone LCD, it's mangling the input signal before display, and usually doing it using really crappy low-bit math. (If you're Dell, you can even take this to its illogical extreme, and convert your pure digital input signal to analog, do the adjustments in lossy, low-resolution (but cheap!) analog, and then go back to digital to drive the LCD. No, they don't do this anymore to my knowledge. But yes, they did.)
In general, if you're touching anything but brightness on an LCD, you're cutting yourself off at the knees. This is the reason some higher-end displays make you unlock adjustment menus before they're accessible through the OSD... or don't make them available in the first place if you're using an "accurate" or "wide gamut" option.
What the color checker will give you is a baseline you can measure numerically in images with the eye dropper tool and hold next to screen and prints for actual comparison.
As a starting point for what is "Normal" look at the numerical values in the gray patches. In a correctly exposed file the white patch with Custom WB set off a gray card the white patch should be exposed to read around 250 because you want to reserve some brighter tones in the photo for the specular highlights that define 3D shape on solid white objects. In the shadows the dark patches of the target should be in the 15- 20 range out of camera.
The intermediate shades of gray should all have equal RGB values in a file out of camera where Custom WB has been set. Setting Custom WB off a known neutral gray card doesn't change the way the RAW file is captured, it just puts information in the file header to tell the monitor how to compensate for any color bias in the light used to set the WB.
The "dead" skin tones you mention are a frequently seen problem in outdoor shots under trees. In person your eyes will adapt to the ambient light color and not notice the daylight bouncing off the green foliage is giving the light a green bias. If you shoot with daylight WB the camera will record the green bias. But how that green bias affects the image isn't easy to see on the monitor either because of the way it affects image content. Green foliage with a green bias looks more saturated, but caucasian skin in green light looks dull and gray because green and red, the dominant color in skin, are opposites on the color wheel. When green is added to red the result is a darker duller shade of red. Skin under trees takes on a dull gray pallor. The same thing will occur to a file with normal color (i.e. no green cast) if the monitor isn't calibrated and has a green bias.
Subtle color biases are very difficult to judge by eye because your brain wants you to believe the white shirt the person is wearing, or other known neutral content in the photo is in fact white. So what will happen in the case of a photo under trees is the brain seeing the white shirt in the photo will adjust your color perception of the monitor to make the white shirt seem "normal" which will also change your perception of the skin. So you don't see the green bias on the monitor despite the fact its there. What you see however is a lowering of the overall contrast of the skintone: skin with a green bias will look flat tonally, as if shot on an overcast day.
If you were to set Custom WB off a gray card under the trees the camera will detect the green bias and adjust the RGB mix to eliminate it. If you then shoot a the card a second time and toggle between frames your brain, trusting the second post-Custom WB shot as being the more "correct" color will see the green bias by comparison...
If you were to open the two shots and measure the RGB values you'd be able to confirm the bias in the first shot taken with Daylight WB and that is was corrected by setting Custom WB. If you get the neutrals in balance out of camera and expose for a full range of detail there's no need to change color or exposure in PP, except to intentionally add a warm / cool bias.
That's where the various white patches on the top of the color checker come into play. They are warmer and cooler than technically R=G=B by degrees. So if you were to capture an image with Custom WB they would be reproduced as seen by eye, some warmer some cooler. Then in PP if you wanted to warm up the image by a controlled amount instead of clicking the eye dropper on the neutral white, you'd click it on one of the patches in the middle with a blue bias, which will shift the entire photo, including the neutral tones, warmer by a known amount.
So color process control is a multi-step process. You start the process with Custom WB in the camera as a known starting baseline and include the color chart in a test shot as a guide. When you open the test image with face holding the target seeing both at the same time will give you a better baseline for evaluating the skin tone than just the face would, because of the way your vision adapts. Then using the warm / cool patches on the target in the test image you can click on them with the eye dropper and change the WB warmer or cooler by a controlled amount while looking at the face and deciding by eye what looks best. That will vary depending on whether the face is outdoors in the summer in the sun (where a warm bias looks more normal) or outside on in the snow (where a cooler skin tone would seem normal if you want the give the impression they are freezing their butt off).
You can also use the MacBeth target in conjunction with picture styles...
The difference between changing the color balance via styles versus clicking on the warm/cool patches is that styles will shift the colors but not the neutral tones....
When you get your chart shoot someone holding it with Custom WB of the big gray card (covering the center circle of the viewfinder) with "Neutral" style set in the camera, then in ACR apply the different styles as shown in the screen shot above and you'll see what I mean. You can make the face more or less saturated by selecting different styles, then edit the style with the sliders for the various channels without affecting the RGB balance of the neutrals . That's important because in the photo the viewer will expect neutral content to look neutral unless other clues in the photo such as long shadows tell them it is other than the middle of the day.
The end goal isn't "color by the numbers" it is color that looks right given the context of the message in the photo. That's a judgement that can only be made by eye on a well calibrated monitor. What the targets and baseline methods of using them do is give you the means to objectively monitor and measure where the color winds up relative to the baselines when it looks "right" so it is easier to repeat it.
Cgardner - this is excellent and most informative. One thing is reading, the other is following an exercise like what you have so generously posted here.
With your permission, I'd like to copy and print your instructions so I can reference them when I shoot my subject. I'll post my results from this exercise here.
Thanks again my friend, for your time and much valued help.
richdavid wrote:
Chuck, what color mgt. software do you use on your iMac?
Understanding the futility of the exercise of trying to precisely calibrate an iMac I just turn down the brightness on the screen all the way and use the calibration tool in the monitors control panel t adjust it visually. I've also tried the SuperCal visual calibration application, but find the one include with the OS works as good or better.
This works for me because I set Custom WB on the camera, expose for a full tonal range whenever possible, and as then don't alter color much from that "by the numbers" baseline.
Matching print to monitor is not something I worry about, I'm more concerned with the print results matching my in-person impression of the scene. That often requires manipulation of all the steps in the middle, and appearance on screen, to achieve the desired results.
I have a pretty good idea how printer results differ from what I see on screen but for printing critical work I'll start the editing process by making a baseline test print with an embedded color chart before making any changes to the out of camera file, then adjust based on what I see on it vs. the appearance on screen in soft proofing mode.
Dave - I think that both the X-Rite software and BasicColor allow you to override the severe limitations that Apple puts on their screens in terms of letting the user set the luminance to an acceptable level - that is - low enough to not burn your eyeballs out. And yes, for most of us, screen to print matching is EXACTLY why we calibrate and profile both our monitors and our printers. It does make a difference and it really works. The quality of that calibration and profiling is what makes it very possible to get over ninety percent of your prints right on with the first print. But in order to do that, you have to have the best quality of both calibration and profiling. Having your monitor a bit off in one direction and your printer in the other, and you've got a problem, but have them both as close as you can, and you'll not only save time and money, you'll amaze yourself at just how well all this works.
I've been using high-end hardware monitor calibration since some time in 1995 and started making my own custom printer profiles about three years later. Been through all the growing pains of color management. Stick with it. Do it right. You will find it's both rewarding and empowering.
Dave - The biggest problem for photographers is that it IS a different language, but one that uses terms we're all sort of familiar with, but with different definitions. If you keep at it, it will all sort of fall in to place, but just take it one step at a time and try not to tackle too much at once.
Peter -- I agree with you there my friend. My problem is just that, I try to absorb so much that it confuses me. ie. LightRoom, which I purchased and found some awesome tutorials here: http://www.slrlounge.com/ which has some awesome lessons on lightroom from armature to advance and everything in between.
Baby steps I know, but I'm my own worse nightmare.
