calemon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.1 #6 · NEC 2690wuxi2 calibration - Q? | |
Alan321 wrote:
Craig seems to know a lot more about the NEC monitors than I do but I question one aspect of his advice: Do we really want or need maximum contrast when our goal is to more closely match print performance in reasonable lighting ? I think not.
Maximum contrast (difference between displayed white and displayed black), not maximum brightness. My assertion is to make sure that white isn't artificially suppressed by the blocking functions and the full range of natural tones the display is capable of be displayed. It's a digital device, capable of only a certain resolution of discrete tones - if you begin to limit them there are simply fewer to work with.
One of the largest disadvantages of LCD technology be it in monitors, televisions, or what have you is far less contrast ratio that CRT, plasma, LED and other light-generating (as opposed to light-blocking) technologies.
SOFT PROOFING is used to best match the characteristics of your particular output devices, the inks and paper you've chosen.
I don't know why anyone would volunteer to always look at washed-out grey "blacks" and cut the number of renderable tones from the display in half. In most cases, the gamut of the display is already the smallest gamut in the workflow at the best of times (camera RAW, workspace, printer) - why make it smaller on purpose? You want the display to render the widest possible range of tones it can and running pixel blocking specifically defeats this. I agree that LCDs, in general, are too bright but using pixel blocking makes white darker without changing black and causes the display to map/approximate all tones in between.
I can't profile my 2690 properly (using its built-in LUT) because I have the wrong colourimeter (a colormunki) and so I am using the default settings that I am assured are pretty accurate in the spectraview monitors. I use D65, 90 Cd/m2, gamma 2.2. I'll tweak
Be advised that you'll be using panel blocking. Any display other than a 90 series, Eizo or other high end display could never even go that dim because they don't have panel blocking, yet could be perfectly calibrated and profiled by a colorimeter system.
I've said this in threads before, and others have agreed with me - I don't know why everything thinks that there's a universal "ideal" brightness for a display just because you read it on the Internet. Are your prints always lit by the very same light? Do you ship a special viewing box to your clients/family with your prints? NO. Your prints will be viewed in all kinds of lighting levels unless it's on the wall of a museum or gallery. Your display luminosity should be set relative to the brightness in your working environment for comfort and utility.
One must also keep in mind that many of the people giving this universal "advice" probably got into the profession/hobby in the days of CRTs. CRTs are light producing displays, not light blocking displays. They do not have this problem of loosing tones when they exceed the adjustment limit of the LCD backlight and begin to use pixel blocking so there is no downside to calibrating to very dim whitepoints. There can be a huge disadvantage with LCDs.
I read on Luminous Landscape that 80 Cd/m2 is best for photography but most calibrators suggest 90-120 Cd/m2 - without actually justifying the different recommendations. Gamma 2.2 is now pretty much universal. D65 seems to be a compromise that is quite commonly used even though most prints are not observed in 6500K light.
- Alan
|
