Monitor calibration and color eyes display pro

Hi trying to calibrate a 27 inch imac for photos. If I use the color eyes display pro with calibration it hijacks the video card. Will this make my computer out of apple care warranty? Thanks. Any other calibrators that work? Color munki?

Apparently photoshop is applying additional color correction on top of
what the monitor calibration software has already done. Is this
necessary? If this step is necessary, then why doesn't the monitor
calibration software do that, so that photoshop doesn't have to,
Photoshop doesn't apply any color correction to the images per se, it just operates in a selected color space, and takes into account your monitor profile.
The monitor calibration tells your video card - or the monitor itself for some high end monitors, how it should be set to meet chosen targets, and generates a profile for the monitor.
1. Caibrate your monitor and generate a profile
2. Tell your OS that that it your monitor profile
3. Set Photoshop to work in the space of your choice - sRGB, Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto 99% of the time
That takes you to a state where everything is in order more or less. If at this point your images look out of whack, it's almost certainly because they are, perhaps because they were previously corrected on a non-calibrated setup.
Photoshop and other color managed application should display them all more or less exactly the same, provided the files themselves have a color profile .

Similar Messages

X-rite eye-one display 2 monitor calibration and new 27' iMac

Hi,
I have been looking at the new 27" iMac to replace a 24" iMac Intel core 2 duo that I purchased last spring. The main problem being that I am a photographer/graphic designer and found out after I purchased this iMac that my x-rite eye-one display 2 monitor calibration system was rendered useless because the monitor brightness was way out of range (too bright) for the calibration software to work correctly.
My question is: Has anyone tried to use the x-rite eye-one display 2 with the new iMac 27" monitor? I understand that they may have fixed the monitor brightness problem, but now the new screen is lit by LED instead of LCD. Has this just presented a NEW problem that makes this color calibration system still useless or does it work despite the fact that the monitor light source has changed?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide

The x-rite i1 display 2 won't work with any LCD lit panels. I've attended a x-rite training only six weeks ago and the guy explained the issues. So if you want to calibrate any LCD backlit screen, you have to get a more expensive thing -- maybe the Colormunki will do, but for sure the i1Pro will work. It's still a quite expensive upgrade.

New monitor/calibration; now colors won't display correctly in ACR and Elements

Just got a new ASUS LCD monitor, and calibrated it with the Spyder 3 Express.
Now when I open a .CR2 file using Elements to edit the RAW image, the color is displayed as yellowy-gray and dull. It looks the same when I pull it into Elements 7, unless I remove all color management (which, if I save the image, actually then renders the image colors neon and oversaturated with lots of pink and red tones).
I also use Lightroom 3 and I am having the same problem there. Upon import of either an edited Jpeg or a .CR2 RAW file, the color in Lightroom is displayed as dull, grayish yellowy-green.
If I export and view the very same image in GIMP, Picasa or on the web, as long as the colorspace is intact (sRGB), the color is accurate. Not so in Elements or Lightroom.
If you have experience with this problem is it the monitor, the calibration, or Elements and Lightroom. I am beyond frustrated and need to see my colors properly. I have not had this problem before.

I don't use Spyder to calibrate my monitor; instead, I use the software and tool that X-Rite makes and it came with my NEC wide-gamut monitor. I suspect that the tools are similar.
First, make certain that you're using your Spyder spectrometer and the accompanying software correctly. Although I consider myself relatively computer saavy, I find that I have to follow the instructions carefully.
Then, calibrate your monitor so that the colors and brightness the monitor displays are correct for your printer setup. In my case, the tool uses ICC color standards to set the colors. And, I tell it I want the monitor's brightness to be 90 candelas per square meter (cd/m2), which is about the same brightness as a blank white piece of photo paper. With the monitor brightness set at 90 cd/m2, I avoid getting prints that are too dark. If you calibrate the monitor correctly, the colors should look good and you should have a white that looks white and a black that looks black - that is, you shouldn't have any colors that don't look right.
Second, when you use Elements (PSE) or Lightroom (LR) to print, be sure to indicate that you want PSE or LR to control the colors and not the printer. It's very important, too, that you have the correct printer-paper profiles downloaded into the printer driver and that you select the correct paper profile. I have an Epson 3880 printer and I use Epson papers (mostly); so, I tell PSE to use the profile that fits the paper I'm using - for example, Epson Premium Glossy. When I downloaded the printer driver into my computer, it also downloaded the Epson paper-printer profiles and they appear in the print dialog boxes used during the printing process. (Other paper manufacturers, such as Ilford, make profiles available for downloading on their website.)
I hope this helps; if it doesn't let's go into some more.

Help Photoshop/Monitor Calibration and ICC Profiles.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, I am completely new here, if I am not, can you help show me where I can get answers to this?
If you can help me, then please. (:
So I'm helping my dad with a photography studio over the summer to make money for a car and I will be doing the editing and such.
I have CS4 on a laptop, that is connected to a NEC monitor with Multisync P221W with the Spectraview II calibration software.
We have done a few pictures before but it has always taken us a few prints from the costco photo center to get the colors and lighting right because
it always seems to be different than how I see it on the monitor. I have been told install the ICC profiles from http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/California_profiles.htm#CA . I live in the victorville area, and there are 4 ICC profiles, 2 for each printer. How do I install all 4? And how do I switch from one to the other? Also how do I set up my NEC monitor for photo editing, the Spectraview program calibrates it and says that it's set up for Photo editing but are there standard values for the colors, gamma, etc? And also how do I set up Photoshop CS4 for editing, I have been told to go to color settings but I don't know what to do once I get there.
Thanks for your time.

Apparently photoshop is applying additional color correction on top of
what the monitor calibration software has already done. Is this
necessary? If this step is necessary, then why doesn't the monitor
calibration software do that, so that photoshop doesn't have to,
Photoshop doesn't apply any color correction to the images per se, it just operates in a selected color space, and takes into account your monitor profile.
The monitor calibration tells your video card - or the monitor itself for some high end monitors, how it should be set to meet chosen targets, and generates a profile for the monitor.
1. Caibrate your monitor and generate a profile
2. Tell your OS that that it your monitor profile
3. Set Photoshop to work in the space of your choice - sRGB, Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto 99% of the time
That takes you to a state where everything is in order more or less. If at this point your images look out of whack, it's almost certainly because they are, perhaps because they were previously corrected on a non-calibrated setup.
Photoshop and other color managed application should display them all more or less exactly the same, provided the files themselves have a color profile .

Monitor calibration and photoshop

After I run a monitor calibration software, I thought all the photos would look correct on my computer no matter what app I use to display them.
But photos in photoshop looks slightly different from the same photo displayed by the browser or by other applets in windows. So slightly different that you wouldn't normally notice unless you do a side by side compare.
Apparently photoshop is applying additional color correction on top of what the monitor calibration software has already done. Is this necessary? If this step is necessary, then why doesn't the monitor calibration software do that, so that photoshop doesn't have to, and so that the photo would look the same in the browser as in photoshop?

Apparently photoshop is applying additional color correction on top of
what the monitor calibration software has already done. Is this
necessary? If this step is necessary, then why doesn't the monitor
calibration software do that, so that photoshop doesn't have to,
Photoshop doesn't apply any color correction to the images per se, it just operates in a selected color space, and takes into account your monitor profile.
The monitor calibration tells your video card - or the monitor itself for some high end monitors, how it should be set to meet chosen targets, and generates a profile for the monitor.
1. Caibrate your monitor and generate a profile
2. Tell your OS that that it your monitor profile
3. Set Photoshop to work in the space of your choice - sRGB, Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto 99% of the time
That takes you to a state where everything is in order more or less. If at this point your images look out of whack, it's almost certainly because they are, perhaps because they were previously corrected on a non-calibrated setup.
Photoshop and other color managed application should display them all more or less exactly the same, provided the files themselves have a color profile .

Super-Pink ... monitor calibration and Lightroom?

I've been working on a set of files in Lightroom 2 on a PowerBook G4. I transferred them recently to a Power Mac G5.
Before examining these files in Lightroom on the G5, I did a monitor calibration on my NEC 2080UX using an Eye-One device. The profile made the resulting GretagMacbeth test image look "better".
I then fired up Lightroom, and immediately noticed that any color close to pink-to-light-red appeared WAY too hot pink, way more than I ever saw on the PowerBook.
I did a second calibration and got the same results. (I did try various other pre-installed profiles, and they, too, make the pinks too hot in LR.)
Next, in Firefox I examined an image that I found on the web. I made a copy of that file and brought it into LR, and the reds in that image definitely shifted to pink.
Any ideas what might be going on?
I'm going to borrow a second 2080UX to see if it's the monitor...
-Allan

I would also download the free Eye-One Diagnostics software from the X-Rite site and make sure your instrument is working properly. Just a sanity check.

Color problems with duo monitor (MPB and 24' Cinema Display)

I have a new 24' Cinema Display attached to my 15' macBook pro 2.66 (not the new one with the SD slot) and I keep getting weird colors on the MBP display.
Here is a screengrab from the MBP. The main display is fine. What is my MBP screen experiencing?!
http://www.madreview.com/images/screengrab.jpg
You can ell the colors are off on Tiger Woods on the bottom and on the background. Please help.

If I may jump in, I have almost the same question and would like to clarify the Cmd-F1 suggestion. (I'm looking at buying the 24" LED for my slightly older MBP with max resolution 1440x900.) If one runs this monitor in extended desktop mode, you can reach the max resolution for the monitor, if I understand correctly, but is some of your "desktop" then spread across your built-in MBP LCD? That's less useful than having the entire 24" available for keeping multiple windows open.
Just want to understand whether this is really worth it! Thanks, and PMFJI.

Monitor calibration and default brightness

I am using SpyderPro to calibrate my monitors. My G4 15-inch alum powerbook (purchased 11 months ago) has a brightness setting.
SpyderPro instructs me to set this monitor to its default. In this case, I've only brightness to set.
Might anyone know the brightness default?
Suzie
G4 Powerbook 15-inch alum Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Ideally, for your monitor profile to be valid, you should be checking images at the same brightness level that you set when you create the profile. I set my PowerBook to full brightness and calibrate it at that. When checking images, I set it to full brightness so that it matches the brightness assumed by the profile. I think the default is full on, but Philip Tyler has a point in that some LCDs are too bright at the top level. For example, there are reports that some Dell widescreen LCDs are too bright to be calibrated, even at their lowest setting. That's probably because Dell displays are made for consumers, not graphics pros like Apple's.
This is a tricky issue on the higher-end PowerBooks, because they have the ambient light sensor that can change the brightness at any time. I use my Eye-One calibrator with my LCD at highest brightness and make sure the LCD is set to that when checking images. It's a very good idea to turn off the auto brightness adjustment in the Displays preference during the calibration process to ensure it doesn't drift up and down during calibration. If you're a purist, you'll leave the ambient light adjustment off permanently so that the brightness is always the same, especially if you calibrated at a level other than full brightness. I like the feature so I leave it on, but not when calibrating.
With that in mind, I don't split hairs about color accuracy on the PowerBook. My calibrated CRT is so much better at rendering color that I feel like I can't trust my PowerBook LCD much even if it's calibrated. While it is a very good idea to calibrate the PowerBook LCD, if you really need good color, plug in a good external monitor. Either a decent CRT or a good DVI LCD like an Apple display.

Monitor calibration and gamma

Hello,
A properly calibrated monitor is essential for making prints that match the monitor image...
I also know that prints are generally darker than what is shown on the screen.
I've calibrated my monitor (without any colorimeter) but my prints still quite dark...
My monitor's color temperature : (white point) to 6500 K D65...
What am I suppose to do ?
Many thanks for your help...

if you really want accurate prints you can't compromise, the best option is to buy one of the USB monitor callibrators...
Otherwise personally i find the default profile to be best (on apple displays).
However the default gamma on new macs is 2.2 (which is for web and video and same as PCs)... Macs used to be set to 1.8 which is for print.
Try to select the default profile for your monitor and then calibrate (but do not use expert mode) then leave all settings the same except for gamma (change it to 1.8)
The other problem is that MBP LCDs are of the TN variety (twisted nemantic) these displays are no where near as accurate as non emulated full colour display like the ACD which is of the Super-IPS type... TN panels generally only have 6-bits per channel (64 * 64 * 64 = 262,144 Colours) where as full colour at 8-bit per channel is (256 * 256 * 256 = 16,777,216)... what happens is TN panels actually cycle colours really fast to emulate the colours it cannot actually produce... but unfortunately this is not as accurate as natively supporting it, and it's usually easily shown up by displaying a gradient.
The other problem with TN panels is the inconsistent contrast... when you tilt the display up and down the contrast will change quite drastically and at extreme angles it will invert... unfortunately all this means that it is not particularly accurate for colour work, you can get a fairly good idea of colour but for true accuracy a true colour display is needed.

LCD Monitor Calibration and FCS2

What preset are people using to calibrate FCS2 and their LCD monitor (I'm not talking about the external TV monitor). I've read a suggestion that "NTSC 1953" was the preset to use with FCS2, but it looks too dark on my monitor.
Thanks,
m

I use the pathetic Colorsync utility to calibrate my Dell and Viewsonic monitors and then save profiles. Unless you're doing print work in Illustrator or Photoshop or perhaps web-destined work in FCP, calibrating your monitor for video work is completely irrelevant and useless. For video work, it's essential you use an NTSC/ATSC device and not your computer monitor.

Adobe Camera Raw: calibration and color accuracy

"In this article I report the accuracy reached with the above scripts in my calibration effort, some validations in different lightning condition and the impact on new color balance caused by the adjust sliders and the tonal curve movement."
If someone has an interest.
Link to Article
Ciao
Marco

Chris,
>>>
The ICC uses LAB D50, as does Photoshop.
Marco,
>>>
(prof. Boscarol) on his forum:
>>>
1.Lab is not absolute and there are infinite Lab.
>>>
2.The illuminant E is a theoretic reference illuminant
I must disagree with the implied conclusions in both statements, but with a friendly, not confrontational tone. And, Adobe and other software may be assuming Lab is D50. I cannot and would not dispute that.
What I said is that if you follow CIE math, the color values in Lab mode will be at Illuminant E. I stand by that conclusion. But there is little in the way of enforcement when it comes to standards.
Lets start with the CIE color values from measurement to numbers. This is the illuminant times the subject (measured) times the standard observer. It requires matrix arithmetic because the operations have to span the visible spectrum. So it is a little more involved that simple multiplication, but that is not conceptually important at this point.
The light source may be defined by a standard such as D50 or D65 or it can be provided in a custom set of tables (from measurements). The subject (raw image) values are adjusted for the measurement instrument to represent illuminant E (equal energy). This would be the spectral response of the color filters and such in an image sensor. The standard observer values are provided by the CIE, again at illuminant E. The resulting XYZ values are at the white point of the illuminant used for the source light.
Before moving on, the image sensor spectral response tables are too often not available. Thus assumptions are made that make calibration so bloody difficult. Enough said.
These XYZ values are then transformed to Lab values. The math in this step effectively removes the original light source from the XYZ values, resulting in illuminant E. This is how it is described in the literature, Berns, Hunt, and Wyszecki. If one adheres to the rules, Lab will always be illuminant E. XYZ values without a white point definition are as meaningless as RGB values without a profile definition.
But there is no enforcement body. I have seen lots of code that does not adjust for the XYZ white point at all. In that case, there would be an infinite set of possible Lab white points.
If you assume Lab is always D50, D65, or whatever floats your boat the transforms from RGB to Lab to RGB again would not be compromised. The ICC does define a white point in each ICC RGB profile. So if the input colors are correct, the output colors will be correct. It isnt too important what white point is used for the intermediate step.
But if you take a file in Lab mode from some other source, the white point would be very important. If I give a Lab file to Fred in E and Fred assumes it is D65, color conversions will be wrong. If Fred creates one at D65 and hands it to Adobe, chaos reigns. The ICC does not have a profile for Lab mode that I am aware of. So I dont know that the ICC attempts to trump the CIE as suggested. If someone knows of a verifiable reference for this, I would love to hear of it. The TIFF metadata does have a tag for white point. But I have never seen it used in a Lab mode file, including Adobes.
Illuminant E is no more or less theoretical than any other Standard Light Source. But it is at the core of all color matching algorithms and the basis of the standard observer target values. It is most often simply referred to as the equal energy light source so it might not ring a bell like D50 or D65.
The conversions between Lab and LCh and the algorithms for Delta E 2000 color differences are all implicitly dependent on Lab values at illuminant E.
I rest my case.
Cheers, Rags :-)

LR Color Management - Calibration and Monitor (not your typical post)

Hi everybody,
I see that there are still many issues around color management and printing in LR. I have had similar problems in past and Im still trying to work though them. The most touted problem is not calibrating or having a bad monitor profile. Well, I have tried calibrating my display with worse results. I get better results with an un-calibrated display, not exact results, but closer than with a calibrated display. My only computer is a Dell Latitude D830 with an LCD display and Nvidia Quadro 140M graphics card with a Spyder2 Suite calibration tool.
After doing a fair bit of research online and speaking to other photographers (pro and amateur) Ive learned that laptop displays are notoriously difficult to calibrate due to their inability to display a wide range of color and contrast. There is also no way to adjust white point, RGB or any other setting on my display, only brightness and contrast. (perhaps a big part of the problem?)
I was told that only high end displays (NEC, LaCie, Eizo etc @ $1000,00 this being the low end, and up) were the only way to get accurate colors. Others had said that LG and Samsung make a decent display at the $300.00 price point that would deliver good results but not pro level color management. Other than that go, back to an old CRT display. What is a semi-pro level display that renders excellent color that I wont have to re-mortgage my house to pay for?
So heres my question to all of those who have said you need to calibrate and you have a bad profile can you please tell us your system set up (i.e. display, calibration tool, room lighting and set up etc..)?
Im really interested in what you are doing more, better or differently than everyone else.
Thanks,
DC

>Im really interested in what you are doing more, better or differently than everyone else.
Nothing much. Same calibrator in addition to another Huey Pro which gives almost indistinguishable results. I use both a Apple Mac Book Pro and a Mac Pro with a 30" DELL wide gamut adobeRGB display. Colors on the two are identical (if they're not outside of the laptop's gamut) and identical to prints from labs and direct prints. Of course these displays are between far better and quite a bit better than the display on a typical Dell laptop that are notoriously bad. One of the things I have to do on the laptop is to get the display at the right angle. The trick I use is to have a window open with this image: http://www.normankoren.com/monitor_test_txt22.png
from this website: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
If you're looking at your monitor at the right angle and you have calibrated the display correctly, the color should look homogeneous (i.e. completely neutral and the same grey everywhere). If you cannot find an angle at which this is correct, than it is likely your monitor can simply not be calibrated or that your calibrator is defective (there was a batch of defective Spyders a while ago). In general, it is certainly not true that laptop displays cannot be calibrated.
>I was told that only high end displays (NEC, LaCie, Eizo etc @ $1000,00 this being the low end, and up) were the only way to get accurate colors. Others had said that LG and Samsung make a decent display at the $300.00 price point that would deliver good results but not pro level color management.
They are quite wrong and a rather snooty thing to say. The point of these high priced displays is that they will give better color in [B]non[/B]-colormanaged applications, but with a good calibrator, a reasonably good screen and [B]correct color management [/B](such as that in Lightroom, Photoshop, preview.app, Safari, etc.) you will get about as good color as the more expensive displays. Some of these, such as the EIZO give you wider gamuts higher bit color, or hardware adjustable white point, which are also a major selling points if you're doing very critical work but only if paired with good calibration and managed apps. Pro level color management is a function of the calibrator and the software - and only in part of the display. Most displays, with a few exceptions, can be made to give good color, as long as you use a hardware calibrator and managed apps.

Colour management in PS and monitor calibration

I've calibrated my monitors colours with an Eye One Display 2 colorimeter, and for photoshop i've assigned the monitors colour profile it has created to the work area (Edit > Assign Profile).
But for photography i take photos with AdobeRGB colour profile setting on my camera... should i be using this colour profile instead when working on the photos in PS? They look a little washed out. I'm guessing i should keep using my calibrated monitors profile instead?
And when saving photos a jpgs for the web, should i tick the "ICC Profile" box that lists my monitors colour profile when saving? Because i've noticed that now some browsers have started supporting ICC profiles. So in Firefox 4 BETA for instance, if i dont use the ICC Profile setting the colours look washed out on other monitors.
(Note that the ICC Profile setting for jpg is only available in File > Save As... if i go to File > Save for Web & Devices it has Embed Color Profile which is basically the same thing).

Beany3001 wrote:
... after doing this and testing the images on other monitors this does not happen, dont know why it does it on my monitors but as long as the colours are ok on other peoples monitors, and the closest to my displays i can get them, this seems to be the best option.... When opening any sRGB or AdobeRGB images in PS CS5 they always look washed out (like the saturation has been turned down), i can directly open a RAW image taken with my camera that uses AdobeRGB and it will still look washed out.
This only now happens after calibrating my monitor. Before this i could view any sRGB or AdobeRGB and they would look fine, not washed out in any way. I dont know why this happens, but i've seen other people mention this about PS as well after calibrating there monitors with a colorimeter (not sure if it's just with wide gamut displays). Do you have any explanation for this?...
This is not normal and indicates a bad monitor profile. I have a wide gamut monitor too and I had some problems before properly profiling my monitor, after that images look perfect - in fact way better than any sRGB monitors that I've seen. This is especially obvious with sRGB photos from digital cameras because the manufacturers create algorithms that save the captured images with colors using the ideal sRGB color space which can be more accurately displayed on a wider gamut monitor when it is working properly.
Beany3001 wrote.
...I've calibrated my monitors colours with an Eye One Display 2 colorimeter
I'm not an expert with using these devices and I can't tell what could be the reason for generating a wrong color profile - it could be the device itself or wrong settings or probing. When choosing a colorimeter, I searched a lot for feedback and found various links like this one saying that Eye One colorimeters are not very accurate yet with probing wide gamut monitors. But I also read a lot of comments saying that they are fine and some people claim they are better. However only the manufacturer of Spyder 3 claim officially on their web site that it is wide gamut capable, so I got that one and so far it's working fine.
Beany3001 wrote:
... It's why i would have liked to use my monitors profile as it's the only way i can get colours looking properly saturated and not dull...
As I said earlier, by working on an image with a monitor profile, you are in fact turning off the color management and if you don't like the results when the color management is on that indicates that the color management is not set properly and is so wrong that you are better off without it. I think you should start the troubleshooting with properly generating an accurate monitor profile. Unfortunately I'm not a big expert with that as I got my colorimeter only several months ago and also ColorEyes Display Pro which is a profiling software from a different company. I set the calibration and probing settings following the instructions from the tech support of the profiling software and since I liked the results, I never spent time to understand in depth all settings and options.
Beany3001 wrote:....
I've read multiple times that the AdobeRGB colour space can do more colours than sRGB? I thought that only when you save in a limited format like JPG that the amount of colours are the same....
Wider gamut does not necessarily is more colors. When you see those charts plotting gamuts as different 3D volumes or 2D cross sections, this is not the number of colors but saturation. You can have millions of colors on a narrower gamut than, let's say 10 colors with a much wider gamut. Think of the numbers as steps between colors and the gamut as how intensive the saturation can go. The number of colors depends on the bit depth 8 bit, 16 bit integer, 16 bit float, 32 bit float. JPGs are limited to 8 bit but the limit is to the number of colors (shades) not gamut. Check this link - it has jpgs saved with different profiles of various color spaces (gamuts)

How can I tell when my monitor calibration is "right"?

I have had good success with the built-in Mac calibration routine in the past with my Viewsonic CRT. It seems to work OK with my 20" Cinema Display, and another flat screen, but I have trouble with the first step of the calibration settings - there isn't any position on the left slider that looks right. I recently got a Spyder 3 Pro monitor calibrator and the results are SO different from my Mac calibration I don't know what to do next. I had good results before.
How can I tell if the Spyder profile, or the Mac profile is "right"?
Does the Spyder work properly with the Cinema Display?
With the Spyder I am using 2.2 and 6500 as starting points. I have important projects going to press so I need to know that I am sending out good files.
What is the final standard of "rightness" when it comes to monitor calibration?

Brian Townsend wrote:
I have had good success with the built-in Mac calibration routine...How can I tell if the Spyder profile, or the Mac profile is "right"?
Does the Spyder work properly with the Cinema Display?
With the Spyder I am using 2.2 and 6500 as starting points...
What is the final standard of "rightness" when it comes to monitor calibration?
There is not one standard because it depends on your output. For you, it sounds like the standard is that your screen gives you a rendering as close as possible to the press proofing standard that your company and your clients sign off on. In other words, a neutral gray and certain colors look the same on screen and on the print on your proof under your standard lighting. Your starting points sound OK, but for example, they would be wrong if your lightboxes are D50.
It's highly unlikely that the built-in profile is better than the Spyder. A hardware sensor is far more objective and accurate than the human eye.
I'm mostly repeating stuff I read in Real World Color Management so if your paycheck really does depend on this stuff you might read it or any other color management book. ColorWiki and the Chromix newsletter are other good resources for this.

Monitor calibration. Please help!!

Aloha,
I just downloaded the free trial of CS5. I am trying to use Adobe Gamma to calibrate my screen so that everything will print as I see it. I have already searched all about it. I CANNOT FIND IT TO USE IT. I cannot find where to download it.......I cannot find it already installed with the CS5. Instructions say that I have it when I download CS5 and for me to go under control panel and double click on the icon for it. I DONT HAVE IT. I only have the "Color management" icon which is already on my computer.
I am using Windows Vista 36bit.
A really appreciate your time with reading/responding to this tedious problem. Thanks!
-Brianna.

Not sure if you already found this answer somewhere else, but I found this article...the link for the entire article is...http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps12_colour/ps12_1.htm I was also looking for the same thing, but I guess Adobe no longer provide Monitor Calibration...
Section 2 - Monitor Calibration and Characterisation
Monitor calibration and characterisation (profiling) is probably the most important aspect of a color managed workflow; yet many users seem oblivious to issues poor monitor calibration, etc can have on their documents. So, what is calibration, why is it so important, and why is it different from characterisation?
Calibration is a process whereby a device is brought to a standard state (e.g. a color temperature of 6500K and gamma of 2.2), whereas characterising the monitor is the process of determining how the monitor represents or reproduces color. We characterise the monitor by measuring how it displays known color values, then creating an ICC profile. The ICC profile is simply a data file that includes a description of the monitorsí color handling characteristics (i.e. its gamut). The calibration data will also be written into the ICC profile. As I've already mentioned, Photoshop then uses the monitor profile to automatically optimise the display of documents. It does so by carrying out an on-the-fly conversion between your document profile (e.g. ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB, sRGB, ColorMatch) and your monitor profile. This conversion does not alter the actual document in any way; just its appearance on the monitor.
Adobe stopped shipping Adobe Gamma with the Mac version of Photoshop a few versions back, but for a while kept it for Windows. This was because there was no software only alternative. Since Apple Display Calibrator Assistant was still installed within System Preferences Mac users never really found the absence of Adobe Gamma to be a problem. However, given that Windows Vista and Windows 7 don't play well with certain utilities, it was inevitable that Adobe Gamma would eventually be dropped from the Windows version of Photoshop. So, it came as no surprise that as of Photoshop CS3 Adobe stopped shipping Adobe Gamma, and it's still absent from CS5. For what it's worth, I think we can safely assume that Adobe will never again ship a monitor calibration utility with Photoshop.
Obviously, software only monitor calibration applications use the human eye to determine tone and color differences between a series of white/grey/black/color patches. However, it should go without saying that the eye isn't the most accurate method of measuring these differences. Therefore, my recommendation would be to use a hardware based system such as the DatacolorSpyderPro3, X-rite Photo ColorMunki or X-rite Photo i1 Display 2.
Tip for Mac OS X users: a tutorial describing the process of calibrating a display with the Apple Display Calibrator Assistant can be found here.
Useful Information on location of ICC/ColorSync Profiles
Photoshop CS5 is only compatible with Windows XP with Service Pack 3, Windows Vista or Windows 7 on the PC platform and OS X 10.5.7 or higher on the Mac platform. The upside of this is that the ICC and ColorSync profiles are more easily found.
Profile locations:-
Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 - sub-folder named Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color
Mac OS X - ColorSync profiles are generally located in either the Library/ColorSync/Profiles or Users/~/Library/ColorSync/Profiles folder

Monitor calibration and color eyes display pro

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for