Are there any rules or guidelines on which settings your monitor should be set at for photo viewing/post editing? I have a laptop that I connect to separate monitor, so I can run duel monitors. (laptop + monitor) I've noticed that when I edit an image to the way I like it on one screen and move to the other screen, the photo will vary from screen to screen. I know you can adjust contrast, brightness of each individual screens and try to match, but you can also set the color temperature. For example, my monitor has these options: sRGB, 9300k, 7500K, 6500K, 5400K, User defined. Should that be set to the ambient light in the room or to the picture being displayed? Basically, what I'm looking for is what would be the truest settings for "what you see is what you get" for sending off a file to be printed?
The vast majority of monitors out there aren't calibrated properly, this affects almost everyone (although most probably only have one monitor and won't realise it), as they don't come pre-calibrated out of the factory (unless you're going very high end, perhaps).
You can check out the basics from sites like this where they'll give you highlight/shadow calibration to calibrate your brightness, and if you've more time to read a little more you can use this one to go through in a bit more depth.
If you're properly concerned you can pay for actual calibration devices, which come with little doobries you put in front of the monitor and they actually see what the colours are and do it all fangled, but I know nothing about those so can't even recommend any.
sRGB is your colour space - not sure why that's an option for your monitor, but it could just be that it is the most neutral setting. Otherwise 5400K is a good start. You can get colour charts (Greta Macbeth, I think, are the most common) that you can hold up against your screen to do comparsions with an on-screen version, but it is time-consuming and won't allow you to profile your monitor anyway unless you have software and knowledge to write your own. Still, it can help you get the colour temp, contrast and brightness correct and, if your monitor supports seperate RGB chanel adjustment, you can get close.
If you want to get your screen properly calibrated, so a photo on the screen matches a print in your hand, you need to look at hardware calibration devices like The Steve mentioned. I currently use a Spyder3 Pro, but I have used EyeOne in the past and can verify that both are good. The Spyder's software is a little easier to use, imo, but I'd just get whatever I could get the best deal on. They plug into a USB port and you stick the device on the front of your screen and let it do its thing - takes ten minutes or so the first time, but is quicker after that. You need to rcalibrate about once every two weeks, but a decent monitor won't shift in that time anyway so it's just a quick check.
There is a lot I could say about monitors also, but any of them can be calibrated (though with varying degrees of success and consistency). Your ambient light will also affect what you see on your screen - colours will change between night and day, and what kind of lights you have on in the room, as well as what colours your walls and curtains are. But don't let that put you off - it's more just stuff to keep in mind when editing.
Also, when sending off a file to be printed, you need the profile of the device that is doing the printing, so you can soft-proof on your screen. Every device has its own profile (they all have to be calibrated just like your screen is calibrated) so you need those in order to be able to verify you'll get back what you expect. I don't mean your photo lab prints, of course, but enlargements done on inkjet printers, canvasses etc.
@eyebrows@jinximages
Steve and Jinx, thank you for your posts and the links. I thought maybe I was being a little too something when I posted my question, but I’m glad it seems to be a legitimate item to configure properly and something overlooked by most. Even though, it’s something we look at every day.
It seems the more I dig into the technology, the more and more settings seem to pop up and configure along the way. But I love understanding all the technical junk. I didn't even consider there may be devices out there to purchase to help calibrate the monitor, though I’m not surprised.
I’ll probably have a go with the website or color chart to start, should be adequate to settle my curiosity for now. Maybe someday I’ll look at purchasing one of those devices, if my wife and I get serious in the photo business.
As for the sRGB, it did seem out of place to me as well, but I’m sure it’s a default value decided by some committee.
I agree with everything here ! I would add one more thing...PC's aren't the best for photo work and graphics ! That's why Mac's are popular in graphic arts and photography schools !
There's just as much debate about PC vs Mac amongst pro photogs, trust me. I use PC (but have used Mac), and can verify that the whole "Once you go Mac you never go back" is false - I know a number who have. The thing is, we all use basically the same software anyway - Photoshop, Lightroom etc - regardless of the platform. And since Macs are now Intel-based, and Windows 7 is so light, the only difference is the look of the OS (with OSX being Unix). The software we use runs no better or worse on either machine.
Major stirring of the pot... I've done all my photo work on PC computers, using Photoshop. I don't see why it's so "under' using a Mac. Are my pictures suddenly going to be masterpieces because they were edited on a Mac? *shrugs* It's personal preference.
My friend once had a photo teacher that announced to the class that Photoshop only worked on Apples, and most of the class for some reason oddly believed him, and my friend was raising her hand going "you're a dumbass, why do they allow you to teach this class?" Haha.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
You can check out the basics from sites like this where they'll give you highlight/shadow calibration to calibrate your brightness, and if you've more time to read a little more you can use this one to go through in a bit more depth.
If you're properly concerned you can pay for actual calibration devices, which come with little doobries you put in front of the monitor and they actually see what the colours are and do it all fangled, but I know nothing about those so can't even recommend any.
If you want to get your screen properly calibrated, so a photo on the screen matches a print in your hand, you need to look at hardware calibration devices like The Steve mentioned. I currently use a Spyder3 Pro, but I have used EyeOne in the past and can verify that both are good. The Spyder's software is a little easier to use, imo, but I'd just get whatever I could get the best deal on. They plug into a USB port and you stick the device on the front of your screen and let it do its thing - takes ten minutes or so the first time, but is quicker after that. You need to rcalibrate about once every two weeks, but a decent monitor won't shift in that time anyway so it's just a quick check.
There is a lot I could say about monitors also, but any of them can be calibrated (though with varying degrees of success and consistency). Your ambient light will also affect what you see on your screen - colours will change between night and day, and what kind of lights you have on in the room, as well as what colours your walls and curtains are. But don't let that put you off - it's more just stuff to keep in mind when editing.
Also, when sending off a file to be printed, you need the profile of the device that is doing the printing, so you can soft-proof on your screen. Every device has its own profile (they all have to be calibrated just like your screen is calibrated) so you need those in order to be able to verify you'll get back what you expect. I don't mean your photo lab prints, of course, but enlargements done on inkjet printers, canvasses etc.
Steve and Jinx, thank you for your posts and the links. I thought maybe I was being a little too something when I posted my question, but I’m glad it seems to be a legitimate item to configure properly and something overlooked by most. Even though, it’s something we look at every day.
It seems the more I dig into the technology, the more and more settings seem to pop up and configure along the way. But I love understanding all the technical junk. I didn't even consider there may be devices out there to purchase to help calibrate the monitor, though I’m not surprised.
I’ll probably have a go with the website or color chart to start, should be adequate to settle my curiosity for now. Maybe someday I’ll look at purchasing one of those devices, if my wife and I get serious in the photo business.
As for the sRGB, it did seem out of place to me as well, but I’m sure it’s a default value decided by some committee.
Thanks again for the info.
It never, ever ends. I like it this way :D
There's just as much debate about PC vs Mac amongst pro photogs, trust me. I use PC (but have used Mac), and can verify that the whole "Once you go Mac you never go back" is false - I know a number who have. The thing is, we all use basically the same software anyway - Photoshop, Lightroom etc - regardless of the platform. And since Macs are now Intel-based, and Windows 7 is so light, the only difference is the look of the OS (with OSX being Unix). The software we use runs no better or worse on either machine.
My friend once had a photo teacher that announced to the class that Photoshop only worked on Apples, and most of the class for some reason oddly believed him, and my friend was raising her hand going "you're a dumbass, why do they allow you to teach this class?" Haha.