My pictures are never printed. Is there any point in buying a better monitor?

Question

My monitor is pretty cheap and its colours are horribly dependent on the viewing angle, the moon and whatnot. I could edit my pictures on my old CRT, but its contrast and sharpness are quite bad.

On the other hand, I never print my images anyway but only publish them on the web. Thus, the important thing is actually what they look like on other people's (non-photographer's) monitors.

In this case, is there any point in spending money on a better monitor or even a calibration set?

Asked by user1080125

Answer

Yes, there is a point. It will let you see your own photos more accurately. Since you do not print them, I assume you look at them on your own monitor.

Even if it is only for others, non-calibrated monitors differ widely but they are improving at least in the mid-range with the advent of LEDs (and eventually OLEDs), so over time people will see your images more accurately. Having a good monitor will let you know better how you images will appear to others too then.

Calibration goes a step further and is highly recommended if you manipulate your images since it will let you see the effect of your changes. Otherwise you can introduce very unnatural looking colors.

If you have to choose one though, I'd go for a better monitor. You can always add calibration later. Finally, if you do not require a huge display size, great color-calibratable monitors are no longer than expensive. I always recommend the NEC P221W even though I don't work for NEC ;) but I spent years evaluating LCD displays professionally. I bought two of those refurbished for $237 each while they go for $450 new. There is also a 24" version, the P241W.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

Why don't you need to calibrate a camera's LCD screen?

Question

I saw this question from Leon Neal on Twitter a while back:

If a computer screen needs constant calibration and checks, how come the screens on our cameras lack that facility?

I can think of a few potential answers but I'm not sure any of them completely cover it:

1. Because it's too small to be used for fully accurate work anyway (so near enough is good enough).
2. Because it's only for previewing, not for editing.
3. Because it's not usually the last screen we view a photo on: it's normally going to be copied onto a computer so colour management can be left until later.

However if you think of a press photographer at a news event, perhaps shooting JPEG for speed and filing the pictures over the air straight from the camera to a news desk, then none of those reasons really hold water. Surely they have a valid need to check that the camera's colour reproduction is faithful?

So: is it in fact possible to calibrate a camera's LCD? If so, why do so few of us bother? And if not, why not?

Answer

Two words: "ambient" and "context".

At the risk of making what sounds like a "No true Scotsman" argument, "real" monitor calibration is always in the context of the ambient lighting conditions. Not only do the pertinent standards (ISO 12647 and related) specify the lighting levels and colour temperatures under which critical colour work should be performed, pro-level calibration devices sample the ambient light as well as what's coming from the monitor. Since both the actual value of the max black and the apparent value of the max white depend on the ambient lighting, you can't really make even the basic global contrast adjustment without regard to ambient. (And if you are calibrating your monitor under one set of lighting conditions and using it under another, you're fooling yourself -- you're not really doing that much better than an educated eyeball calibration would have gotten you.)

In terms of actual calibration, then, you would pretty much need to do a fresh calibration every time you look at the LCD (or, at least, for every shooting session). And you'd have to hold the camera at the same angle under the same lighting every time you used that profile (or get used to using a sealed viewing environment, like a HoodLoupe or a dark cloth/viewing tent). If you have time to be messing about like that, you're probably not shooting breaking news or sports action.

Recent cameras will allow you to do an educated eyeball calibration, at least within the limits of the device. All you need is a reference image on the card. But unless the screen is way out of whack, I'm not convinced of the utility of anything other than the basic brightness setting (which is a contrast setting in the context of ambient lighting). If you can count the number of mireds you are off by on one hand, you won't be able to tell the difference without an external reference anyway, and I don't recall running across any cameras that allow you to manually adjust gamma conversion curves and so on in-camera (although many of the better ones will let you create your own presets externally and import them to the camera).

We have ways of calibrating the capture instead, which is of far greater utility. That includes things like setting a white balance (auto, camera presets, or custom, all with fine tuning for preferred deviations like warmth), including calibration targets (from a simple grey card to more comprehensive targets like a ColorChecker or SpyderCube) in images, global and channel histograms and blinkies (highlight warnings). And if the colours really are that critical (say for advertisement product photography), you're almost always going to be using a "colour to target" tool in post to match a Pantone specification anyway.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I adjust the color Balance on a Nikon D300?

Question

First of all let me clarify here. I am aware of the color balance feature on the Nikon D300 and I generally use Auto, so this isn't about that aspect of color balance.

My camera has a tendency to shoot a little magenta and I am wondering if there is a way to modify that in the control panel. If not, I can accept a no, but it would be nice to not have to continually adjust all my photos.

Thanks.

Answer

Since you shoot RAW. Color-balance has no effect on your photos. If they come out the wrong color, blame the RAW processor or its operator ;)

To adjust color-balance of the preview along the Green-Magenta axis go to the camera menu and find the WB Fine-Tuning screen.

To adjust it along the Amber-Blue axis, hold the WB button and turn the sub-command dial (usually the front control-dial but they can be swapped).

Check more discussion of this question.

What cheap colour calibrators are available for Linux?

Question

I have several computers (at work, at home, laptops, etc.) that all display my photos differently. Alas, it's time to get a colour calibration device — but which to choose?

I am no professional, so cheap/imprecise/old stuff is perfectly OK. I have been looking at various online stores like eBay and etc., but it looks quite like a jungle, and good reviews seem to be scarce.

And a tricky detail: I am using Linux everywhere, so it must be compatible.

Answer

Gnome Color Manager can use Argyll CMS, but it also supports the Pantone/X-Rite Huey natively. According to the Gnome docs, the profiles produced natively aren't great, but it's easy. If you're using newer Gnome (3.x), it's been re-written and appears to have options to give better results with the same ease of use. I have a GretagMacbeth (now bought out by X-Rite) Eye-One Pro device, and it doesn't seem to work at all with even the new version, though — so maybe you still need the Huey.

Anyway, PeterT pointed out a program called dispcalGUI, which is a cross-platform GUI front end for ArgyllCMS. It's still a little intimidating and not nearly as slick as Gnome Color Manager, but it's really easy to use once you spend a few minutes going through the quick setup and usage documentation. Works nicely with the device I have and produced good results with little fuss. See this question for some after-you've-calibrated-and-profiled usage info on Linux.

Oh, and also from the dispcalGUI docs, a list of supported instruments:

• X-Rite ColorMunki
• X-Rite DTP92
• X-Rite DTP94
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Huey
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Display 1
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Display 2/LT
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Monitor
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1 Pro
• X-Rite/GretagMacbeth Spectrolino
• Datacolor/ColorVision Spyder 2
• Datacolor/ColorVision Spyder 3

And some notes on a few of these, based on research I've done:

ColorMunki Design/Photo is expensive ($450), and is a spectrophotometer rather than a colorimeter — it reads wider bands of colors at once, and can be used to measure surfaces like paper, not just monitors. I can't find the reference right now, but one review I found was very disappointed in the results. (I'll update this once I find it.) See below for the ColorMunki Create, though, which is a different product.

X-Rite DTP-94 — this is discontinued, but is one of the few to offer glass color filters rather than the dyed ones found in other instruments. Theoretically, this should last longer (the others may lose accuracy over time). And in general, this gets lauded as having the best results. The caveat, though, is huge — it's not as good for LCD screens as for CRT monitors, and wide-gamut displays are right out. Dunno if you can even find this anymore at non-crazy prices.

Pantone Huey — no particular note other than the one above (direct GCM support), and to mention that it can be had for as little as $55 new if you're lucky. (The Pro version is the same hardware with different, irrelevant-to-us software, and that's not too expensive either at about $80 shipped.)

X-Rite/GretagMacbeth i1/ Eye-One — I have the "Pro" model of this. It's an early revision, so it's pretty slow. I'm happy with the results visually even if it is a few years old; so if there is any filter color decay it's pretty subtle. All the i1 models listed (and the ColorMunki Create, and apparently also Lacie Blue Eye) work basically same way under Argyll CMS. The Pro model has a high-resolution mode which should give somewhat more accurate results. And my old model is quite slow — taking about 4 hours to do a high-quality calibration and profile! — but newer models are apparently faster. But wait! – don't confuse this with the similarly-named i1Display Pro (see what they did there? gah!) which is apparently entirely new and not supported yet (it's more expensive, so you're unlikely to get it by accident). X-rite Versions of this are roughly $135 new; the ColorMunki Create looks like a deal at $65.

Datacolor Spyder 2 / Spyder 3 — the main note is that the Argyll CMS docs say that the maker of these devices, "appears to be hostile to the use of these instruments under Linux", so I think I'd stay away since there are other options. (And using the Spyder2 at all requires pulling loadable firmware from the original installation software, which is less than convenient, although discalGUI has a straightforward-seeming option to do so.) Users of other operating systems seem to like the Spyder 3 over the X-rite offerings, though, and it is competitively priced at about $65 for the version without an ambient-light sensor (or about three times that price if you do want the ambient sensor + fancier proprietary software).

Check more discussion of this question.

Does Color Eyes Display Pro have advantages over the software that came with my colorimeter?

Question

I would like to know if there are any advantages to using this calibration software package instead of the ones that came with my colorimeter (a Spyder 2 Express)? I've read a number of reviews online, but none of them seem to answer the obvious question: Why would anyone pay lots of money for a software package that comes for free with your colorimeter?

Answer

The basic calibration software that comes with the Spyder 2 Express just does bare-bones calibration. It leaves many things up to however they are currently calibrated or set by the factory, such as screen luminance, and tries to calibrate as best it can.

More advanced calibration software, such as Spyder 3 Elite v4, or the Color Eyes Display Pro, perform much more extensive calibration. I have the Spyder 3 Studio Elite package myself, and use the Elite v4 software. It adjusts my screen brightness to a specific luminance (I usually calibrate to 120cd/m), sets a precise black and white point, and does more extensive color calibration. The Elite v4 software also supports synchronized calibration across multiple screens, as well as performing various tests over the full screen surface to check for things like screen backlight illumination evenness, gamma tuning, etc.

It sounds like the Color Eyes Display Pro does many of the same things. One thing about the Color Eyes software is it seems to be calibration device independent, so if you upgrade from one version of the Spyder device to another, or move to another brand, the Color Eyes software will still work.

Check more discussion of this question.