Well, since I've getting more serious about printing I finally had my monitor calibrated...just my laptop for now since Im out of town.

But hell what a difference, and a total mind fuck getting used to it.

Apparently, my photos have not been nearly as contrasty and deep black as I thought I was making them. And going in to just make tweaks to fix this really throws your brain. In some cases it might be better to just start with certain images.

Now, I have to get some test prints with this color profile...to compare to what just had printed.

 

My wife does a lot of print design (brochures, packaging etc) and it has made a world of difference for her.

 

yeah I think as soon as you start printing your photos monitor calibration is a must! helped a lot when I started doing photo books

Interested to see what they'll look like now, your photos have always seemed rather contrasty and deep black to me. Maybe I need to calibrate my monitor again too

 

Mind sharing the process you went through?

 

We have an eye one on set.

My stuff I'd still black and contrasty...it will probably appear even more so now. I have some playing to do.

 

I use a Spyder 3 Elite on my Dell IPS monitor and the prints I get back look damn near identical.

 

If one is seriously in to photography, they should calibrate regardless if they plan to print or not.

 

I completely disagree with this statement.

You go with what works to your eye. And for years Ive done quite well getting my computers to give me results that match from web to print with out doing "proper" calibration. Calibration is nothing more than a point of reference that remains constant...assuming you consistently calibrate over time seeing how the monitor changes as it ages.

And as I am performing tests right now. Pending the results I may choose to keep the calibration or return the way I have been doing things for years as a person "who is serious about photography."

 

If you never print, you can still benefit from a calibrated monitor. You'll at least know that what you're looking at is what was actually captured. What you do with it from there is up to you. If you only put your work online, then at least you'll know that those who are viewing your work on calibrated monitors will be seeing what you intended.

What gamma and illuminant did you choose for the calibration? If you are calibrating to a non-native illuminant (like D50) you are attempting to simulate the appearance of a print in D50 (roughly 4700K) halogen lighting. If you're not printing, just stick with your monitor's native colour temp and a gamma of 2.2. That should be what most of the web would be viewing your work with. You should also be able to get a fairly decent print match with these settings if you view the print in natural lighting.

 

I'll have to find that info in my profile if I can...I had to walk away from the calibration to do my job...my digital tech on the show, who went to school for photography and is just one of those uber tech nerds, finished and set up the calibration for me.

 

This is exactly why you should calibrate. It's a point of reference that anyone with a calibrated monitor can relate to. Just like what Dan said, someone else with a calibrated monitor can see exactly what you see. You know what I mean?

Although...... if the application that views the photo does not have color management... that's a different story. I wish Win7 natively had color management. My high gamut monitor is only useful when I'm in Photoshop or Firefox (but I switched to Chrome )

 

One if done on a calibrated monitor...one was done pre-calibration...notice a difference? Which is which?

No cheating.

 

My guess is the bottom is done on the calibrated setup.


P.s. My MBP is calibrated using a Spyder 3 Elite as well. Dunno if I did a good job calibrating it though.

 

Nope. Top is calibrated.

 

 

Woot I guessed top.. Contrast seems much better as does the color in the stoplight in the backround..