I have many questions on the calibration of the digital imaging chain. My searches thus far lead me to believe that this is a much more difficult task than I would suspect. I am a believer that calibration should start with your camera and include the monitor and proofing printer. If out sourced, then this includes the house printer and monitor. The measurement devices are available as are the color checker charts and instructions. Yet a google search seems to turn up 3 to 1 in favor of negative results. I think I may be wearing blinders on a path that I am about the take.
Are luminance measuring devices relativily equal? Should one use a 24 patch color chart or 300/900? Should I have the same calibration equipment as my house printer? Are all reflective measuring devices equal? Am I correct to think that factory icc profiles are not up to the game, that custom profiles bring to the table? What should a
semi-pro photographer do to insure, he is doing his part correctly? What should I ask or know about my house printer, in order to know he can do his part?
I have converted to digital in stages over the last 4/5 years and there seems to be more hurdles after every goal. I have shoot 35mm since 1967, had my own color and blk/wht darkroom. I was a graphic camera man and film stripper. But that was nothing like the confusion of the 010101 world. I bought my first computer in 1983 and have owned Photoshop for many versions. I would think the digital photo age has arrived. Is there anyone here than can and is willing to water down the dust and eliminate the majority of the Variables?
Terry
Posted by David Bostedo on July 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Terry - That's quite a lot of things to consider. Unfortunately, color management is probably way more complicated than it should be - but it's not so bad that you can't handle it. I think the answer could be a book...maybe this one by Bruce Fraser (among other), which is usually highly recommended, although I haven't read it. Another very good resource is the From Camera to Print video series from Luminous Landscape. I have purchased the videos and they're a great guide (and I think maybe they recommend that book in the video).
To address a few of the things you mentioned :
1) You're absolutely correct that getting good color prints should involve at least your monitor, and printer/paper. The camera? Maybe, maybe not. Most people seem to be much more concerned with screen to print matching than capture to screen matching. For most people, getting good prints involves :
A) profiling their monitor
B) having good ICC profiles for the selected printer/paper combo
C) good file prep for printing (re-sizing and sharpening, and often soft proofing)
Most of the good profiling packages for your monitor will do a good job and give you accurate color if set up correctly. I don't really have any info on the various ones, but there is quite a bit of info on here if you search. Some (more expensive) will also do printer calibration/profiling.
Calibration of your camera for color accuracy or gamut is usually not done for one reason or another. The cameras are usually pretty color accurate, so I don't think most people bother (and they mess with white balance and exposure, and probably don't care about color accuracy from real world to screen all that much). I think your eyes, and lighting of a print or screen vary your color perception a lot too, which can actually make super accurate color look weird. Here's one way to handle it though.
2) Factory ICC profiles are really good in some cases, and just OK in others. Either way, getting good custom profiles will be an improvement over the canned ones.
3) For having someone else print for you, they should provide you with a custom ICC profile for their printer/paper, and you should then be able to soft proof at home. For your part, just having a well calibrated and profiled display, and knowing how to properly soft proof is enough. And depending on the image and knowledge of the printer, soft proofing might not be necessary.
Finally, as far as profiling packages and some of your other questions, I gotta say I don't know. I'm not sure what you are thinking you have to do with a color checker, and I've heard the more patches the better for making printer/paper profiles. Beyond that, I don't know. I think the videos I mentioned above help though, since they address all of this to some extent.
That is a great start to my concerns and I do appreciate it very much. The color checker chart would have been for the camera profiling. I had come across the idea of profiling the camera from an older post of Bruce Frasers on Creative Pro. But I believe it was from the days of CS. I just took it for face value, that a factory profile is what I was dealing with on the camera as well.
You agree on the larger number of color patches sampled, the bettter. I am speaking of my proof priinter as well as the out sourced printer. But you hesitated about giving a number. Is there a general that most use?
Does a semi-pro photography really need a Lacy monitor or what seems to be the norm? I have a Monaco Optix XR calibration system but my Nec Crt Graphic Monitor does not match my out sourced printer's monitor, w/Spider 2 calbration, on a common file. I am just hoping to bypass the old situation of who is at fault on my printed image. I am not looking for guilty parties at all, but I do wish the process to flow well for all.
I am planning on purchasing Bruce Fraser's color management book, but I was waiting to see where the info from the web led me. Also could you recommend literature on soft proofing?
The number of patches on a printer profile target is dependent upon the specific photometer and software used to generate the profile for the paper(s) you will be using. Chromix and NPN's very own Michael E. Gordon do a great job making custom printer profiles.
As David said, you need to obtain your vendor's printer profile and softproof with it. After you send your file to your vendor, ask them to send you a proof from their printer if they provide this service. You can then evaluate the proof and make adjustments as needed to get the print you want and then send the corrected file to them for final printing. So, it really doesn't matter if your outsourced printmaker's monitor matches yours.
A color checker is really only necessary if you are making prints (or images for on-line display) of things like clothing for a catalog where color matching is absolutely critical. For fine art prints your main concern is that the colors in the print match your vision of what they should be.
Color management is a complex topic and sometimes (imho) we make things more difficult for ourselves by attempting to address variables that are beyond our control. I hope this helps make your life a little easier.
Terry - A couple more comments. No, you certainly don't need a LaCie or Eizo or NEC, etc. You can get accurate color (due to ease of profiling) out of most good monitors. The main thing to look for is one that uses 8 bits per color channel rather than 6, which usually puts them in the middle ground price-wise. Sometimes that info is hard to find, but if you look for monitor recommendations on here, you'll find at least some info. Apple Cinema Displays are really well regarded, as are the higher end HPs and Dells (particularly the HP LP2465 if you're looking at 24" LCDs).
As far as the number of patches - I really have no idea. Sorry. I've heard it talked about, but have never considered getting such expensive equipment, so I haven't looked into it.
And finally for soft proofing, here's a short LL article. They also talk about it in the video series I mentioned above. Actually they talk about all of these questions - it's really great, even if not as in depth as you might need. It will definitely get you heading in the right directions though.
Discussion
6 repliesAre luminance measuring devices relativily equal? Should one use a 24 patch color chart or 300/900? Should I have the same calibration equipment as my house printer? Are all reflective measuring devices equal? Am I correct to think that factory icc profiles are not up to the game, that custom profiles bring to the table? What should a
semi-pro photographer do to insure, he is doing his part correctly? What should I ask or know about my house printer, in order to know he can do his part?
I have converted to digital in stages over the last 4/5 years and there seems to be more hurdles after every goal. I have shoot 35mm since 1967, had my own color and blk/wht darkroom. I was a graphic camera man and film stripper. But that was nothing like the confusion of the 010101 world. I bought my first computer in 1983 and have owned Photoshop for many versions. I would think the digital photo age has arrived. Is there anyone here than can and is willing to water down the dust and eliminate the majority of the Variables?
Terry
To address a few of the things you mentioned :
1) You're absolutely correct that getting good color prints should involve at least your monitor, and printer/paper. The camera? Maybe, maybe not. Most people seem to be much more concerned with screen to print matching than capture to screen matching. For most people, getting good prints involves :
A) profiling their monitor
B) having good ICC profiles for the selected printer/paper combo
C) good file prep for printing (re-sizing and sharpening, and often soft proofing)
Most of the good profiling packages for your monitor will do a good job and give you accurate color if set up correctly. I don't really have any info on the various ones, but there is quite a bit of info on here if you search. Some (more expensive) will also do printer calibration/profiling.
Calibration of your camera for color accuracy or gamut is usually not done for one reason or another. The cameras are usually pretty color accurate, so I don't think most people bother (and they mess with white balance and exposure, and probably don't care about color accuracy from real world to screen all that much). I think your eyes, and lighting of a print or screen vary your color perception a lot too, which can actually make super accurate color look weird. Here's one way to handle it though.
2) Factory ICC profiles are really good in some cases, and just OK in others. Either way, getting good custom profiles will be an improvement over the canned ones.
3) For having someone else print for you, they should provide you with a custom ICC profile for their printer/paper, and you should then be able to soft proof at home. For your part, just having a well calibrated and profiled display, and knowing how to properly soft proof is enough. And depending on the image and knowledge of the printer, soft proofing might not be necessary.
Finally, as far as profiling packages and some of your other questions, I gotta say I don't know. I'm not sure what you are thinking you have to do with a color checker, and I've heard the more patches the better for making printer/paper profiles. Beyond that, I don't know. I think the videos I mentioned above help though, since they address all of this to some extent.
That is a great start to my concerns and I do appreciate it very much. The color checker chart would have been for the camera profiling. I had come across the idea of profiling the camera from an older post of Bruce Frasers on Creative Pro. But I believe it was from the days of CS. I just took it for face value, that a factory profile is what I was dealing with on the camera as well.
You agree on the larger number of color patches sampled, the bettter. I am speaking of my proof priinter as well as the out sourced printer. But you hesitated about giving a number. Is there a general that most use?
Does a semi-pro photography really need a Lacy monitor or what seems to be the norm? I have a Monaco Optix XR calibration system but my Nec Crt Graphic Monitor does not match my out sourced printer's monitor, w/Spider 2 calbration, on a common file. I am just hoping to bypass the old situation of who is at fault on my printed image. I am not looking for guilty parties at all, but I do wish the process to flow well for all.
I am planning on purchasing Bruce Fraser's color management book, but I was waiting to see where the info from the web led me. Also could you recommend literature on soft proofing?
Again thank you...Terry
The number of patches on a printer profile target is dependent upon the specific photometer and software used to generate the profile for the paper(s) you will be using. Chromix and NPN's very own Michael E. Gordon do a great job making custom printer profiles.
As David said, you need to obtain your vendor's printer profile and softproof with it. After you send your file to your vendor, ask them to send you a proof from their printer if they provide this service. You can then evaluate the proof and make adjustments as needed to get the print you want and then send the corrected file to them for final printing. So, it really doesn't matter if your outsourced printmaker's monitor matches yours.
A color checker is really only necessary if you are making prints (or images for on-line display) of things like clothing for a catalog where color matching is absolutely critical. For fine art prints your main concern is that the colors in the print match your vision of what they should be.
Color management is a complex topic and sometimes (imho) we make things more difficult for ourselves by attempting to address variables that are beyond our control. I hope this helps make your life a little easier.
-P
As far as the number of patches - I really have no idea. Sorry. I've heard it talked about, but have never considered getting such expensive equipment, so I haven't looked into it.
And finally for soft proofing, here's a short LL article. They also talk about it in the video series I mentioned above. Actually they talk about all of these questions - it's really great, even if not as in depth as you might need. It will definitely get you heading in the right directions though.
Terry