On Jun 15, 5:29 pm, aussieshepsrock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> good question re:Color Calibration's Usefulness To Me? It's easy to
> overlook the variable knowledge bases and interests of the list
> members in one's quest for assistance with a more narrow question. The
> "purpose" of my efforts at color matching is to:
>
> A: I want my 'pictures' to appear consistently the same when I open
> then, no matter how far apart they're opened over time :-)
> B: I want the images I send to a home printer to bear a close
> resemblence to what I see on my monitor before hitting print :-)
There's another big expense. A professional printer's $10,000 machine
is never going to compare to a home model, nevertheless you could
spend a couple thousand I guess (which had better come with good
profiles).
If you have a good scanner then you can calibrate that first and then
your printer. More investments
> C: I want to take advantage of the 'profiles' available from a Photo
> Lab I use to primarily print my photographs. :-)
OK. Just my opinion but I think that photographer's need the hardware
calibration more than others. For graphic arts you have a sample book
and choose from a standard set of colors.
Now here's the controversial part. Digital or Traditional artist have
trained eyes. Also some artists may have something like perfect pitch
with respect to color. Third poverty and necessity and a Lot of
practice matching different screens and such -- there is No perfect
calibration.
You have a choice to restrict color range to what should look the same
on every system or to utilize the full range of your best system. Even
then, some pictures will look much better on some systems than
others.
>
> I know enough about color theory and science to throw big words and I
> odd little phrases into an explanation of HOW the equipment does it's
> Color Voodoo Stuff to make Monitors, CPU's, Printers, TV's,
> Projectors, and such all play Nice Nice together, but it would only
> impress someone who wouldn't know I don't know enough to explain how
> it works!!!!! :-)
> I'll venture enough to say that an electronic detector is used to
> measure the 'colors' your equipment is either displaying or printing
> and uses software and such to smooth out the often disastrous trip our
> images suffer going from screen to print or from computer to tv or
> whatever!
You have to match the real color, the numbers in the computer, to what
is actually being output (or input for a scanner). You do that by
setting up a transfer curve for each color channel. That is done by
software. The software is just as important as the hardware.
The color range of different media has different limitations.
Especially green is better on a monitor than from any die or pigment,
and both are more limited than reality.
Then there are problems of dynamic range. That is what detail can you
get in the shadows and also in the highlights. The newer input devices
use 64 bit color rather than 32 and again you need the software to
handle that. Some partially suported 48 bit back in the old days
(because scanners had it), but now it is 64 because that is camera raw
mode. Obviously the handling of that is greatly facilitated by a 64bit
computer. AFAIK there is no such thing as a 64bit monitor or/and
graphics card (? -out of my price range)
In the case of printers having grey inks helps with shadows, and the
brighter photo magenta and cyan, however commercial printers can have
many inks.
AKA like in painting you can have 8 colors or dozens and you can
custom mix them...
Worse and worse, there is No standard color model ! I was astounded
and perplexed to learn this and thought so hard about it I started to
make my own -- that is I mapped the 3-d color space onto a globe with
paint.
The model that works best depends on what you are doing.
Hope this exhausts your curiousities, otherwise there are many books
and papers on subjects of color science. A good place I think is an
art school text for course in color.
> If anyone wants to explain it better - God In Heaven - Please
> Do :-)
>
> I think I know enough to trust my decision to use a color calibrator
> and I feel comfortable reaching for the 'pricier' option of the Color
> Munki Photo choice of equipment, but I firmly believe the greatest
> sign of intelligence is acknowledging what one does not know, seeking
> to acquire that knowledge, and being receptive to the acquisition of
> knowledge one is lacking.
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
> On Jun 11, 10:02 pm, "Wallace Adrian D'Alessio"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:22 PM,
>
> > aussieshepsrock<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks All,
> > > I must say that a Color Calibrator (ColorSpyder or ColorMunki type
> > > unit) is absolutely at the top of my shopping list. I can state with
> > > unequivacobal authority that no matter how wonderful the 'software'
> > > calibration is built into our preferred OS, the fact our calibrations
> > > are done with 'Human Eyes' makes them completely unrepeatable. There
> > > is no getting around the variability of the 'sensors' never mind the
> > > ongoing variables of our 'brain's' flexible color perception and the
> > > changing nature of the illumination of the room the monitor is used -
> > > either the bulbs age and change or the varying 'solar' illumination of
> > > a window impinges on the situation.
>
> > > I DEFINITELY use the Software Calibration in OSX - on a quite routine
> > > basis! But it's always with the acceptance of it's limitations. It's a
> > > usable process, is a workable assistant in chasing color gremlins, but
> > > it falls short in critical ways.
>
> > ___________________________________________
>
> > Out of curiosity on my own part would you care to share your purpose
> > in color matching.
>
> > i.e. What task are you trying to accomplish? Color matching from print
> > to web? From Video to print? This may be useful as an illustration to
> > those on the list who are unfamiliar with this process and it's uses.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Adrian
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a
group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on
Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en
Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
