Hello Tortise! thank you for your response. I think it's length demonstrates the incredible maze of complex variables, theory, and differing goals, people are both interacting with and attempting to achieve. The option of giving easy answers to 'simple' questions is almost precluded by the difficulty of the topic itself and the challenges of the technologies involved. My personal choice at this time is to reach for something to give me a fixed point to interact with my variables from. Right now, I have the variability of my Display, the variability of my Perception, and the variability of how I transmit my images (internet, cd/dvd, or print). I can see and quantify the consistency or lack thereof depending on what I've done (or had done to me) with the variables I interact with. I have chosen to use a Color Calibration Device to quantify and measure my variables. It is the 'Yardstick' I will pick up to measure what various equipment is providing me at a given point in time or method of usage. Instead of measuring the deviation between the 'varying' display I am using against the 'varying' output method I used using the 'varying' perception provided by my human eyes and brain, I will be using a 'fixed' measuring device. I see my challenge as analagous to needing 1 foot sections of 2"x2" lumber and cutting the board by 'eyeballing' my cuts. When I line up the '1ft' pieces up alongside each other, none of them will be the same length. If I'm experienced, practiced, and used to the saw I'm using, they might be close, but they won't be the same. If I'm inexperienced or suddenly using equipment I've not used before, those boards can be wildly disparate in their length and even if they are consistent, might not be anywhere close to exactly 12 inches in length because I have no benchmark for what 12 inches actually means! This is the Section of my Decision Tree I feel the most confidence about. I am acquiring a 'ruler' to make my measurements with. Where the 'rubber' meets the road is actually having positive things come of the 'Measurements' I make with my device. I ancedotally hear good things about the Software included with the ColorMunki & ColorSpyder type devices and the 'relative' consistency the programs can bring to a users life. I have little info about using the software or their methodologies and zero experience actually physically using them. I am lucky in that I am implementing a system in order to satisfy personal goals and needs. A commercial or business imperative isn't involved here - ie: a Wedding Photographer spending a week doing his color balancing and image edits only to have his thousand dollar print and album order turn out to be jacked up and worthless. (Hint: Pro Labs aren't Walmart - you pay for what you as the customer send to print, if the bride is a subtle hint of orange in some and a subtle hint of plum in others because of the color of the light outside your window or you turned all the lights off in the evening, you get to pay twice for your client's prints. OUCH!
As you can see, a 500 buck Color Calibrator is 'expensive', but if it saves a Single 1,000 buck print order it pays for itself. As a Home User, it can pay for itself in the Inkjet Ink you DIDN"T waste across the months and years trying to make your 4x6's/5x7's/ 8x10's and such LOOK the way they ought and the way you expect them to. I am an ex-Darkroom Jockey. I recall the glory and satisfaction of having 'calibrated' my Camera, my Meter, my Film Development, and Print Processing, to reference standards. Instead of chasing my tail for an hour to get an 'acceptable' print from my negative, I could reliably get a usable 8x10 from it the first time thru the 'soup' and make creative choices from there! To be able to hit print and get a photo print out of my inkjet that might not be 'perfect' the first time, but isn't something I'd be ashamed to have seen is something I'd move heaven and earth for! I don't expect there to be an exact 'clone' of the image I interact with on my screen - physics and biology make that impossible - but 'consistently close' is more than enough! I know there is a challenge implementing a Color Calibration Scheme and that I have quite the range of theory and knowledge to more fully acquire and appreciate, but at least as an Informed Consumer I now know the things 'I Don't Know' and am acting to alleviate the gaps. Please remember the topic I gave this thread I started. I came asking if someone had somewhere to look or learn more about specific displays from the viewpoint of someone who values colors and images in a somewhat similar manner to myself. Richard :-) On Jun 17, 12:29 am, tortoise <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
