I'm not sure about X.3 - haven't made the switch yet - but my experience with X.2.8 is that, whilst Apple's monitor calibration utility is definitely better than nothing, it's nowhere near as good as using a proper profiling package that actually measures the output from your monitor.
Like you, most of my digital work to date has involved scanning. I set up my monitor using the calibration utility and was perfectly happy - until I stumped up the cash for a BasicColour Squid and used it for the first time. The new profile is SO much more accurate than the old one - not just to look at in isolation, but in terms of matching screen to output on a custom profiled printer (yes, I've done that too!). Contrast and colour are completely different from my old 'calibrated' profile, which I've kept as a point of comparison. And both profiles are a vast improvement on the monitor's stock, out-of-the-box state.
Having said all this, I suspect much depends on how good the monitor in question is in the first place. But, although it's cost a bit, I don't regret having a properly profiled setup. The way I look at it is, what's the point in having thousands of pounds worth of photo equipment if you don't know whether the output from your computer is accurate? Profiling takes the guesswork out of it.
Hope this helps
Seb Rogers
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:51:18 +0000 From: Jon Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PRODIG] Calibration - quick and dirty?
Hi
Not sure if my first 'hello' message was posted - I never saw it - so verrrrry briefly, I'm an outdoor photographer, writer and occasional teacher. I still shoot film and scan on Nikon Coolscan to supply Alamy, Corbis and miscellaneous clients - but digital camera purchase can't be far off. This list is very helpful.
Now to my question. Sorry if this is too entry-level for most of you, but it will help me and (I hope) a bunch of other people too.
The monitor calibration utility in Mac OS 10.3 is considerably more sophisticated than it was in OS 9 (don't know about earlier versions of X). Just how useful, accurate, etc do the experts consider it to be?
I have to advise various people, including amateur and semi-pro photographers, and I just know they won't like the idea of spending �100 or whatever on 'proper' calibration packages. I either need a compelling argument to convince them that this is necessary, or to have confidence in saying 'the calibration within the OS is pretty good and certainly a whole lot better than nothing'.
Also, can anyone comment on a comparable utility in Windows? Is there a similar utility within the OS or is it better to use Adobe Gamma?
Thanks
Jon Sparks
jsparks(AT)dircon.co.uk
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
