Screen Calibration Question

[Gavjenks]

I know the point is to calibrate to a printer's standard. But is that or is it not close to roughly the average coloration of cheap computer monitors out there?

My concern is that:
1) I would like to have more confidence in printing and getting what I expect, BUT
2) I've never had any complaints about people online having color issues with my work that I can't see on my own monitor.

So is it possible that by having the screen calibrated, I'd get more accurate previews of printing but LESS accurate previews of what people out there online with crappy monitors would see my work as? If so, it's not worth it to me. Because my work is seen more online than in print. But if calibration would probably improve both, then it is.

 

[JacaRanda]

I would be concerned with the prints and not all the gazillion crappy monitors; or monitors that simply have not been calibrated. Even if they were calibrated they wont all match your calibration. Pretty much impossible.

 

[71M]

Difficult to know. For web image sharing, there could be an arbitrary 'crappo standard' out there, that can only be gleaned by viewing things on lots of monitors, (old office monitors, library PCs, other devices). Not colour so much, it seems to me, but excessive contrast/lack of brightness could be an issue. How do the commercial .com websites like the New York Times, BMW, Swatch etc look on your monitor, as it is? I think there's also some Fuji test images out there, via Google; I had them as my desktop at one time.

 

[Gavjenks]

(@Jaca): Right but like.. okay here's a graphic:


There's a wide range of monitors, but they will ahve some central tendency. An average at point A.
Who knows where MY monitor is! But most likely, somewhere kinda close to A, statistically speaking. Let's say it's at B.

The question is: is the calibrated printer's coloration ALSO close to A? Or is it known to be pretty far off of the average of crappy uncalibrated monitors, like off at point C? There ISN'T a statistical reason to suspect this would be near A, unlike my monitor, because it's based on standard that diverged probably long ago from the monitor industry (or did it? hence my question)
If it's at or near A, then I want to get my monitor calibrated.
If it's off near C, then I don't, because 90% of views of my stuff will end up looking LESS accurate (online) since i'll be further away from the mean, and only 10% that I print will be on the money now at C.

How do the commercial .com websites like the New York Times, BMW, Swatch etc look on your monitor, as it is?

This is an excellent suggestion. They look great, HOWEVER my concern is that these companies are sophisticated enough that they might be reading my operating system and blah blah and adjusting things like this dynamically to match me (windows users are more likely to have dell monitors than apple monitors, for example)?



I talk about coloration in the OP and the graphic, but of course substitute in "contrast" or whatever else is calibrated too.

 

[Josh66]

So is it possible that by having the screen calibrated, I'd get more accurate previews of printing but LESS accurate previews of what people out there online with crappy monitors would see my work as?

Hardware is cheap and software is free. Try it and see the difference for yourself.

Do you really want to tailor your work to what "people with crappy monitors" expect to see? Seriously?!


Buy yourself a cheap calibration unit, such as a Huey. You should be able to find one for less than $20. No need to go all out just yet.

Download ArgyllCMS.
Argyll Color Management System Home Page

Next download DispcalGUI (ArgyllCMS is a dependency, so you will have to have that first)
dispcalGUI?Open Source Display Calibration and Characterization powered by Argyll CMS

Run the calibration and see the results.


And, it's not just for printing. Very good for web display too if you care at all about color or contrast.

 

[Gavjenks]

Do you really want to tailor your work to what "people with crappy monitors" expect to see? Seriously?!

Um yes absolutely, since that's what most people see my work on -- on their own uncalibrated monitors at home via the internet.

Buy yourself a cheap calibration unit, such as a Huey. You should be able to find one for less than $20. No need to go all out just yet.

Thanks. If it's only $20 that's no big deal. I can just run around to a couple of friends' houses and different places on campus and sample 10 or so monitors cna get a pretty good idea of where I am in relation, etc. That's probably the best solution for me. Unless there are definitely tests measuring exactly this based on the market typical stuff available that people have already done that somebody has a solid link to (still need the $20 unit but not the running around town)

Or is that sort of thing built into the software you linked?

 

[table1349]

Making fine prints in your digital darkroom: Getting started

 

[Josh66]

Or is that sort of thing built into the software you linked?

The software will show you your monitor's profile, before and after. I doubt you'll find a database that shows those values for everyone else though. I know what mine are, but I have no way of know what yours, or anyone else's are.

edit
Also, with that $20 unit, and the software I linked - while you're running around comparing your monitor to that of your friends', you can calibrate their monitors too, lol. Calibration can 'drift', so it should be done periodically, but, IMO - calibrating once and then never again is still probably better than not calibrating at all.

 

[71M]

They look great, HOWEVER my concern is that these companies are sophisticated enough that they might be reading my operating system and blah blah and adjusting things like this dynamically to match me

I don't think so, I'd be amazed if there was scripting doing that; I've never seen any applets or scripting, client-side, on webpages that can.
I'm out of touch though, so maybe ?

 

[Josh66]

Do you really want to tailor your work to what "people with crappy monitors" expect to see? Seriously?!

Um yes absolutely, since that's what most people see my work on -- on their own uncalibrated monitors at home via the internet.

I guess there's no reason to put any effort in then... I mean, if the end user has a crappy monitor, who cares if your work is crappy too, right?

That's basically what you're saying. "The quality of my work does not matter because my audience does not care about quality."

 

[71M]

[

That's basically what you're saying. "The quality of my work does not matter because my audience does not care about quality."

Optimized for potentially crappier outcomes than the ideal; that's good design!

 

[Derrel]

Nice bell curve, Gavjenks!



No matter how carefully he calibrated his old office monitor,
SOMEBODY always popped up and said, "Your pictures look
wayyyy too bright on my 2001 Trinitron 17-inch, and on my
Mom's old 15-inch NEC running Windows 98, they look even worse!"

 

[Gavjenks]

I guess there's no reason to put any effort in then... I mean, if the end user has a crappy monitor, who cares if your work is crappy too, right?

That's basically what you're saying. "The quality of my work does not matter because my audience does not care about quality."

This assumes that calibrated monitors are somehow absolutely or intrinsically "better" than whatever the monitors happened to be before, which I see no logical basis for.

Calibration is good because it is standardized for certain things, so you don't get surprised by your results later. NOT because those settings are just "the best settings" but simply because you know they happen to be the same settings as the printer.

So the unwashed masses out there with their macbooks and dells and whatever aren't "lower quality" they are simply differently calibrated, neither better nor worse. Having my monitor close to theirs is ideal according to precisely the same logic that being close to a printer's settings are when making prints: minimum surprises at the viewer's end. Which is optimal. They see as close as possible to my artistic vision, not my vision + some error.




The problem is that if printers and monitor manufacturers aren't in cahoots, then it is impossible to simultaneously have my monitor calibrated for internet AND for printing.

If so, what I will do is probably get a second monitor and have one calibrated to each. But that's annoying and costs more and takes up space on my desk, so if it is unnecessary, I'd prefer to avoid it.

edit: unless that software the dude linked allows me to just click one button and flip back and forth between two preset profiles? that would be nice.

SOMEBODY always popped up and said, "Your pictures look
wayyyy too bright on my 2001 Trinitron 17-inch, and on my
Mom's old 15-inch NEC running Windows 98, they look even worse!"

Yes, sure. This has always been the case though. Nobody in the 1970s expected their images to be ideally optimized for some old man with cataracts who is color blind.

You optimize for the average, to minimize this, never eliminating it.

 

[Gavjenks]

Also thanks derrel, I am kind of tipsy and was super impressed with my first-try freehand normal curve! =P

(Also, I'm fairly light mousey brown hair colored Don't let the B&W picture fool you)

 

[71M]

then it is impossible to simultaneously have my monitor calibrated for internet AND for printing.

Well I'm not an expert and I'd say yes, that's the reality, but is there like a print 'emulation' mode on software, (such as Photoshop, I haven't used it for years), that allows you to print preview, in the colourspace/profile that you use for editing or 'pre-pressing' print work?