Screen Calibration Question

[Gavjenks]

I don't think photoshop knows what monitor I have plugged in, or it's current settings, so I'm not sure how that would be possible.

 

[Josh66]

I think you're missing the point.

It may seem arbitrary, but really, it's not. Well, maybe it is. It depends on what your goals are, I guess. If you truly do not care if "black" is actually "black", then **** it, it doesn't matter.

I just don't get why this discussion is even taking place. Just do it! Give me one good reason not to calibrate. And, "Joe Blow with his 6-pack doesn't calibrate" does not qualify as a good reason.

 

[Gavjenks]

If you truly do not care if "black" is actually "black"

Black isn't a real thing anyway. Unless you define it as absolutely no photons coming at your eye from a surface whatsoever, which lots of people probably go their whole lives without really experiencing more than a handful of times ever.
It's all relative. I want my monitor to as close as possible match their monitor relatively. Neither is right or wrong or true or false in any absolute sense. it's just "same" or "not the same." 128.713 units of gamma blah blah is not good. Same is good. At any numbers.

Give me one good reason not to calibrate.

Is the graphic not clear? The reason I'm concerned about doing it is that there is a chance that calibrating for print might push me further OUT of calibration with internet viewing. Or it might not. It is just an empirical question.
And I now have a couple of leads for ways to answer it, though it will take some leg work, it seems.

I will certainly report back later on TPF if/when I complete that legwork.

 

[runnah]

Calibrated monitors are really only useful for sending images to print. Even then you can assign solid colors to spot and process. Images are trickier because of the process nature of images. But getting printed proofs is the best way to go about things.

Calibrating to try to match other digital displays is a fools errand. You can only uses srgb and hope for the best.

 

[Gavjenks]

Calibrating to try to match other digital displays is a fools errand.

Why?

I see no reason why it's any more of a fool's errand than it is to try and knit a "one size fits [most]" stocking cap.
Simply requires sample data.

 

[71M]

I don't think photoshop knows what monitor I have plugged in, or it's current settings, so I'm not sure how that would be possible.

I'm thinking of the tool that converts an RGB image, open in the editor, to CMYK. If your on ABCwebsite.com, and everything looks fine, then open Photoshop, click on CMYK preview ..printjob image looks drab...tweak the image..close image..open web image..work on web image..isn't that one size fits all?

If: 1. CMYK plays no part in your print workflow; 2. There is no such functionality in Photoshop, (now or previously), then I have no idea what to suggest

 

[Gavjenks]

Calibrating to try to match other digital displays is a fools errand.

Why?

I see no reason why it's any more of a fool's errand than it is to try and knit a "one size fits [most]" stocking cap.
Simply requires sample data.

I wish there were some way to collect it without a $20 gizmo, cause then I could just get randomish respondents on facebook, TPF (uncalibrated people), etc. But gizmo means I'd actually have to physically run around.

 

[Josh66]

I want my monitor to as close as possible match their monitor relatively.

That will NEVER happen. Monitors are so "all over the place" that there is no "as close as possible". What is close to one will be wildly off another. The best you can do is calibrate and hope that most people have either calibrated or aren't that far off.

I've had monitors that were nearly perfectly calibrated from the factory. I've had others that were VERY far off.

I think your graphic is far too "normal" - I think that the actual distribution is much more random than that.

 

[Derrel]

Calibrated monitors are really only useful for sending images to print. Even then you can assign solid colors to spot and process. Images are trickier because of the process nature of images. But getting printed proofs is the best way to go about things.

Calibrating to try to match other digital displays is a fools errand. You can only uses srgb and hope for the best.

Are you up for a fool's errand, Gav???? THAT was exactly the point of my little Cartoon Gavjenks throwing his hands up in frustration. Other threads, both here and on dPreview, have brought up the fact that there is a positively HUGE range of monitors and operating systems in use, as well as different types and or kinds of displays...there are super monitors, excellent monitors, average monitors, and then there are those like the "Mom's basement computer monitor", as well as dinosaurs like the ancient icons-burned-in NEC 15-incher like my buddy Scott STILL HAS on an ancient Win-Doze 98-equipped Dell system that he keeps his lawn and landscape business books on...OMFG, that thing is an utter joke...his kids tease him about it...I razz him about it... "Just one more season, that's all it needs to make it through," he told me last month.

Even remotely hoping to come close to what "the Internet peeps see" is pushing it. There are people with their brightness levels set to MAX, as well as people whose monitors are so dark that everything looks like film noir.

 

[Derrel]

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)

I will immediately make a hair-color correction to the Cartoon Gavjenks!!!

OMG--maybe it's my MONITOR that lead me astray when I designed the cartoon profile shot of you! Oh, crap....now I'm gonna worry and wonder! Either way, "light mousy brown hair color..." I shall do my best!!!

 

[runnah]

Why? I see no reason why it's any more of a fool's errand than it is to try and knit a "one size fits [most]" stocking cap. Simply requires sample data. I wish there were some way to collect it without a $20 gizmo, cause then I could just get randomish respondents on facebook, TPF (uncalibrated people), etc. But gizmo means I'd actually have to physically run around.

Because there is nothing to gain. Printing is more of an issue because you will have products on shelves from different batches sitting next to each other and it would look bad if one box of Cheerios was a different yellow than another. Digital on the other hand rarely do you have two or more similar displays next to each other.

I have seen digital sign displays with 6 or more monitors displaying the same or one giant image. The color here is important but the video comes from a single source and displayed on the same make and model of display.

 

[Josh66]

I wish there were some way to collect it without a $20 gizmo, cause then I could just get randomish respondents on facebook, TPF (uncalibrated people), etc. But gizmo means I'd actually have to physically run around.

There is no way to measure the light output of a monitor (and that is what we're really talking about) without putting a sensor in front of it.

Now, if those sensors uploaded their data to some server, then maybe we could know what "average" really is.

 

[Gavjenks]

I don't think photoshop knows what monitor I have plugged in, or it's current settings, so I'm not sure how that would be possible.

I'm thinking of the tool that converts an RGB image, open in the editor, to CMYK. If your on ABCwebsite.com, and everything looks fine, then open Photoshop, click on CMYK preview ..printjob image looks drab...tweak the image..close image..open web image..work on web image..isn't that one size fits all?

If: 1. CMYK plays no part in your print workflow; 2. There is no such functionality in Photoshop, (now or previously), then I have no idea what to suggest

The final color you see is not purely determined by color space.

It's

Color in world --> [Filtered through sensor characteristics] --> [Camera or photographer tweaks white balance, this is the "art" part, and chooses a color space at the same time] -->[Possibly a color space conversion if you were sloppy and didn't plan what you were using your image for ahead of time] --> [Monitor hardware reads file and converts it to electricity in pixels, in variable ways] --> [Eyeball/brain interpretation] --> perceived color.

Camera sensor: Not a problem, because it comes before the "art" part, so I'm already adjusting that away by eye when I edit the image
Photographer bias: I want this.
Color Space: avoidable by editing with a known end goal in mind (edit in sRGB if for internet, etc.)
Monitor: The part I'm asking about now.
Eye/brain: Would ideally like to control for the average of this too if possible, but it's a lot harder sounding than monitors.

 

[Derrel]

Hair Color Calibration Test Image

 

[Gavjenks]

I want my monitor to as close as possible match their monitor relatively.

That will NEVER happen. Monitors are so "all over the place" that there is no "as close as possible". What is close to one will be wildly off another. The best you can do is calibrate and hope that most people have either calibrated or aren't that far off.

I've had monitors that were nearly perfectly calibrated from the factory. I've had others that were VERY far off.

I think your graphic is far too "normal" - I think that the actual distribution is much more random than that.

"All over the place" is irrelevant: it's still a distribution, it still has an average, and by being at the average, you still minimize error. I'm not claiming it's possible to be perfect on every monitor. I'm saying it's possible (and desirable) to be as close as possible to as many monitors as possible.


^
In either case--consistent OR wildly variable monitors--being at "X" is going to minimize error, compared to being at "Y."
It is somewhat more important in the consistent case than in the highly variable case, yes. But not impossible nor pointless in the variable case.





Derrel: Yes, good.