• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Monitor Calibration: White Point & Gamma Values (1 Viewer)

Hobbes2

Hobbes2

Well-known member
I have recently upgraded my PC/screen and invested in a decent screen calibration system (Spyder4Elite by Datacolour). I've also done a fair amount of reading around to find out how adjusting the various values in the calibration process effect the outcome.

I was just wondering, for those of you who do calibrate your monitors for photo processing/viewing, what your preferences are for white point (WP) and gamma values?

I have actually found it quite difficult to decide the colour temperature I prefer for viewing (choices range from somewhere between 5000K and 6500K) and the gamma value (often between 1.8 and 2.2). In the end, I've decided to trial a WP of 6500K and gamma of 2, although I may well reduce the gamma further.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear others views/preferences.
Thanks
Hobbes
 
Spyder4Elite CalCheck Issue

Monitor calibration obviously isn't a hot topic ;), however, I just wondered if anyone else is using Spyder4Elite and could help with a problem I have, please?

The CalCheck test (i.e. checking the calibration of the current profile) doesn't seem to work. Every time I run it, it just reverts to checking the default profile of the monitor. To verify this, I ran a full calibration, noted the results (essentially a Gamma value of 1.85) and then immediately ran a CalCheck. It said the Gamma value was 2.3 (which is the default profile of the monitor). How do I make the CalCheck actually check the currently applied profile, please?

Many thanks
Hobbes
 
njlarsen said:
I have their old version 2 without the choices you mention, so cannot help. You might want to ask again in the camera section of this forum, or you can check the sister site mentioned here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=47399

Niels
Click to expand...

Hi Niels
Many thanks for coming to my rescue ;), much appreciated. I shall have a look at the sister site you suggest as I seem to be running into a few niggles sorting out the monitor calibration. I suspect its operator error but can't quite figure out what I'm doing...
All the best
Hobbes
 
I am in the same boat as you Hobbes, just upgraded my PC and calibrated my monitor today (I am using eye one display 2). My target was 6500k but managed to get 5800k. I have just posted my first pic with the new calibration on another web site and have been told that the colours look fine - by someone who has a calibrated Mac. EDIT: forgot to mention but used a gamma of 2.2
BTW attached is the pic for you to compare colours.
 

Attachments

  • bullfinch1.jpg
    bullfinch1.jpg
    190 KB · Views: 186
Last edited:
Roy C said:
I am in the same boat as you Hobbes, just upgraded my PC and calibrated my monitor today (I am using eye one display 2). My target was 6500k but managed to get 5800k. I have just posted my first pic with the new calibration on another web site and have been told that the colours look fine - by someone who has a calibrated Mac. EDIT: forgot to mention but used a gamma of 2.2
BTW attached is the pic for you to compare colours.
Click to expand...

Hi Roy
Thanks for posting. Having moved from a monitor that I couldn't calibrate (it was too old etc) I am on a fast learning curve to enjoy a "proper" set up. What is baffling me is that every time I run a full calibration and enter the same settings, I get a different outcome?! I can't figure out why that is or what control I need to put in place to prevent it. Am I suppose to calibrate the monitor in a virtually darkened room?!

Do you think you will stick with the 5800K or recalibrate for 6500K? I did try both settings but found that after using the 6500K for a few days, the "purity" of colours was appealing. However, I can certainly appreciate the aesthetics of a 5800K setting ;).

As for gamma values, this seems to be where I'm having the main problem. Apple seem to sell their monitors with very high default gamma settings to give them that high saturation, high contrast HD look. However, it made nature photographs look positively unnatural and I've been trying to reign it in (hence the target of 1.8). Anyway...I shall keep fiddling. To my monitor, your Bullfinch has quite high contrast (with very black blacks), however, the Bullfinch colours look ok (the sky is a sort of a grey-mauve colour).

Good luck with the new set up and enjoy it :t:
All the best
Hobbes
 
The bullfinch looks very saturated, but also as if it is in light from late (or early?) in the day which can affect colors to my mind.

I actually in general have a problem with the calibration versus non calibration issue. IF one uses an off site printing service, no doubt that all settings should be set so that the output from the printer to the highest degree possible matches the way the photo looked on your screen. But if you just upload to the gallery, will it not be true that most people will see the pics on a non-calibrated monitor? My pictures often looks considerably worse on the work PC when compared to my home PC (which has the calibrated monitor).

Niels
 
Hobbes2 said:
Do you think you will stick with the 5800K or recalibrate for 6500K? I did try both settings but found that after using the 6500K for a few days, the "purity" of colours was appealing. However, I can certainly appreciate the aesthetics of a 5800K setting ;).
Click to expand...
No I will not be keeping my current calibration as I have just realised that I used the wrong calibration method (my brain has been on overload the last two days trying to get everything installed and configured on the new PC :eek!:).
I have had my U2410 wide gamut monitor for a couple of years now and always ran it at around 6300K-6400K on my old PC which was about right for me. I will correct tomorrow by re-calibrating.

You do not need a completely dark room for calibrating - With 'eye one display2' you have an ambient light check at the beginning of calibration which gives you a pass or fail result. The colour meter thingy has a white translucent cover which you keep on for the ambient light check. I am lucky that my computer room is not too light on the brightest of days.
 
njlarsen said:
The bullfinch looks very saturated, but also as if it is in light from late (or early?) in the day which can affect colors to my mind.
Click to expand...

That's similar to the way I'm seeing it on my monitor.

njlarsen said:
I actually in general have a problem with the calibration versus non calibration issue. IF one uses an off site printing service, no doubt that all settings should be set so that the output from the printer to the highest degree possible matches the way the photo looked on your screen. But if you just upload to the gallery, will it not be true that most people will see the pics on a non-calibrated monitor? My pictures often looks considerably worse on the work PC when compared to my home PC (which has the calibrated monitor).

Niels
Click to expand...

For me, I'm keen to get the best settings possible for viewing and processing my images. But you're right, a lot of people will view website images with uncalibrated monitors. If it's any consolation, my very old, uncalibrated screen is actually extremely forgiving and I'd say that 99% of images looked fine.
Hobbes
 
Roy C said:
No I will not be keeping my current calibration as I have just realised that I used the wrong calibration method (my brain has been on overload the last two days trying to get everything installed and configured on the new PC :eek!:).
I have had my U2410 wide gamut monitor for a couple of years now and always ran it at around 6300K-6400K on my old PC which was about right for me. I will correct tomorrow by re-calibrating.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean about overloaded brains ;)! I had been putting off upgrading my PC for a few years, knowing how much work it would involve, lol.

Roy C said:
You do not need a completely dark room for calibrating - With 'eye one display2' you have an ambient light check at the beginning of calibration which gives you a pass or fail result. The colour meter thingy has a white translucent cover which you keep on for the ambient light check. I am lucky that my computer room is not too light on the brightest of days.
Click to expand...

That's similar to the Spyder set up. Thanks for confirming that some ambient light is fine. It's a dull, overcast day today so I might run a few more profiles to see if I can crack this issue :t:

All the best
Hobbes
 
I have now re-calibrated using the correct method (RGB and not preset mode). Also on my monitor it is important that you set the right preset mode before you start, I was using sRGB which apparently losses a lot of the wide gamut - I have now started with Adobe RGB and I have achieved the target of 6500K and 2.2. I will run this this for a while.

I am also interested in getting it to look right for web viewing although I know in the past from some printing that I have had done that the printed colours always came back more or less spot-on to what I was seeing on screen.

All good fun this calibration lark B :) although I could have done without having to do it all again - as you say Hobbes changing PC's involves a lot of work (mind you it is worth it as Photoshop is now flying!!!).

Hope it all goes well Hobbes :t:
 
Check Brightness Levels

I thought I would post a follow up in case it'll be of use to someone else in the future.

After 2 days of emails going back and forth to Datacolour support (who make Spyder4Elite calibration system), I have finally discovered what was going wrong for me.

Essentially, I started off running the calibration with Gamma 2.2 and White Point (WP) 6500K. The onscreen tool advised I used "Native" brightness.

Having run this calibration, I was not at all happy with the outcome. Colours looked over saturated and with much too much contrast. I did some reading and came to the conclusion I needed a lower Gamma value (hence my post about using a Gamma of 1.9).

Anyway, to cut a long story short. The problem wasn't a too high Gamma value. The issue was the "Native" brightness of the screen. It is recommended that you use a brightness of 120 cd/m2 (and, if it is necessary to go higher due to very bright ambient light, then not to push screen brightness too much beyond 140 cd/m2). When I measured the native brightness of my screen it was more like 260 cd/m2!! And, that was the cause of the high contrast, high saturation output. After nearly 3 weeks of staring a screen with double the recommended brightness, it is going to take a day or two to adjust.

I have now calibrated the monitor to:
Gamma 2.2
WP 6500K
Brightness 135 cd/m2 (which I may lower to 120 cd/m2, once I've adjusted).

Not surprisingly, images look a lot more natural now when viewing on screen :t:!
All the best
Hobbes
 
I am glad you got it sorted Hobbes :t:. From what I have read just about all the wide gamut LCD monitors are way too bright on the factory settings for some reason. When I calibrate one of the first things my calibrated tells you to do is to set the brightness to zero, after calibration I ended up with a brightness level of 20 (out of 100).
BTW hobbes attached is the first shot I processed after the re calibration, I have been told by a lot of folk that it looks about right - how is it looking to you?
 

Attachments

  • eagle owl1.jpg
    eagle owl1.jpg
    220.3 KB · Views: 167
Roy C said:
I am glad you got it sorted Hobbes :t:. From what I have read just about all the wide gamut LCD monitors are way too bright on the factory settings for some reason. When I calibrate one of the first things my calibrated tells you to do is to set the brightness to zero, after calibration I ended up with a brightness level of 20 (out of 100).
BTW hobbes attached is the first shot I processed after the re calibration, I have been told by a lot of folk that it looks about right - how is it looking to you?
Click to expand...

Thank you, Roy. It is a relief to get the issue resolved. After spending all that money to get the best display possible, I was beginning to worry ;).

Your beautiful Long-eared Owl looks absolutely spot on on my display :t:, which is a big relief, lol.

When I spoke to Apple about the factory settings of the monitor, they explained that, basically, they set it to have high impact when displayed in the shop. They want people to be dazzled and "blown away". When I explained that I wanted to process wildlife images, with a natural feel, the chap agreed that calibration was essential! Daft really.

Hobbes
 
Brightness

I am still adjusting to the appropriate brightness levels of my screen and don't quite yet trust my judgement. I would be grateful for some feedback on the attached images. To my eyes, the "Before" shot is a little dark. In the "After" shot I have simply lightened it a little. To those of you with calibrated screens, may I ask which looks "right", please?
Thanks
Hobbes
 

Attachments

  • WP (Before).jpg
    WP (Before).jpg
    264.6 KB · Views: 165
  • WP (After).jpg
    WP (After).jpg
    210.3 KB · Views: 163
On my non-calibrated work monitor, I think the first might be a little better, and that an in between image might be better yet.

Niels
 
Hobbes2 said:
I am still adjusting to the appropriate brightness levels of my screen and don't quite yet trust my judgement. I would be grateful for some feedback on the attached images. To my eyes, the "Before" shot is a little dark. In the "After" shot I have simply lightened it a little. To those of you with calibrated screens, may I ask which looks "right", please?
Thanks
Hobbes
Click to expand...

Unusual image, Hobbes; funny little green bird; what is it? ;)

(Second is better on my Laptop screen)
 
On my calibrated home computer, the first is a little dark, and the second a slight bit pale but better than the first.

Niels

Edit: on my Ipad mini, I prefer the second one
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

M
Eight 8X reverse porros compared
Replies
0
Views
2K
MarylandUSA
M
Joe H
Random Ramblings on the CL 7x21 Curio
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
Sky2goflying
Sky2goflying
W
Swarovski twilight glass
Replies
12
Views
3K
dries1
dries1
B
Curio 7x21 v Uvid 8x20 personal review
2 3
Replies
48
Views
11K
PW42
P
S
Tenerife (Canary Islands) Birding Trip Report – July 2022
Replies
12
Views
4K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top