Does The Dell Monitor App Conflict With Color Profiles X-rite?
PNad • Contributing Member • Posts: 538
Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Aug 19, 2015
Its been asked before, but couldnt find a clear answer. Basically, the 2 models share the same hardware, but the colormunki use a much more user friendly software with less options. I have a Dell u2713hm and dont know much about screen calibration, why I would need more options from the i1?
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
PNad wrote:
Its been asked before, but couldnt find a clear answer. Basically, the 2 models share the same hardware, but the colormunki use a much more user friendly software with less options. I have a Dell u2713hm and dont know much about screen calibration, why I would need more options from the i1?
You don't want user friendly but crippled software. Go Pro, you'll have far more options to set the calibration targets for matching a print (assuming that's one of your goals).
See:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
This gives you an idea what's necessary to calibrate to match something (like a print) and why more options are better for you.
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
1
There is nothing wrong with either of the two devices. The i1pro gives you more advanced options but the final result is virtually the same. Unless you are a professional and need the absolute best color calibration I would recommend the ColorMonki Display for the ease of use.
Trying to match prints to the monitor is always a problem since both the monitor displayed image and the print will look different as the ambient light intensity and color temperature change.
A print viewed in dim light will look different if viewed in bright light. A print hung on an off-white wall in a business reception room and lit by daylight fluorescent lights will look much different if hung on a rose colored wall in your home and lit by incandescent lights.
Color Calibrate your monitor in the ambient light level that you usually work in.
Modify a copy of the image for printing so that the final print looks "right" in the environment it will be viewed in, i.e. at the right distance with the ambient light level and color temperature.
-- hide signature --
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5DS R Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX +9 more
tucson0159 • Contributing Member • Posts: 595
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Colormunki and i1Pro 2 do not use the same hardware. The results of both are similar but not the same. I find i1Profiler to have some very useful features for a pro product., those that IMO will not be needed by most who profile for their own benefit. What is interesting is that i1Profiler with the i1Pro does not produce profiles as well as another software package. Copra used with i1Pro 2 produces some excellent profiles. In certain photos, IMO the difference can be noticeable. I am just saying that the i1Pro 2 hardware is capable of creating profiles that are better than Colormunki, and not just marginally better. So you are getting something for your money other than different software.
-- hide signature --
With sincere regards, Bob
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +20 more
Pictus • Veteran Member • Posts: 6,541
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
Use TFT Central settings as a start point to calibrate your U2713HM.
The i1Display Pro is "future proof"* and MUCH faster than any other puck...
With any puck you choose I prefer to calibrate using Argyll+dispcalGUI.
BTW, your monitor backlight type is White LED, you will need to set this
in the X-rite calibration software or use this correction matrix for
Argyll+dispcalGUI.
* For "future proof" I mean it will work with any monitor or calibration
software you may have in the future.
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Sailor Blue wrote:
There is nothing wrong with either of the two devices.
No, but one's superior
Which of the two versions do you own and use Sailor Blue?
The i1pro gives you more advanced options but the final result is virtually the same.
Well no, that's actually not true depending on the options used.Want a LUT based profile, you're going to have to use the i1Display-Pro product. Need control over Chromatic Adaptation, you're SOL using the Munki product. So even with identical calibration targets (White Point, cd/m2 settings), you're not getting the same results.
Trying to match prints to the monitor is always a problem since both the monitor displayed image and the print will look different as the ambient light intensity and color temperature change.
Which is WHY one must control the environment where one edits their images! One must control the print viewing conditions next to the display while soft proofing to produce a match, quite possible. Lots and lots of people can and do accomplish a match.
A print viewed in dim light will look different if viewed in bright light. A print hung on an off-white wall in a business reception room and lit by daylight fluorescent lights will look much different if hung on a rose colored wall in your home and lit by incandescent lights.
This has nothing to do with the print being viewed next to the display under controlled conditions where the print viewing and display calibration work hand in hand to match. Remove the print, take it elsewhere, the display is now out of the equation. Your eyes will adapt to the new illuminant but it too has to be reasonable (viewing that print in a dark room solely illuminant by a 4 watt nigh light bulb will look too dark, it isn't! Don't view prints with ridiculously inappropriate illumination or illuminant). All outlined here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Color Calibrate your monitor in the ambient light level that you usually work in.
And keep it that way, consistency is key. And the ambient light level should be as low as possible! Our perception of black is affected by how much ambient light strikes the display. The black of the display is impacted by ambient light and black is key to how we see the overall image!
http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf
Fact is, ColorMunki is somewhat crippled hardware (slower, less 3rd party support) and comes with crippled software compared to the Pro unit. There's vastly more control over the calibration process with the Pro:
https://www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L7-507_DisplaySolutions_en.pdf
OP PNad • Contributing Member • Posts: 538
I dont print.
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
Maybe I should have specified that, and I do not plan to print in the future. Does this change anything ?
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: I dont print.
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
PNad wrote:
Maybe I should have specified that, and I do not plan to print in the future. Does this change anything ?
It might, what is your goal for the calibration of the display? You have to pick specific targets for calibration. They affect what you'll see from a big pile of RGB or CMYK numbers.
IF you think you'll print or have prints made in the future, do you want to lock yourself in a corner with the product you buy today? If you're sure you will never print, the lesser expensive option could be fine. But we need a better idea of your color management goals.
Re: I dont print.
In reply to PNad • Aug 20, 2015
1
PNad wrote:
Maybe I should have specified that, and I do not plan to print in the future. Does this change anything ?
If you're talking about the Colormunki Display and the i1 Display Pro, then neither can calibrate a printer so that's not an issue in the choice.
AFAIK, the two units are virtually identical hardware with the same or very similar accuracy, but the ColorMunki Display is slugged to make it slower. I believe it's limited to about 1 reading per second. In practice, that makes it less than half the speed of the i1 Display Pro.
The software supplied by xrite is different for the two models, but as Pictus said above, the (free) Argyll software runs with both, it's just slower with the ColorMunki Display.
I initially bought the ColorMunki Display as I don't calibrate that often (normally once a month for each of my two photo monitors) so the extra time taken is neither here nor there for me.
However, I discovered another gotcha. Some monitors with internal LUTs require special software for calibration, and (for what reason I don't know) several of them work with the i1 Display Pro but not the ColorMunki Display. Dell monitors that have hardware LUTs require the i1 Display Pro. My Eizo CS240 (fantastic monitor for the money) works with a range of calibrators including the i1 Display Pro but not the ColorMunki Display. I had to go out and buy an i1 Display Pro.
-- hide signature --
Simon
OP PNad • Contributing Member • Posts: 538
Re: I dont print.
Simon Garrett wrote:
PNad wrote:
Maybe I should have specified that, and I do not plan to print in the future. Does this change anything ?
If you're talking about the Colormunki Display and the i1 Display Pro, then neither can calibrate a printer so that's not an issue in the choice.
AFAIK, the two units are virtually identical hardware with the same or very similar accuracy, but the ColorMunki Display is slugged to make it slower. I believe it's limited to about 1 reading per second. In practice, that makes it less than half the speed of the i1 Display Pro.
The software supplied by xrite is different for the two models, but as Pictus said above, the (free) Argyll software runs with both, it's just slower with the ColorMunki Display.
I initially bought the ColorMunki Display as I don't calibrate that often (normally once a month for each of my two photo monitors) so the extra time taken is neither here nor there for me.
However, I discovered another gotcha. Some monitors with internal LUTs require special software for calibration, and (for what reason I don't know) several of them work with the i1 Display Pro but not the ColorMunki Display. Dell monitors that have hardware LUTs require the i1 Display Pro. My Eizo CS240 (fantastic monitor for the money) works with a range of calibrators including the i1 Display Pro but not the ColorMunki Display. I had to go out and buy an i1 Display Pro.
That Eizo monitor is an adobe RGB monitor however, and since I dont print anything and 99% of my stuff goes on websites, its rather useless for me, thats why I went with the Dell and planning to calibrate it but was unaware of the colormunki. I dont need 100% accurate colors, but id like to at least have stuff right and consistent.
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
1
digidog wrote:
Sailor Blue wrote:
There is nothing wrong with either of the two devices.
No, but one's superior
For you, probably for me someday, but not for 99% of the amateur photographers.
Which of the two versions do you own and use Sailor Blue?
Neither, I am still happy with my Spyder3Elite. I get consistent results, colors that match my ColorChecker passport, and colors on both monitors are almost identical. The dynamic range of the older monitor is not quite as good as the new one but I use the new monitor for all my image editing where colors are critical.
I will add that when I see a need to replace my Spyder3Elite I will probably buy the i1Pro, but then I know I'm anal retentive when it comes to my image colors so I'm willing to spend the extra money for the very small gain in capabilities.
The i1pro gives you more advanced options but the final result is virtually the same.
Well no, that's actually not true depending on the options used.Want a LUT based profile, you're going to have to use the i1Display-Pro product. Need control over Chromatic Adaptation, you're SOL using the Munki product. So even with identical calibration targets (White Point, cd/m2 settings), you're not getting the same results.
Again, it is what you need but not what 99% of amateur photographers need.
Trying to match prints to the monitor is always a problem since both the monitor displayed image and the print will look different as the ambient light intensity and color temperature change.
Which is WHY one must control the environment where one edits their images!
No argument, but how many amateurs have the luxury of a dedicated enclosed room with special lighting just for editing their images?
One must control the print viewing conditions next to the display while soft proofing to produce a match, quite possible. Lots and lots of people can and do accomplish a match.
Why? Are you only going to look at your prints using the special print viewing box next to your computer monitor?
My prints go on the wall or are viewed in a coffee table book in my living room. I want prints that look right under those lighting conditions, not in a special print viewing box.
Now if you are a commercial photographer selling your images then yes, you should be using a special print viewing box next to your carefully color calibrated high end monitor to make sure that the colors match, unless you know exactly what the viewing conditions will be after you sell the images.
If you are working for a client who will be displaying the images it is best to find out what the lighting will be, do some test prints, and see how the final image will look when viewed. You can then adjust your image prior to printing and stop worrying about whether or not the colors match with your color calibrated monitor.
A print viewed in dim light will look different if viewed in bright light. A print hung on an off-white wall in a business reception room and lit by daylight fluorescent lights will look much different if hung on a rose colored wall in your home and lit by incandescent lights.
This has nothing to do with the print being viewed next to the display under controlled conditions where the print viewing and display calibration work hand in hand to match.
And viewing a print in a special print viewing box next to the monitor has nothing to do with how the print should be viewed.
Remove the print, take it elsewhere, the display is now out of the equation. Your eyes will adapt to the new illuminant but it too has to be reasonable (viewing that print in a dark room solely illuminant by a 4 watt nigh light bulb will look too dark, it isn't! Don't view prints with ridiculously inappropriate illumination or illuminant). All outlined here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
I think you are agreeing with me here - even if you produce a print that looks perfect in your special print viewing box next to your monitor it will change it appearance in different viewing conditions.
You should adjust the image to be printed so that the print will look right in the environment where it will be viewed, not is some special print viewing box.
Color Calibrate your monitor in the ambient light level that you usually work in.
And keep it that way, consistency is key. And the ambient light level should be as low as possible! Our perception of black is affected by how much ambient light strikes the display. The black of the display is impacted by ambient light and black is key to how we see the overall image!
http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf
Agreed. The problem is keeping the lighting consistent unless you have the luxury of having a totally enclosed room with special lighting just for editing images. Fortunately the better color calibration devices can measure the ambient light and adjust the screen brightness to at least compensate for changing lighting conditions. This isn't perfect but it is better.
Fact is, ColorMunki is somewhat crippled hardware (slower, less 3rd party support) and comes with crippled software compared to the Pro unit. There's vastly more control over the calibration process with the Pro:
https://www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L7-507_DisplaySolutions_en.pdf
Again, that is fine for you, and will be fine for me someday, but 99% of the amateurs don't need the advanced capabilities of the i1Pro and will be perfectly happy with the ColorMonki Display and with the money they save.
-- hide signature --
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5DS R Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX +9 more
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Sailor Blue wrote:
For you, probably for me someday, but not for 99% of the amateur photographers.
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
Sorry but such statements are nonsense! At such a time you can accurately speak for 70% let alone 99% of any group, you'll become a very, very rich man. Every company that could sell a product to that percentage of customers would want your advise. Until then, it's simply a massive speculation and generalization not worthy of anyone else to consider.
Which of the two versions do you own and use Sailor Blue?
Neither, I am still happy with my Spyder3Elite.
OK, then that's a useful data point for others, maybe 99% to consider when reading what you've stated about the two X-rite devices. FWIW, I've got both and worked with X-rite in the past on their products.
I get consistent results, colors that match my ColorChecker passport, and colors on both monitors are almost identical.
Consistency isn't under discussion! The device, any such device should be consistent.
Again, it is what you need but not what 99% of amateur photographers need.
Again, such statements don't serve you well.
Trying to match prints to the monitor is always a problem since both the monitor displayed image and the print will look different as the ambient light intensity and color temperature change.
Which is WHY one must control the environment where one edits their images!
No argument, but how many amateurs have the luxury of a dedicated enclosed room with special lighting just for editing their images?
They don't need special lighting, they need consistent and adequate lighting for viewing a print next to the display. Going full circle back to consistency which I'm not sure you recognize when necessary.
One must control the print viewing conditions next to the display while soft proofing to produce a match, quite possible. Lots and lots of people can and do accomplish a match.
Why? Are you only going to look at your prints using the special print viewing box next to your computer monitor?
Yes, to see that I've produced WYSIWYG! That's the goal. How can you edit your images on a display and know that's what you'll get on a print IF you don't view them next to each other? Answer, you can't.
My prints go on the wall or are viewed in a coffee table book in my living room. I want prints that look right under those lighting conditions, not in a special print viewing box.
Again, you're missing the point. You need to first know you've achieved a match from a pile of numbers to a finished print. Those piles of numbers are shown to you on a display. Does the print match the display? There's only one condition where you can see if that's so. Once you know you have a match and move that print into other conditions that are sound (NOT the 4 watt night light bulb analogy you missed or ignored), your eyes adapt to the new illuminant and you'll be pleased with the print.
Now if you are a commercial photographer selling your images then yes, you should be using a special print viewing box next to your carefully color calibrated high end monitor to make sure that the colors match, unless you know exactly what the viewing conditions will be after you sell the images.
Maybe you should but it's not a must, you need a good illuminant next to the display and it needs to be consistent. A damn Solux bulb isn't expensive!
If you are working for a client who will be displaying the images it is best to find out what the lighting will be, do some test prints, and see how the final image will look when viewed. You can then adjust your image prior to printing and stop worrying about whether or not the colors match with your color calibrated monitor.
No! You always want the numbers displayed on the monitor to match the print next to the monitor because you certainty do not want a mismatch (consistency flies out the window in that case).
A print viewed in dim light will look different if viewed in bright light. A print hung on an off-white wall in a business reception room and lit by daylight fluorescent lights will look much different if hung on a rose colored wall in your home and lit by incandescent lights.
This has nothing to do with the print being viewed next to the display under controlled conditions where the print viewing and display calibration work hand in hand to match.
And viewing a print in a special print viewing box next to the monitor has nothing to do with how the print should be viewed.
There's nothing special that has to go on here! You're making this more complex and making it seem expensive for no reason.
Remove the print, take it elsewhere, the display is now out of the equation. Your eyes will adapt to the new illuminant but it too has to be reasonable (viewing that print in a dark room solely illuminant by a 4 watt nigh light bulb will look too dark, it isn't! Don't view prints with ridiculously inappropriate illumination or illuminant). All outlined here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
I think you are agreeing with me here - even if you produce a print that looks perfect in your special print viewing box next to your monitor it will change it appearance in different viewing conditions.
Yes so what's the problem with my suggestion of WYSIWYG next to the display and without some exotic viewing booth you think is necessary 99% of the time? Answer, nothing,
Agreed. The problem is keeping the lighting consistent unless you have the luxury of having a totally enclosed room with special lighting just for editing images.
You state your happiness with a device you believe produces consistency on screen (you have no metric of proof but that's another topic) yet you call the viewing conditions around the display, something that does affect your perception a luxury. Rather inconsistent
Fortunately the better color calibration devices can measure the ambient light and adjust the screen brightness to at least compensate for changing lighting conditions. This isn't perfect but it is better.
That's a klude and a hack and doesn't 'fix' your perception of color or black of a display in the environment.
Do you setup your Spyder3 to adjust for changing lighting conditions?
Fact is, ColorMunki is somewhat crippled hardware (slower, less 3rd party support) and comes with crippled software compared to the Pro unit. There's vastly more control over the calibration process with the Pro:
https://www.xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L7-507_DisplaySolutions_en.pdf
Again, that is fine for you, and will be fine for me someday, but 99% of the amateurs don't need the advanced capabilities of the i1Pro and will be perfectly happy with the ColorMonki Display and with the money they save.
PLEASE stop speaking for anyone but yourself let alone 99% of any group of users. How can they be unhappy if they don't know what they didn't get? How can we you make them happy with a purchase if we you don't know their final goals for the product? How can we you advise them on products you have ZERO experience using?
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
digidog wrote:
Sailor Blue wrote:
For you, probably for me someday, but not for 99% of the amateur photographers.
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
Andrew, I'm always amazed that we manage to argue as much as we do when we agree about 99% of the time - yep, another generalization but one that months of back and forth has shown to be accurate.
No argument from me about consistent lighting being best for image editing, the argument is about the practicality of achieving that.
The only way of getting absolutely consistent lighting is to have a special enclosed room with its own lighting or to only do your editing at night under consistent artificial illumination - no editing during the day when the daylight brightness might change and effect the light level where your computer monitor is located.
The special room solution is expensive, but worth it for a professional. Only editing at night is damn inconvenient and most amateurs would rather be practical and accept small inconsistencies than give up being able to edit whenever they have the time.
Andrew, you say that you don't need a special viewing box for images nest to the computer monitor then say you should go out and buy a special Solux light bulb. You don't say it but I'm sure your intent is that light from the Solux bulb should be limited to only the print and not fall on the monitor.
The most practical way to limit the light from the Solux bulb to only the print is to put it in a viewing box, which can be constructed of something as simple and cheap as black painted cardboard box. Using a special viewing box is easy to use and works if you want to match print colors under a special viewing light with monitor colors.
Your position, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the print colors viewed with your Solux light must always match the colors on the monitor.
My position is that the colors look correct in their real world viewing location. As far as I'm concerned using a Solux bulb to match print colors to monitor colors is a waste of time unless the prints will be always be illuminated with Solux bulbs.
Your 4W incandescent bulb comment shows that you realize that a print that looks perfect when viewed next to the monitor under light from a Solux bulb will not look perfect if placed in different lighting conditions. What would you do if you knew that your print would be placed so it would be viewed under 4W incandescent lighting by a client?
Personally I would modify the print so that the dynamic range between white and black and the colors of the print looked as close to being accurate as possible under 4W incandescent lighting. Again, what would you do?
It is apparent we have a different philosophies about printing and about what is practical for for color control.
You are an advocate of achieving the absolute best color control of your monitor regardless of cost and of matching print colors to monitor colors under a very specific type of lighting. That is fine and I have no argument of you doing those things for yourself, only when you try to say that your way is the only way.
I would like to think I have a more practical viewpoint. I'm an advocate of achieving the best possible color accuracy within your budget and of making prints that look good in the environment where they will be viewed but not worrying if the print colors don't exactly match the monitor colors. My bottom line is that a photographer should do what they can and what is practical and then go out and enjoy taking some more photos.
-- hide signature --
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5DS R Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX +9 more
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Sailor Blue wrote:
Andrew, I'm always amazed that we manage to argue as much as we do when we agree about 99% of the time - yep, another generalization but one that months of back and forth has shown to be accurate.
It's another silly generalization yes! We agree unless we don't agree, how's that?
The only way of getting absolutely consistent lighting is to have a special enclosed room with its own lighting or to only do your editing at night under consistent artificial illumination - no editing during the day when the daylight brightness might change and effect the light level where your computer monitor is located.
No it's not. That's absurd. There's a relatively new invention call curtains (room darkening, black foamcore, etc).
The special room solution is expensive, but worth it for a professional.
Another generalization. That 35mm F 1.8 is too expensive but worth it for a professional. Talk about a generalization that many's Gear Lists here would suggest otherwise...
Only editing at night is damn inconvenient and most amateurs would rather be practical and accept small inconsistencies than give up being able to edit whenever they have the time.
Another generalization. I suggested doing the editing at night and not changing one's mind about it during the day. Not ideal? Yes. Then control the ambient conditions or expect issues with some of the edits.
Andrew, you say that you don't need a special viewing box for images nest to the computer monitor then say you should go out and buy a special Solux light bulb.
It's not special! It's a stinkin but very good halogen bulb. It's a suggestion for a very good illuminate but I didn't demand everyone and all use just that bulb.
You don't say it but I'm sure your intent is that light from the Solux bulb should be limited to only the print and not fall on the monitor.
Just the print, no light should strike the display ideally, build a simple hood with black foam core or use the photographic understanding of how to light something to flag the light from the display.
Your position, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that the print colors viewed with your Solux light must always match the colors on the monitor.
My position is to control the calibration of the display and use a consistent illuminant that isn't ridiculous (like a 4 watt night light bulb or a 10K arc light) for the print such they visually match. It's spelled out here (don't know why I have to again provide this URL to you):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
My position is that the colors look correct in their real world viewing location.
A print illuminated next to the display resides in the real world.
As far as I'm concerned using a Solux bulb to match print colors to monitor colors is a waste of time unless the prints will be always be illuminated with Solux bulbs.
You have then owned and tried using a Solux blub as I recommend?
Your 4W incandescent bulb comment shows that you realize that a print that looks perfect when viewed next to the monitor under light from a Solux bulb will not look perfect if placed in different lighting conditions.
No, it will not look perfect, your eyes will not fully adapt to this totally inappropriate method of illuminating a print! See the difference yet?
What would you do if you knew that your print would be placed so it would be viewed under 4W incandescent lighting by a client?
Now why would anyone view a print under such conditions? It's ridiculous.
How well does your print look in a room with NO light? Why go there?
Personally I would modify the print so that the dynamic range between white and black and the colors of the print looked as close to being accurate as possible under 4W incandescent lighting. Again, what would you do?
The dynamic range has no bearing in this discussion, don't muck it up with attributes that have nothing to do with proper illumination of a print next to the display such they appear to match. Or which device the OP should consider purchasing.
It is apparent we have a different philosophies about printing and about what is practical for for color control.
Yes while some philosophies (like all JPEGs are or should be in sRGB) make zero sense and should be dismissed. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56356248
You are an advocate of achieving the absolute best color control of your monitor regardless of cost and of matching print colors to monitor colors under a very specific type of lighting. That is fine and I have no argument of you doing those things for yourself, only when you try to say that your way is the only way.
I didn't say it's the only way. I am saying there are ways that make no sense and don't work.
I would like to think I have a more practical viewpoint. I'm an advocate of achieving the best possible color accuracy within your budget and of making prints that look good in the environment where they will be viewed but not worrying if the print colors don't exactly match the monitor colors. My bottom line is that a photographer should do what they can and what is practical and then go out and enjoy taking some more photos.
Then speak only for yourself, using your own actual experiences to do so. Again, in terms of print viewing conditions next to the display, that are consistent (since you appear to agree that's useful), light source do you use? What about the ambient light adjustment I asked you about with your Spyder3? You didn't answer. What experience do you have with the ColorMunki vs. The i1Display Pro? You've provided opinions, tell us what facts they are based upon from yourown experiences, not 99% of other's using generalizations. Then maybe we can agree...
davidedric • Veteran Member • Posts: 6,881
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
I am in position to argue the toss with you two gentlemen, but as an amateur printing and hanging for my own pleasure, my approach is much more akin to Sailor's.
Dave
Sony RX100 VII Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Panasonic G85 Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +3 more
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
I am in position to argue the toss with you two gentlemen, but as an amateur printing and hanging for my own pleasure, my approach is much more akin to Sailor's.
Dave
I'm fine with that. As long as ones decisions are based on sound research and facts, not mere speculation.
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Match or mismatch?
Sailor Blue wrote:
I would like to think I have a more practical viewpoint. I'm an advocate of achieving the best possible color accuracy within your budget and of making prints that look good in the environment where they will be viewed but not worrying if the print colors don't exactly match the monitor colors.
So the bottom line is, calibration of the display and having it match anything isn't practical. Go for a mismatch?
My bottom line is that a photographer should do what they can and what is practical and then go out and enjoy taking some more photos.
I've got no beef with suggesting people enjoy and take more photo's. But that has nothing to do with this topic or in any way aids the OP or others.
I'll submit that it's practical and possible that one can use color management to produce a very close visual match of print to soft proof. To do so, one must view the two within context, meaning next to each other. It is impractical to work towards a mismatch, that serves no purpose.
If you're not trying for a match, if it doesn't matter that the output and display correlate, you don't need any device to calibrate the display! Make prints, move them to each location, view them and stop printing only until you're happy with that print. Is that practical?
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Andrew, I think you just love misconstruing what people say just so you can argue, and you especially love to argue with anyone who doesn't hold your very narrow viewpoint. Your pedantic attitude may be fine for yourself but not for everyone. Frankly it gets boring and is nonproductive for all concerned.
Your view on how to work with color control is fine for you, but for some there are perfectly good reasons to do things differently. It is too bad that you are incapable of realizing that fact - it would make these discussions on color control much more pleasant and productive.
Have a fine day Andrew, but please go someplace else to start an argument.
-- hide signature --
Living and loving it in Pattaya, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W3 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5DS R Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX +9 more
(unknown member) • Forum Pro • Posts: 13,189
Re: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro
Sailor Blue wrote:
Andrew, I think you just love misconstruing what people say just so you can argue, and you especially love to argue with anyone who doesn't hold your very narrow viewpoint.
People? Some of your text yes. It appears to be made up but I'm waiting on you to tell me your actual experience in forming the opine you've made on the subject: Xrite ColorMunki and i1pro.
Have any?
Your pedantic attitude may be fine for yourself but not for everyone.
Speak solely for yourself please.
Frankly it gets boring and is nonproductive for all concerned.
If you find it boring, you can of course move on. As for all concerned, please speak for yourself, it's not fair to speak for others.
Your view on how to work with color control is fine for you, but for some there are perfectly good reasons to do things differently.
Yes it is, but it should have some basis in color science and color sense.
Again, you can either work towards the goal of a match between a print and a display or you can work towards a mismatch. Which are you recommending? If the later, why?
It is too bad that you are incapable of realizing that fact - it would make these discussions on color control much more pleasant and productive.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Opinions that have no basis in fact or experience is neither pleasant nor productive for those reading what you've posted.
I've asked you to explain and backup your recommendations, you can't or will not. I asked you about how you use your Spyder3 in differing ambient conditions, you can't or will not. I asked you about your direct experience with the two X-rite products the OP asked about, that you provided an opinion on, and you have none. So should you be taken seriously?
Have a fine day Andrew, but please go someplace else to start an argument.
There's no argument when one side asks the other to explain how and why they formed their opinion with facts and that side can't do so! That person is producing an opinion that other's should critically examine because while that person is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. What you apparently can't or will not provide is a back up of your advise and opinion that is factual. So no argument.
Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
Apple's flagship M1 Max MacBook Pro offers a combination of performance, efficiency, build quality, and screen quality that you cannot find in any PC on the market, full stop.
The DJI Action 2 is an innovative action camera that captures great video and supports with a variety of magnetic accessories. Packing this much technology into such a tiny form factor is an impressive feat, but it comes at a cost. Read our review to get all the details.
Exposure Software's latest release, Exposure X7, offers impressive editing performance and great image quality along with a solid feature set that gives Adobe Lightroom a run for its money (but without the monthly subscription). Get all the details in our review.
The new Dell XPS 17 (9710) is a solid laptop with a sleek design language, great build quality, and a color-accurate 17-inch display. But we're not sure Dell has done enough to differentiate it from its little brother, the XPS 15.
Three years after releasing the Mavic 2 series, DJI returns with the Mavic 3. It features a dual-camera system with a 4/3" CMOS sensor plus a tele photo lens that can zoom up to 28X. Is it worth the hefty price tag? We take a look at the Cine, the high-end model in this series.
Latest buying guides
If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites.
What's the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we'd look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We've chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you'd choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Whether you're just sharing clips with friends or you're launching an online on-camera career, vlogging matters. We looked at cameras with selfie-friendly screens, wide-angle lenses, microphone inputs and great video quality, and selected the best.
Does The Dell Monitor App Conflict With Color Profiles X-rite?
Source: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3891795
Posted by: romerocolookstal44.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Does The Dell Monitor App Conflict With Color Profiles X-rite?"
Post a Comment