Skip to main content
Inspiring
September 11, 2020
Question

Help With Calibrating an Eizo CS2420

  • September 11, 2020
  • 11 replies
  • 5730 views

First, let me say that I know how to calibrate! I successfully calibrated my 10-year-old NEC for years, and won numerous awards locally including a best of show that had over 600 entries. I am using a PC.

I purchased this Eizo CS2420 on March 13, 2019, and received it on March 15, 2015. This unit came with Eizo’s version of the Spyder 5. (I used a Spyder 3 on my NEC.) This Eizo is being used on a PC, Windows 10.

I cannot get this unit calibrated to get acceptable prints! My biggest fault was not returning it…shame on me!!! Eizo kept insisting that there was nothing wrong with the monitor, calibration device, and software.

If anyone out there has a miracle cure for me and this Eizo monitor, don’t be afraid to contact me: Julius Titak.

Note: I have tried just about everything out there in an effort to resolve this issue! What I’ve learned is that every monitor is different. Some people say that Contrast Ratio is the key…maybe for some monitors, but not all. Once Contrast Ratio is really understood, you would know what I am talking about! Right now, my Contrast Ratio is (861:1). I have over $200 in test prints proving what Contrast Ratio does for printing with this Eizo.

I made approximately 10 phone calls to Eizo USA, and came to the conclusion that their support team doesn’t understand calibration or computers. I have 42 emails to Eizo which includes responses from Eizo, and still cannot calibrate this monitor. I even had an Eizo support team member yell at me on the phone telling me I need to learn how to calibrate! I cannot prove this, but as God as my witness, it happened! I also have emails to 5 Eizo ambassadors hoping they would have some insight. I did get settings used by these photographers, but nothing worked. I even contacted Datacolor, and I still cannot get this unit calibrated. I’ve tried 6 reputable printing companies here in the US, and cannot get acceptable prints.

I contacted the local company which built my computer, and they got a bit upset with me that I even brought up my issue. I guess they figure they can do no wrong, and wouldn’t even look at my computer. (They are a very reputable company which has been around for a long time.) So much for that! I contacted another local company and had a good talk with the owner, and she had one of their technicians remotely access my computer, but could find no issues. (At least their technician admitted that he had no real knowledge about photography, but they tried!)

After that I contacted Eizo in the UK. They were more than willing to help, but I gave up on them also. I also contacted an independent group in Australia which was recommended by an Eizo Ambassador, and I was directed to their Eizo expert. She gave me lots of information which was worth reading through, but still could not get acceptable prints. She also got me in touch with a professional photographer who also sets up lighting at the major museums, etc. in Australia. He’s a very busy man, and he has a lot of information on his website that is worth going through, but still no acceptable prints. She contacted Eizo Corporate, and I was directed back to Eizo US. All that did was waste my time, and put me over the 1-year return time table.

I contacted Nvidia twice, and got no help from them, but the interesting thing will be noted below if you read on!

At this point I started looking for another monitor. I contacted BenQ with some questions about their monitors, and they directed me to one of their advisors who is also a professional photographer in Los Angeles. He has many YouTube videos on various subjects regarding photography. Most importantly, he is a BenQ advisor and user of BenQ monitors, and he is trying his best to help me with an Eizo monitor. As he said, “I’d hate to see you purchase another monitor if I can help you figure this out.” (Note: I’m not a professional photographer that makes a ton of money. If I did, I would have just bought another monitor.) This man accessed my computer remotely, and found a problem within my Nvidia Video card! I had no idea there are settings in the video card. (I can figure out a lot of issues with computers, but never gave this any thought; especially since the 2 people I talked to at Nvidia had no clue! So much for contacting Nvidia support.) It’s been about 2 months now and he is still trying to help me; but unfortunately, I think it’s hopeless.

What I’ve learned from all this is that there is a lot of people out there who have jobs in computer related industries that are not qualified to do their jobs!

I brought up the potential issue (before talking with BenQ) about an issue within the video card and computer, and was told that Eizo had no responsibility beyond basic use of their monitors and their software. My thought is that someone or a group of people with Eizo designed this monitor and has a complete understanding of computers, and might have been able to help; but again, my thoughts apparently weren’t even considered. The sale had been made!

I will start seriously looking for another monitor, and BenQ will be at the top of the list!

Again, if anyone out there has a miracle cure for me and this Eizo monitor, don’t be afraid to contact me: Julius Titak.

In addition, I am open to suggestions on what make, model, calibration device, and printing company you use that gives you excellent prints.

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    11 replies

    NB, colourmanagement
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    February 20, 2021

    Julius

    you're right that a calibration target of 45 cd/m2 seems crazy.

    If a correct looking screen [matching accurate prints] read that low on cd/m2, I would suspect the measuring device or possibly the software [the colorimeter], not the screen hardware - all the screen hadware is doing is providing the requested luminance. 

    As my friend and colleague Franz at basICColor told you, if it seems right visually and matches prints then you're OK I guess. The actual cd/m2 number is unimportant.

    And you're right there are no calibration targets which are right for everyone. 

     

    I hope this helps
    neil barstow, colourmanagement net :: adobe forum volunteer
    google me "neil barstow colourmanagement" for lots of free articles on colour management
    [please only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

     

    Optimising calibration target settings - eventually matching to a correctly illuminated certified proof, used as an unequivocal reference, is my approach.

    I use this http://www.colourmanagement.net/products/icc-profile-verification-kit

    Did you ever try the 14 day demo of the basICCColor display software? It would allow access to the Eizo's onboard LUT whereas I believe the Xrite SW is simply building a video card LUT.

    Inspiring
    February 19, 2021

    Well, I am finally calibrated after over 1.5 years of frustration with Eizo, and their ColorNavigator7 software!

     

    Some people here are going to argue what I have to say, but I have the prints through McKenna to prove it!

     

    There are a few things to add before getting into the details. First, I found a Lux Meter which was better than guessing at the brightness for viewing my prints. This meter was calibrated at the factory, and can be sent in for recalibration. The experts at X-Rite gave me the Lux reading I should be viewing my pictures at.

     

    I am now using the X-Rite i1Display Pro & i1Profiler software. I tried using the i1Display Pro with the ColorNavigator7 software, and that didn't work.

     

    On the 3rd try with the i1Display Pro & i1Profiler software I am calibrated. (Note: with my older NEC, I was calibrated on my 3rd try with a Spyder 3 Elite.) What is unusual is that my brightness is at 45 cd/m2. The Contrast Ratio is set to Native.

     

    I tried 3 different printing companies while using X-Rite's products: McKenna, Bay Photo, and Simply Color Lab. Yes, I softproofed when using Bay Photo and Simply Color Lab. McKenna says there is no need to softproof, and the owner's explanation sounded logical. I sent softproofed and unsoftproofed files to both Bay Photo and Simply Color Lab to see if there was a big difference...the difference was hard to detect. I am not saying one should not softproof, maybe it was the files I sent in, and different files may need to be softproofed more than others. Again, argue...I have the prints here to look at!

     

    * Bay Photo printed a bit darker than McKenna, but it was noticeable. These prints could have been acceptable to some people.

    * Simply Color Lab printed noticeably brighter which I would not have considered acceptable at all.

    * For these 2 companies I'd have to calibrate at a different target to get acceptable prints.

     

    There are several things here that I learned through this process.

    1) All monitors are different when it comes to calibration as there is no set target. (I've talked to many people who own different makes of monitors. Some used X-Rite products, and some use Data Color products.)

    2) There are different types of backlights being used on different makes of monitors according to X-Rite. I know this because one of X-Rite's support agents walked me through the calibration process, and he had to look up what type of backlight was being used on my Eizo CS2420 monitor to continue with the calibration process.

     

    In the end, I still believe that there is something wrong with this Eizo monitor, and/or the ColorNavigator7 software. I cannot prove that there could be something wrong within my Windows 10 desktop computer, but after talking with a person associated with BenQ, I don't think that is an issue. He accessed my computer remotely and made some changes to my Nvidia video card which did make a difference...it was very obvious!

     

    For those here, and at Eizo who say that there could be nothing wrong with this Eizo...they are foolish! There was no sign of damage to the box through delivery, but that doesn't mean anything. To say that electronic devices (computer monitor, etc.) are manufactured 100% without the possibility without defect is living in a fantasy world. 

     

    Argue anything I've presented here if you wish, but give me a logical and an emperical reason why I have to calibrate at 45 cd/m2. You can't because you don't have the computer, monitor, calibration hardware and software I am using in front of you! I have the emperical evidence in front of me! (Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.) I did contact Franz at basICColor display 6 to consult him with what was happening, and he was happy to give advice. When I told him that I was calibrated at 45 cd/m2 he couldn't believe it. His exact words were, "That is definitely quite odd. If I lived next door I would come over and take a look myself. I have no idea at this point but would just be happy that everything seems to work."

    Cheers, Franz
     
    I do thank everyone who gave me their thoughts in the process of trying to help me resolve my issue. 
     
    Julius Titak
    Legend
    September 30, 2020

    I also have EISO, but CX240. These monitors have a wide color gamut (99% AdobeRGB) and increased color bit depth (in some modes), as a result, they are almost impossible to accurately adjust using a colorimeter. You need a spectrophotometer like x-rite i1photo pro 2. I had exactly the same problem (with the difference that I could not set up my monitor with spyder 4), but as soon as I got x-rite i1 pro all problems were solved in 10 minutes.

     

    Perhaps a cheaper option is to buy a simpler monitor with coverage in the sRGB region - your spyder can handle it just fine.

    D Fosse
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    September 30, 2020

    You apparently had a defective colorimeter. Colorimeters work just fine with any of these monitors and it's what most people use. I have a CX 240 and a CG246 on one machine, and a CG2730 on another. I use the i1 Display Pro, which is a colorimeter, on all of them (with ColorNavigator 7).

     

    I've tested the i1 extensively against the built-in sensor in the CG246, which is supposed to be extremely accurate. I can't distinguish them. But purely for consistency I use the i1 D3 on all the units. I've also tried/used a couple of Spyder colorimeters, all of which worked fine.

     

     

    Inspiring
    November 23, 2020

    I tried the i1Display Pro 2, and that gave me better results, but the darker areas of my pictures are still way too dark. I completely removed the ColorNavigator 7 software, and have downloaded the i1 Profiler software. I will be sending in test prints using the i1 Profiler software asap.

     

    If these don't turn out, or at least, put me on the right path to where I know I can get good prints, I will be looking at another monitor. 

     

    It's a shame that calibrating seems to become so frustrating. With my previous NEC, I had it calibrated after 3 sets of test prints! First set I really noticed the difference. Second set was really close. Third set, I was happy. Ironically, I really didn't totally understand what was going on then, but I got it calibrated. (Match the print to screen, then edit the pictures again. [97-100% screen to print match]).

    Inspiring
    September 16, 2020

    One last thing before I order the i1Display Pro! When I start my computer, or more often when my computer comes out of hibernation the screen will go black up to 7 times before normalizing; is this an indication of a computer problem, or a problem with the Eizo software?

    NB, colourmanagement
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    September 17, 2020

    The Eizo Colornavigator software seems to run through its hardware calibration settings (loading each) at times (e.g. when quit) - but I've not seen my Eizo go black repeatedly on awaking from sleep. 

    "Hibernation" seems to be a Windows term, mine's on a mac so that might be the difference.

    Amyhow - I think that's a question for Eizo tech support.

     

    I hope this helps

    thanks
    neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer
    [please do not use the reply button on a message within the thread, only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

     

    Bob_Hallam
    Legend
    September 13, 2020

    With all of the information provided and making lots of assumptions along the way, it does sound like the calibration device or software is not working properly.  (Given the assumption that the monitor is not defective)  Seems to be a situation where you must try all of the variables to see which helps.  

     

    I use an i1Pro2 and X-rite Profilemaker software and have had very good results with that.  I have also used X-rite's ColorMunki and software with similar very good results.   I've used Basic Color solutions as well that have also done an excellent job.  

     

    My CD/m2 monitor luminance recommendations are guidelines based on the ISO standard which is currently at 100 cd/m2   I don't agree with them I just use them as a guide.  They were set low so all monitors could play within that standard, not for any other good reason.  As I said the proper monitor luminance is set based on the ambient light.  So for a brighter environment, you can even get to 600nits and still have a calibrated system.  

    ICC programmer and developer, Photographer, artist and color management expert, Print standards and process expert.
    Inspiring
    September 13, 2020

    About Luminance or Lux values in a room used for photo editing. I'm just trying to get as much information as I can so I can speed up my calibration process. 

    Lux Meters can be costly, starting around $150 USD. I would imagine that you get what you pay for!

    I did see an article on how to use your Smartphone to measure Lux, has anyone tried this?

    Is there an ideal Lux value range one should be targeting?

    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 13, 2020

    KISS: don't waste your money and time. Keep the ambient conditions AS LOW AS POSSIBLE as outlined by Karl Lang. You don't have to worry about a LUX meter.

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    Inspiring
    September 14, 2020

    All I can say is that all information is good if one is willing to learn!

    D Fosse
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    September 12, 2020

    Colornavigator supports the i1Display Pro sensor out of the box. I've been using the i1D3 with Colornavigator for a long time.

     

    In matching screen to print, setting the black point is just as critical as setting the white point. You must set the black point carefully! It should be a visual match to max ink for the paper - just as the white point should be a visual match to paper color.

     

    The black level is responsible for most of the perceived "punch" in the finished result. Minimum is fine for video or web, but it will not work for print. No print process can reproduce blacks that deep. For inkjet prints, a black level of around 0.4 cd/m² is a fairly typical number, but for offset print you may need to go as high as 1.2.

     

    BTW - the Spyders are better than their reputation. Datacolor dump their off-spec units in the cheap "express" edition (which a lot of people buy just for the sensor). I've had a few Spyder sensors over the years, and they have all been good - except the express ones. That said, I do prefer the i1D3. In any case, the Eizo-branded units have tighter specs than the stock units.

    Inspiring
    September 13, 2020

    Mr. Fosse,

    If you send your pictures out to be printed, what company or companies do you use?

    What Luminance value is your monitor set to?

    D Fosse
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    September 14, 2020

    When I send out it's for offset print, books and magazines. I make new calibration targets for every major job, matched to a sample print (unless I know the printer/process from before). This sets the white point luminance and color to match the paper color, and black point to match max ink.

     

    The white point usually ends up between 100 and 120 cd/m², with a temperature between 6000 and 6400K, and maybe some small tweaks on the green/magenta axis as well.

     

    With offset print the black level is usually very high, and unless the calibration matches this, the finished print will always look disappointing. So I take great care here.

     

    Inkjet produces deeper blacks. A good inkjet print on high grade glossy paper has a contrast range of up to 300:1. This means that if your white point is 120 cd/m², the black point should be at the lowest 0.4 cd/m², but possibly slightly higher.

     

    With this set, I can work visually, knowing that what I see on screen is what will come out of the press.

     

    With Eizo ColorNavigator you can have many calibration targets set up, and switch between them with a single click. All you need to do is to relaunch the application (PS/Lr etc) so that it can load the corresponding profile.

    Inspiring
    September 12, 2020

    Neil,

    Yes, I am using the current ColorNavigator7 software.

     

    I have calibrated at 120 cd/m2 at Minimum before with a White Point of 6500K, Gamma of 2.2, and the monitor set to Adobe. The results were horrible, and there was no detail in the darker areas of the test prints.

     

    Several things to consider here:

    I’ve calibrated at Luminance values between 60 – 139 cd/m2 (139 recommended by an Eizo support agent after resetting the monitor. I’ve tried combinations of Black Levels, varied the White Point between 5,000 & 6,500K, and have changed the Gamut from sRGB, Adobe RGB, and Native.

     

    The printing company I am now working with is Simply Color Lab in Ohio. They accept sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto RGB files. According the them, certain papers work better with different Color Gamuts. That is why I am calibrating in the sRGB Color Space right now. The test prints I am using now are printed on Kodak Pro Paper, and they recommend sRGB for this paper. They are giving me a discount on these test prints. I’ve seen the results on their higher end papers, and it is worth the money, but not until I can get calibrated in the sRGB color space. Once calibrated, I would go to Adobe RGB and use the Native Gamut of the monitor.

     

    Another note, I previously used Bay Photo in California which provided me with great prints, but I got fed up with their horrible support team. Previously, they had a couple really good support team members. Seems as if money is all that is important to them now.

     

    I’ve also used a total of 6 different printing companies over the last 1.5 years, and the results are not exactly the same, but very close.

     

    When talking to Eizo in the UK, and Australia I found that many advisors to Eizo use a Black Point of (.4), but the also are using printing machines that go way beyond CMYK! There are very few companies here in the United States that go beyond CMYK that I am aware of. To me it would make sense that if you are using a 12-color printing machine, your Black Level might not need to be set to Minimum. Just food for thought that I found interesting!

     

    As I said previously, Contrast Ratio is different from monitor to monitor. So yes, I don’t pay too much attention to that, but I thought it was worth noting.

     

    Right now, I believe that going with the i1Display Pro, and brightening up my room is the correct options to try first; would you agree? How much do I brighten up my room? I don’t want any light pointing directly onto my monitor.

     

    I know that Eizo has an option of allowing X-Rite’s software (?) to be downloaded, but I am not sure how that works. Would I now be using X-Rite’s software instead of their ColorNavigator7, or would it be a combination of both? Is it possible to totally bypass the ColorNavigator7 software? I know that Eizo uses a Hardware calibration also, but I am not sure how that works in combination with the CN7 software.

    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 12, 2020

    "According the them, certain papers work better with different Color Gamuts."

     

    Sounds like utter rubbish to me. 

    And they supply ICC output profiles you can fully use? To soft proof and convert the actual data for their process? If not, more reason to suspect they don't know what they are talking about. 

    NO printer can produce the entire color gamut of even sRGB! So the idea of using sRGB for print due to it's (very limited color gamut elsewhere in color space) makes little sense. And sRGB is a Working Space which must be converted to some output color space. It's about the least useful Working Space for output. 

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    Inspiring
    September 13, 2020

    Andrew,

    Simply Color Lab provides 10 different ICC Color Profiles that are used for soft proofing. To my knowledge that is the most I've ever seen. When I used Bay Photo, they only used one soft proofing profile, but had great success with them. SCL offers Linen, Bamboo, Baryta, Fine Linen, and other more common papers (10 in total).

    NB, colourmanagement
    Community Expert
    Community Expert
    September 12, 2020

    Wow, that’s quite a tale of woe.

    I think you need to try a different calibration device. Some Spyders are very poor, some have failed. X-Rite i1Display Pro would be a good choice, but do use the Eizo ColorNavigator software rather than the X-Rite software (at least in initial tests) - I also like basICColor display 6 software [free 14 day demo available https://www.colourmanagement.net/products/basiccolor/basiccolor-display-software/].

     

    I presume you have been using the Eizo ColorNavigator software?

     

    60cd/m2 is a very very low luminance target for white, most users working in subdued light will settle around 100-120. cd.m2.

    You may also find that on-screen white tint is a better match to regular printer paper at around 5000K rather than D65

    Forget contrast ratios, Set white luminance as discussed above and set black to minimum.

    Why target the gamut sRGB? Most users allow the gamut to be native rather than restricting it, many printers can print colour beyond the gamut of sRGB. .

    Gamma 2.2 is fine, [with colour managed applications gamma does not affect image appearance in any way, since the gamma value is loaded to the ICC profile and and compensated in the imaging software.]

    Softproofing will help (especilly if you check "ink black" but only if the printer profile is accurate.

     

    Taking my suggested settings - how does that look compared to an accurate proof print?

    Could that be the point? Maybe the prints you're comparing are inaccurate? 

    Also have a look at this http://www.colourmanagement.net/products/icc-profile-verification-kit

     

    ps

    benQ displays come with awful software by all accounts, you'd be jumping into another fire there.

     

    I hope this helps

    thanks
    neil barstow, colourmanagement.net :: adobe forum volunteer
    [please do not use the reply button on a message within the thread, only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

    Inspiring
    September 12, 2020

    NB,

    I will be commenting on your post with more detail later today. I have a few things I need to do and check before responding. I already thought about going with the i1Display Pro, and I feel that I have nothing to lose at this point in time with trying a new device.

    Bob_Hallam
    Legend
    September 12, 2020

    One of the things to check is the monitor's luminance and gamma.  Also, look at the ambient luminance in the environment your monitor is used in.  Assuming standard viewing conditions for viewing the print of course.  IF that is the case then, the ambient environment is too dark or the monitor luminance may be too high, thus appearing to your eyes as more open looking in the 3/4 tones.   Correcting this would involve dropping the monitor luminance.  Experiment with that because if your ambient light is too low the monitor will appear brighter than the print.  You can match a booth with a display or if the booth is in one corner of a dark room and is not the variable luminance type you can still calibrate the display to match the print using both ambient light brightness and monitor brightness adjustments to get a good match.  

    ICC programmer and developer, Photographer, artist and color management expert, Print standards and process expert.
    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 12, 2020

    In color managed applications, the gamma or TRC of the display has no bearing. 

    Print viewing conditions are super important of course and must correlate to the cd/m2 of displa calibration:

    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    Inspiring
    September 12, 2020

    Andrew,

    Your "Print to Display Matching" infographic is telling me that my room is too dark, and needs to match the luminance of viewing conditions? So not to be redundant, please read my response to Bob's post!

     

    Believe me when I tell you that very people use a Viewing Booth due to the expense. With that being said, is there a way to know when one has accomplished ideal viewing conditions?

     

    Another note, it's ironic to me that only 2 people in the photography club I belong to calibrate their monitors, and they get really good prints, why is that? The other person that calibrates uses a Dell monitor. The others don't use the more expensive monitors, and some use laptops. Don't get me wrong, but I think calibrating is a good thing if one wants better results on print.