What target settings for LCD monitor calibration?

Rodney & Lou - thanks!

It, the Eye-One Pro, is a spectrophotometer though it's presentation is more like the older Xrite instruments & suffers for that.

I will get Eye One Share & try that.

cvt

Charles,

I use an Eye One Pro spectrophotometer. If I am not mistaken, your Eye One Photo bundle includes a full spectrophotometer, right? If you can build custom printer profiles then you have a spectrophotometer (not a colorimeter) and your device is capable or reading reflected paper white.

Now you need software that can give you Lab, XYZ or direct color temperature readouts. Eye One Share (free download) can give you Lab readings, and MeasureTool can also give you Lab or XYZ readings. Once you have those, you can plug them into the CIE color Calculator at http://www.brucelindbloom.com/ and get a color temperature readout. Most "white" papers will read somewhere between 4700K (pretty yellowish stuff) to 5300K (bright white, usually with optical brighteners). Both of the above software products are made by Gretag (now XRite). There are lots of other software modules that can read your paper white, but one of the above will do the trick.

I use Gretag ProfileMaker which allows me to enter XYZ coordinates directly into the monitor profiling software as a target white setting. Eye One Match software allows you to enter a custom white temperature (in degrees K), but I don't think it allows you to enter Lab or XYZ coordinates. Nonethless, you can set the white point for monitor calibration once you know the desired target temp. From extensive experimentation, I'd say anywhere in the 5000K to 5250K area typically works fine to get the blue/yellow balance correct. I find 6500K WAY too blue for good monitor to print matching.

Lou

That will measure the paper white, the ambient light etc. You need either i1 Share or MeasureTool which will run without a dongle using that instrument with limited functionality (but enough to measure paper white).

The EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer, Rev B.

cvt

When you say you have the EyeOne Photo bundle, that's the EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer or the EyeOne Display-2 Colorimeter?

You can't get the Colorimeter to work this way unfortunately. Otherwise, the EyeOne Display is fine for calibration and profiling of your display.

I am trying to decide just how much $$.$$ to put into this. We have the Eye1 Photo bundle with the Rev B Pro sensor already. But I have not found anyway to get it to work as a spectrophotometer.

What did you use to measure your paper(s)?

cvt

Charles,

I arrived at 5100K by measuring a few of my favorite printing papers with my spectrophotometer. This was a good compromise (most measured between about 4800K and 5300K). I confirmed the results by trying various calibrations them comparing the monitor to prints (using custom printer profiles). Anywhere near 5000K looked great, but 5100K was the best match of the bunch. I used 5000K lighting for viewing (Solux and Philips light sources).

Luminance settings were done in a similar fashion. First I compared a ppure white Photoshop document (on the monitor) to the intensity of a sheet of white printing paper displayed under my viewing light. With the monitor luminance set to the 85 cd/m2 range, the two documents look about the same brightness of white. I try to view my prints under "moderate" light levels rahter than ultra bright levels, since I know they won't be lit by spot or flood lights when placed on a wall. If you do have spots on your hung prints, there is a case to use a higher luminance level on your monitor. Anyway, on many LCDs, if you set the luminance too high, your blacks can start to look a little washed out. When set to about 85 cd, my tonal range in the print is a great match to my monitor. If I have the monitor luminance set to 100 or higher, I find that my prints look dark and muddy in comparison (unless viewed under unrealistically bright lights). So, a lot of trial and error, plus some initial brightness comparisons.

Gamma is a tougher one. I have a special viewing target that I bring up in Photoshop (Lab based to prevent any possible conversions). When viewed in Photoshop at full magnification, it helps me to set the gamma, which affects mostly the midtone density. On my LCD, I found )again by trial and error) that 2.0 gave me the best tonal distribution. My old CRT worked best at 1.8 gamma, and other LCDs sometimes work best at other gamma settings, such as 2.2.

The above settings work beautifully given my equipment, my viewing levels, ambient working conditions, etc. My monitor to print match is excellent from both a color and tonal range standpoint. Hope that helps clarify my thinking and approach.

Lou

How did you arrive at "set my LCD to 5100K (measured paper white), 2.0 gamma, and a luminance setting of 85 to 90 cd/m2."?

Specifically how did you get 5100K as a paper white? Did you measure the paper?

Thanks
cvt

I find the gamma setting for calibration definitely DOES makes a difference in Photoshop. Native white point and gamma give me some of the worst monitor profiles I have ever made, with either EyeOne Match or ProfileMaker 5, both with an Eye One spectrophotometer. I always confirm my white and black luminance and the gamma setting with a specially designed Lab target that I display in Photoshop after calibration and profiling. There is a noticeable difference in the midtones between 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and native gamma.

I'd have to agree with Digital Jim's original post. My settings are very close to his. I set my LCD to 5100K (measured paper white), 2.0 gamma, and a luminance setting of 85 to 90 cd/m2. I have tried dozens of different settings time and again, but these settings always work the best.

I found that my CRT (now dead) worked with the same white temp and luminance, but I had to set it's gamma to 1.8 so that the same Lab test target would display the same as my LCD when set to 2.0 gamma. This is using the same spectro and the same software. And a consistent, accurate monitor output is what I am after. Besides, the monitor to print match is uncannily accurate. I used Solux and Philips viewing lights for all my work.

I agree that people should experiment and do what works for them. Try both approaches and verify it for yourself.

Lou

If the software allows Native Gamma, pick that. It might be 2.2. 2.1. 2.3, don't know (don't care). Why set an arbitrary value? Any of the above may be close to native but using a Native setting simply leaves that alone and records the value for the profile.