Help With Calibrating an Eizo CS2420

[juliust9149185]

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.

[TheDigitalDog]

Can you describe what the actual problem is in the matching of print to display?

One quick comment, the Spyder is a piece of junk! That could be one issue. 

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103094.msg1004707#msg1004707

[juliust9149185]

The darker areas of my images print darker than what is seen on screen (f-stop [-1 to -1.5]).

I have several test prints where there aren't many darker areas and they print acceptably.

Right now, my calibration settings are: Brightness: 60 cd/m2 / Blacks: Minimum / 6500K / Gamma 2.2 / Color Space: sRGB / Contrast Ratio - 861:1.

I've been contemplating getting an X-Rite i1Display Pro to see if that helps; and if not, I can use that on my next monitor.

Again, I understand that my prints will not match my monitor 100%!

One last thing...I do Soft Proof my images!

[TheDigitalDog]

Well maybe this video will help? 

https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

[juliust9149185]

Andrew,

I've watched your video before, but I will watch it again as I just woke up.

[Bob_Hallam]

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.  

[TheDigitalDog]

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:

[juliust9149185]

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.

[TheDigitalDog]

"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?"

You don't need a calibrated display for good prints. You don't even need a display! Photographers and print makers have made superb prints before displays were invented. Artists have made all kinds of art that could be viewed as intended for centuries. 

A calibrated and profiled display, color management  and soft proof are about producing (as close as possible) WYSIWYG between a display and print. Such that you can produce a good print with the fewest tests and waste of material. This absolutely isn't how conventional darkroom prints were made (I spent years making Ciba and B&W prints in the darkroom). Great prints look great under appropriate Illumination. Illumination that doesn't have to do with where the prints were made or based on a display. 

[TheDigitalDog]

"Your "Print to Display Matching" infographic is telling me that my room is too dark.

Not possible! The room can be too bright. The only way it can be 'too dark' is if when you move about, you bump into something you didn't see. <g>. Otherwise it cannot be too dark for editing images. 

Any ambient light striking the display affects your perception of black. Lower is always better. 

http://lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf

[juliust9149185]

Bob,

The monitor's luminance is 60 cd/m2, and the gamma is 2.2. The ambient luminance in the room is darker than standard viewing conditions, but take the following into consideration: My previous NEC is a LCD unit, and so is this Eizo. With that being said, my room is luminated the same as it was when using the NEC, and I got great prints. I am using 5,000K bulbs in the room. Note: there is no direct light hitting the monitor. What does all of this tell you?

So, you are saying that there is a good possibility that the ambient luminance in my room is too dark? I experiemented with adding more light, and I did not see that much of a difference on the monitor.

[Bob_Hallam]

Sounds like the ambient light must come up.  Have you measured it?  As Andrew mentioned most users run around 100cd/m2 for their monitor luminance.   How monitor luminance and ambient luminance effect perceived color and contrast is important in setting up a monitor based proof.   Some monitor-based proofing systems get installed in their own light booths and in those applications, the light booth luminosity is matched closely to the monitor's luminance so that the print contrast is close to that of the display.  I find that even when running an automatic setup on these booths I still have to make adjustments to the light booth brightness to get the proof on-screen to have the same shadow detail as the print.  Drop the light booth luminance too far and the shadows of the image on the monitor are too open.  Too bright and the shadows appear too dark.  The reason is your eyes adapt to the brightness and your irises close letting in less light.  

I also echo his use of the monitor gamut when profiling, select sRGB in PS when making adjustments for the web only.  I use ProPhoto for inkjet prints because my Epson printer can cover most of that gamut.  The problem is the display can not accurately show some of those colors.  I know that and make mental notes when viewing large gamut images.  Many use Adobe1998 RGB, and don't worry that their printer can print a larger gamut since they like the color that they get and it fits their workflow.  Increasing the brightness of the display will increase its gamut, so keep that in mind when setting luminance.  

[TheDigitalDog]

I didn't mention nor believe users should run their displays at around 100cd/m2. I run mine, based on my print viewing conditions at 150cd/m2 simply because that provides a match on my specific display to that GTI booth. 

The right numbers, for ANY setting of calibration are those numbers that produce a match. And everyone's mileage and numbers can vary. The color and apparent brightness of a print viewing condition can be all over the map. So then will be settings, from differing display technologies, instruments and software used to produce a visual match. 

[NB, colourmanagement]

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]

[juliust9149185]

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.

[juliust9149185]

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]

"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. 

[juliust9149185]

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).

[TheDigitalDog]

Soft proof AND conversions by you?

If not, it is a hack.

[D Fosse]

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.

[juliust9149185]

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]

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.

[juliust9149185]

Mr. Fosse,

Thank you for the information you're giving me! All information is good as I like understanding what is going on instead of just getting good results.

By the way, I'm very familiar with ColorNavigator.

Maybe you can help me understand something here. The relationship between setting Luminosity & Blacks! My previous NEC had Brightness, Black, and Contrast sliders to work with. (I must admit that I miss the Contrast Slider as that seemed to make it easier to accomplish a calibration.) Previously I learned that if the blacks were too dark, darken your screen. Do you find that is still true? Remember that it's only the darker areas of my prints are printing too dark, and I have a couple of prints that print fine, but there aren't a lot of darks within the file. And, do you find that certain papers will print the darker areas of a print darker than what you see on screen, and have to make adjustments in your editing to compensate for that?

I've tried looking up the contrast range of different papers, but have not been successful, but maybe I haven't looked in the right place. I've used Kodak, and Fuji primarily, but hope to use other types in the future.

Thanks again as you have always been helpful when I've come here with a question!

[TheDigitalDog]

http://digitaldog.net/files/BlackisBack.pdf

[juliust9149185]

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?