imac too bright for Eye-One Display 2 calibration device!

[_derek_Kimball_]

I've spent the past 6 hours trying to resolve this issue, but 2 hours on the phone with tech support from apple and x-rite, along with hours of searching forums and troubleshooting; I've yet to find a solution.

Here's the problem. I'm trying to calibrate my 24" imac (intel based, non glossy screen). I purchased the "Eye-One Display 2" monitor calibration device from X-Rite. After reading the horrible manual on the cd, and watching some youtube videos, I calibrated using the recommended settings. I set the temp to 6500, the gamma to 2.2, and the luminance to 120.

The problem i'm having is that the mac brightness setting, even set at it's lowest possible setting, is still way over the recommended 110-120 luminance setting. I think 148 is the lowest the imac will go. Because of this, I am not able to properly calibrate my imac. I call up x-rite tech support and they tell me they have never seen anything like this. He told me he knew macs displayed bright, but in 2 years he never witnessed this problem?! Seems odd to me.

I've checked forums, I've spent hours on the phone with these tech guys, and they don't know how to reduce the brightness setting any further. There is so much contradictory info out there, it's hard to know what to do to be honest. Some say to use the native white balance, some say to use different settings.

For the brightness issue, the only option I can think of is to use a program like "Shades" or "Brightness Control" to fix the problem. The creators of these programs even mention on their sites to not use them along with any calibration processes. I tried it anyway, and it did help reduce the luminance setting, but it changed the other settings in return.

If anyone knows a work around for this problem, please let me know. It pisses me off that x-rite even says this device is ok to use on intel macs, if this issue exists. And it irritates me that apple makes their computers so damn bright just so they can show them off in their showrooms. The whole reason I bought my mac was because everyone in the forums rave how they are the best for graphic design and audio. What a waste of a day i'm having here.

Oh yeah..my screen also appears to have a slight reddish tint to it?

[Lou Dina]

derek,

I hate to be a tease, because I don't have the solution. But, I recall reading something somewhere about a fix for that problem. I am not sure if it is a software fix to lower luminance, or what. You might try contacting Scott Martin at www.on-sight.com and asking him. He is a consultant I have known for a long time, and he may know the solution.

FWIW, I prefer to keep my monitor luminance below 100 cd/m2, especially if you are planning on matching monitor to print, and hanging your own prints under "normal" lighting levels. I find that 120 cd/m2 is pretty bright, and typical lighting levels are lower, resulting in prints that tend to look dark and muddy. But, if you are using bright viewing ights, 120 might work well.

You might even search this forum for this problem. Also, check Luminous Landscape to see if they have any solutions.

Lou

[Guest]

Derek,

Just to be on the safe side, make sure that Universal Access is disabled and its controls are inactive.

Go to System Preferences > Universal Access. In the "Display" section, make sure that the slider is all the way to the *left*, exactly at "Normal".

Also go to System Preferences > Keyboard & Mouse > Keyboard Shortcuts, look for "Universal Access" and uncheck the check box right next to it.

[_derek_Kimball_]

Thanks Lou. I will check out those sources. Wow...100 cd/m2. Mine screen is pretty dark at 120 cd/m2, and my room is completely dark. I will keep that in mind, but with this imac, i'm lucky to get down to 120 without problems. I'm currently at 148 cd/m2.

I have searched this forum for a solution. There were a couple of results, but no answers that I could find. I also did multiple google searches. The only solutions that people had were to use an app like "Shades" to reduce the brightness or luminance. I have already tried that, and it didn't work. Changing the brightness using that program in result changed the other settings.

I just find it very ridiculous that apple or x-rite have no solution to a problem that obviously effects thousands of purchasers of this device.

Thanks a bunch for your reply. I will contact Scott.

[_derek_Kimball_]

Marco, Thanks...that's a great idea, but no cigar. I checked and it was set to normal. Thanks for the reply though.

[Lou Dina]

derek,

Your mileage may vary, but I find a luminance above 100 to be too bright to get a good monitor to print match "under normal print viewing conditions". I am not talking about viewing under a bright viewing light or light box conditions, but where the print is ultimately displayed.

I present my approach and logic in the Monitor and Print Profiling article on my website at the following link:

http://www.dinagraphics.com/color_management.php

Of course, use whatever works and gives you a good match, but if you find your prints looking dark and muddy compared to your screen, consider lowering monitor luminance.

Lou

[Guest]

This is a problem that has been discussed at length in the Mac Photoshop forum. I can't believe the X-Rite people didn't know about it. Well, actually I can if it's the same person I spoke with last week. The real solution appears to be in using a third party monitor calibration software that allows a greater degree of hardware manipulation. From what I've read, this should fix your problem:

http://www2.chromix.com/ColorGear/shop/productdetail.cxsa?toolid=50079&num=24&refcode=cmpgen&-session=SessID:D875C80309cad2E78FTVu3F6191D

[_derek_Kimball_]

Thanks Lou, when I am able to lower the luminance, I will keep that in mind. As of now, the lowest I am able to go is 148 on my imac.

[_derek_Kimball_]

Thanks pfigen, but buying an expensive monitor or dropping an additional $300 for the software (on top of the $200 i've already spent on this damn eye-one display 2) is not really something I want to do. I will keep it in mind though. Thanks

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Derek,

You're getting sound advice from Lou and from Marco, as I fully expected. I even temporarily disabled my plonk list to see if Peter Figen was being a little more blunt than Marco and Lou, but that was not the case.

Therefore, I'll say it: an iMac is far from optimal for serious photography and graphics work in my opinion. If you don't want to hear it, that's fine. But if you're serious about your work and that iMac is brand new, I'd advise you to consider returning it and getting a desktop MacPro.

Just my two cents.

EDITED the word "graphics" in second paragraph.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

As for luminance, I have my CRT monitors calibrated to 95 cd/m ² with excellent results, meaning superbly low ∆E Temperature Color (Luv) values well under 1. My blacks are at 0.30. I work in a lighting-controlled environment that remains virtually uniform 24/7.

I'd go bananas with a value of 120 cd/m ² , let alone what you're seeing. :/

EDITED formatting only.

[Guest]

I use 140 cd/m2...and I love bananas! :-)

[_derek_Kimball_]

Ramon, I am also coming to the realization that an imac is not the best system for serious graphic design or photography. It's a learning process I guess, and due to my lack of knowledge at the time; i purchased an imac. Sadly, I'm stuck with it because it's almost 2 years old now. Maybe I can make a switch sooner than later, but getting a new system isn't really an option right now or an easy solution to the question at hand. However, I definitely don't dispute what your saying.

Well, I got "ColorEyes Display Pro" installed, and am going to give that a go. It's ability to reduce the brightness/luminance to a lower value is definitely a good thing. It also seems like a much more thorough and customizable piece of software than the software that comes with eye-one's display 2 calibration device.

There is so much conflicting information on who makes the better calibration device for under $200. Scott Martin from On-Site.com recommends the Spyder, and he seems like a knowledgeable guy when it comes to this stuff. The Huey get's so so reviews. I went with the eye-one display 2 because of it's better reviews in forums and sites like amazon.com. I realize not all reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt, but it's really the only thing i can base my judgments on, prior to actually owning the product and trying it out myself.

In regards to the settings. Again; conflicting information throughout the net. Maybe it all depends on intended computer use, ambient lighting, and so on; but it's hard to know what to chose.

I've read that 6500 kelvin for the white setting is the new standard. Some say 5000. Some say the paper test rule is pointless since there are too many variables (types of light bulbs in your room, etc).

I think it's common practice to stick with 2.2 for the gamma on both mac and pc now a days.

With the luminance, then numbers are all over the place. 120 is recommended by the makers of the "Display 2" (X-Rite), as well as many online sources. Some say that's way too bright, yet others say their prints are great. Some people say to use 110. Now I'm hearing 95. I guess trial and error is the only way to tell for sure. I'm not sure my inexpensive inkjet would be a good indicator anyway. It would be nice to avoid having to make my corrections through trial and error with a print shop though :)

Ramon...thanks

[Guest]

The optimum luminance for your screen is dependent on the screen and very much so on the level of ambient light in your room.

CRTs have traditionally been calibrated in the 80-90 cd/m2 range and used in very subdued ambient light.

LCD screens have a secondary problem in their luminance. They don't get as black in the blacks as a good CRT can, but they are easily much brighter on the white point luminance. Because of this, most experts recommend that LCD ambient lighting be higher than CRT. This will have the combined effect of making the screen seem less bright overall, and more importantly (to me) give the impression of a more solid black point, as LCD blacks tend to look grayer in low ambient light surroundings.

As for the actual readings, you need to take them at as a basic starting point and experiment to see what works best for you. The numbers you get from, say, Sony's Artisan colorimeter for their CRT are not going to be directly transferable to any other measuring device. There is not enough agreement between devices, particularly when measuring blacks.

It's unfortunate that Apple is marketing these screens as being suitable for higher end graphics. I think there should be some sort of disclaimer.

[Lou Dina]

derek,

As mentioned in my article on profiling, I start with the final location where my prints will be displayed and work backwards (assuming monitor to print match is your most important criterion). Display lighting is typically moderate to low, unless you have dedicated lights aimed at every framed print hung in your house, office or gallery. "Normal" display lighting level helps dictate the intensity of my inspection light, which in turn, feeds back to establish monitor luminance.

Stated simply, if your prints look too dark compared to your monitor, then your monitor is too bright and you need to reduce monitor luminance. If your prints are too yellow compared to the monitor, then you need to lower the color temp of your monitor (ie, add yellow) so you get a better match. This assumes you are using a decent viewing light (Solux or Philips 5000K lighting) and not an incandescent bulb. It also assumes you are using accurate profiles for printing.

I always keep coming back to about 5200K white point, 2.2 gamma, and a luminance of between 85-90 for my monitor, and I get fantastic monitor to print matches (for my own prints, and also press proofs). I have always found 6500K to be way too blue, but I don't knock those who like it. I don't.

If your most important criterion is the web, then I'd probably calibrate to 6500K, 2.2g, 100 cd/m2, or possibly even a little brighter.

[_derek_Kimball_]

Great advice Lou. Thanks for putting it in terms a novice can comprehend. I really don't have any lights in my room that are very bright when i'm on the computer, so hopefully the "type" of light won't be much of an influence in my perception of what i'm seeing on my monitor screen.

Like most people, I need to work in both web and print, so I guess it would be best for me to create 2 separate profiles (one with the brighter settings for web, and one with the darker settings for print)? I've read that switching from one profile to another is not wise, due to the monitors slowness in adapting to these changes. Maybe I read false info, i don't know.

I'm not sure if that ColorEyes calibration software allows someone to manually lift or lower specific color levels, but I will keep that in mind. I have noticed that my cmyk values showing on my monitor are not quite matching my pantone bridge guide (new). I calibrated with the ColorEyes software and used the Eye-One Display 2. I guess I will keep trying new settings. Wish I never got this imac for graphic design use 😞 Thanks again, I will try the recommended settings that you and others have given.

[_g_ballard_]

I use the EyeOneDisplay2 on my Apple/NEC/Sony LCD monitors.

I like to set the hardware brightness at around 150 luminance (apply no adjustment in the Eye-one software), and target Native whitepoint because it gives me more pleasing skin tones (typically comes out at around 5400-5800), gamma at 2.2.

I would recommend you find the settings you like and train your eye to work within those settings (not keep second guessing your approach and hardware).

ALSO, most important is your reference image, be sure using a good calibration image.

DOWNLOAD the aRGB Photodisc PDI target image here
www.gballard.net/dl/PDI_TargetFolderONLY.zip

[_derek_Kimball_]

Marco - I hope you are joking with the 140 🙂

G ballard - Thanks for the response. I wouldn't keep second guessing my approach and hardware if my pantone guide swatches were closely matching my screen values.

I will definitely try using that reference image you sourced. I'm assuming a good reference image is one that offers a good variety of hues and contrasts.

You use a 150 luminance setting? It confuses me that one system can be using an 85, and another 150; both resulting in good prints. Different room lighting may be the reason I guess.

[Guest]

>Marco - I hope you are joking with the 140

No. My monitor is calibrated for a luminance of 140 cd/m2. Honest. You may call the color management police on me, but they'll have to pry my mouse from my cold dead hands... :-)

>Different room lighting may be the reason I guess.

As long as you don't work in prepress, a dark work environment is overrated. As long as nothing in your field of view is brighter than the white of your monitor, and you don't face sunlit windows, or glare on your display from powerful light sources behind or above you, your eyes will adapt to the white point of the monitor.

Do not underestimate your visual system's capacity for chromatic adaptation. I don't advise luminances high enough to give you a suntan, but 140 or even 180 cd/m2 are not a problem in a work environment like the one I just described.

One warning, though: if your environment is dark, you should use lower luminances, otherwise you'll be blinded by the excessive difference between room lighting and the monitor's brightness. It will also tire you out. But under "normal" ambient conditions, a higher luminance is not at all detrimental.

[Ramón G Castañeda]

Derek,

While I have no need for Pantone swatches, I keep reading over and over that the Pantone swatch books are not consistent, that they change from one version to another, and that individual swatch books often don't match each other.

What I'm referencing now are replies by experts here and in the Photoshop Macintosh forum. I'm just glad I don't need them, and I hope others will comment on this for your benefit.

[Guest]

Based on what I know, it's best to reference Pantone's Lab numbers, which are found in Illustrator's or Photoshop's swatch palettes (or panels, as they are called now).

Yes, the exact numbers do slightly change from one version to the next, but as long as you refer to the latest published values, you will be fine.

And it is indeed true that there is a certain level of inconsistency in appearance between Pantone swatchbooks or fans, even within the same round of release.

But as I say, refer to the Lab values (for the solid coated edition, usually) and you'll be ahead of the Pantone color game.

[_derek_Kimball_]

Thanks Ramon. I just dropped $300 on Pantone's essential's set. There are so many designers that say trying to design/print without a guide is like flying blind. And I've heard your side as well. Like everything, there are many varying opinions :)

[_g_ballard_]

>> pantone guide swatches

Sorry, I completely missed that in skimming your posts.

Pantone issues are problematic in Adobe apps (because they are a moving target) try adding Chris Cox to your search

I also missed that your iMac would not dim past 140 (I seem to recall hearing that issue before, tho)

I think monitor brightness is a very personal preference dependent on any number of environmental factors...I just noted where I am (my room is relatively dim)...what's much more important (to me) is the monitor's ability to display neutral RGB desaturated gray in Photoshop with no color cast...

my paycheck and work flow depends on faithfully "proofing" color on a Photoshop reference monitor, so I would never skimp on buying the best main monitor and profiling package I could afford

from what I've heard the iMac is not so great for critical color proofing I am not knocking the iMac it is what it is

that's just my 2 cents

[_derek_Kimball_]

Both of your responses make a lot of sense. I guess it just comes down to trial and error, considering everyones environment will be different. Reading the other posts and your feedback here, has helped a bunch. Thanks

[_g_ballard_]

PS
>>I'm assuming a good reference image is one that offers a good variety of hues and contrasts.

I like the Photodisc PDI image because of the various skin tones (the monitor and printer have to be pretty good to get them all right a lot of people can tell naturally if skin tones look right or if they correctly saturated.

Second, the desaturated gray bar should be completely neutral and distinct steps between each level.

I've used the PDI image on countless Photoshop monitors along with desaturating the PDI image in Photoshop (Command+Shift+U) and checking for neutrality it is very useful for quickly evaluating a Photoshop monitor.

Also, just as valuable is printing the PDI target to see how well it prints (and how well it matches the monitor) it also can help confirm or troubleshoot a color-managed printing workflow (for the same reasons).

+++++++

While my simple PROOFING ANALOGY doesn't address the pitfalls of relying on a bad monitor to evaluate and adjust digital color, it does make two important facts about Photoshop and professional color-managed printing workflows:

1) The printer can PROOF (print) the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the monitor is set up, and

2) The monitor can PROOF (display) the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the printer is set up.

Getting a known good file (like the Adobe RGB Photodisc reference image) into Photoshop allows me to evaluate the monitor alongside the print to help me identify where the problem is occurring...