screen calibration for iMAC

[Wessex Wildlife]

Do I need to buy a colorimeter such as a Spyder or colormunki for my 2014 iMAC?

Apple seem to think that the integral software is fine, but other folk say that this is not sufficient. Spyder make them for MAC, so presumably they are used!

I have recently had images rejected for being too dark and both commercial print firms I used wanted to know if I had calibrated my monitor. I had not because I did not think MAC needed it. They disagree.

So, confusion reigns.

If I need to use hardware to calibrate my iMAC, which tool / brand would you recommend?

[Manfred M]

Hi David - profile and calibrate. That is an absolute MUST DO, regardless of what Apple (incorrectly) says.

If the images you have delivered are too dark, then your screen is set too bright and this is definitely your issue. I've been using my rather ancient x-Rite i1 for many years; both products you are looking at should work just fine.

[Donald]

Just what Manfred says.

Apple may be thinking about everyday use and/orbe thinking about people who do party-type mobile phone photography. For anything approaching even semi-serious amateur photography, then you need to ensure your monitor is in the right place.

[Wessex Wildlife]

Thank you! That's cleared it up for me.

[Thlayle]

David,

The dark/light issue has been my primary concern as well. I now calibrate regularly with the Spyder device/utility. That does not help with the darkness which seems to come about as a result of the bright display of my laptop. Hard proofing along with adjusting the brightness setting helps.

Maybe someone has some tips on that: managing the brightness for printing.

[Kodiak]

Hi David,

Very good question… I asked myself the same at an earlier point! The proper
answer is in two points: memory and machine.

•MEMORY …human memory that is!
The way the world is and the perception (the way our brain interprets it) we
have of it are such that sometimes I wonder if… Everything is "converted" by
our brain —all our senses! It makes a lot of "sense" but may, at times, be tricky.

On top of that, there are our references: repeated inputs from our world, inter-
preted by our brain and memorized.

Conclusion: the world is a relative perception of our subjective interpretation!
I am taking seriously here! …though it may sound funny, even strange.

•MACHINE …establishing strict references.
The problems appear when, once used to our respective screens, we want a real,
tangible representation of… say a photograph. The way we remember the scene,
and the way our brain will adjust to the screen image of it, are no longer what
they should be once seen on a two dimensional medium such as paper.

Before that, there was our memory and our references but now, we just inserted
a of new player in the game: the printer. —I know, there is more than that but to
understand, let's insert that very printer. Now this machine receives data that was
converted by your brain and it just doesn't know what are your references for this
interpretation.

Conclusion: the better decision is to establish a set of references that will be under-
stood and applied throughout the whole workflow.

For short, it is better to the create profiles, calibrate, and synchronize the equipment
in the chain… from camera to software to printer etc. If the end result is fine, your set
of subjective references may find the new ones a little strange but your brain will adjust
and accept them as your new set of references.

[Manfred M]

Maybe someone has some tips on that: managing the brightness for printing.

Randy - That one's actually quite easy. After calibrating and profiling your screen, do a test print and keep adjusting the lightness of your image and doing a test print until you get the result you like.

Now write down those settings and as long as you are using the same printer and not touching the brightness control of your computer screen. As I work in Photoshop. I do this via a layer that I just turn off after I have made the print; I name that layer "print adjustment" and save it with the Photoshop file. I used to do it by adjusting the the brightness, but after watching a Scott Kelby tutorial, I use the "screen" blending mode and in my case, reducing the opacity of that layer to 30% works.

Back in the days of the wet colour darkroom, test prints were the norm, especially after you changed to a new batch of paper or colour print chemistry. The digital darkroom makes life a lot easier, but people simply seem to think magic just happens. Test prints still make a lot of sense and by the way, you don't need to make a full sized test print during the iterative processes. Remember to make your evaluations of lightness in light conditions that are similar to the viewing conditions. If you follow a colour-managed workflow, nailing the print brightness is really all you need to worry about, as the colour management will take care of getting the colour balance right.

[chauncey]

Rather dated, but still valid...http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...too_dark.shtml

[ajohnw]

This page might help you but using a profile some one else generated may not be as good as rolling your own. Unfortunately TFT central don't test iMAC's but there is one user supplied that actually gives a brightness setting of 90 cd/m^2 which I know some use but many use 125. There is a link to another site that has them in the list as well. There they seem to have settled on 200 which I feel is too bright.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc_profiles.htm

I'm curious what brightness levels others use ?

If you do use one of the profiles in the link this series of tests should help you set the brightness correctly.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/C...itor_black.htm

One of these tests is pretty severe so it's probably best to start with the simple test bar in one of the CinC tutorials.

John
-