# Calibrating a monitor



## creativecontent (Jun 1, 2013)

Hello,

I have been dabbling in photography with my own children and am starting to get requests to take pictures of others based on what I post on Facebook. After seeing some of my work on someone else's monitor and realizing just how yellow it is, I realized that my monitor is going to hold me back. I would like to jump into this as a side gig to my freelance writing business and an outlet for my creativity, but I've noticed that editing is challenging on my laptop. I've invested in an actual monitor that had pretty good reviews for photo editing, but it needs to be calibrated. Any tips on how to do this? 

Also, I have a canon TSi and the two kit lenses as well as the $100 50mm 1.8 lens. I still struggle to get crisp shots using autofocus and typically shooting in aperture priority with F 2.8-3.5 with a ISO of 200-400, depending on light. I recently learned that part of the problem was focusing and then moving hte lens to position the subject, rather than using the focus boxes to tell the lens where to focus. other than that, what can I do? Is it my lenses? What would be a good upgrade when the time comes?

Thank you and I look forward to getting some tips and critiques in this community!


----------



## SCraig (Jun 1, 2013)

The only way to accurately calibrate a monitor is with a hardware calibration device such as a Datacolor Spyder, or a X-Rite calibration device.  Just using your eyes to calibrate a monitor will never work.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

I calibrated my monitor with my eyes and a print from a calibrated printer  
I've printed at school,mpix and mixbook and they're all on point.

The best way to do it IS with hardware though.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 1, 2013)

Once you get your calibration hardware, download dispcalGUI.  It's free, open source, and better than the software that comes with a lot of calibration units.

dispcalGUI?Open Source Display Calibration and Characterization powered by Argyll CMS

You will need to install AgryllCMS first (also free and open source):
Argyll Color Management System Home Page


----------



## Garbz (Jun 1, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> I calibrated my monitor with my eyes and a print from a calibrated printer
> I've printed at school,mpix and mixbook and they're all on point.
> 
> The best way to do it IS with hardware though.



Ahh so you lit your print with a calibrated light source too?

Our eyes are very good at picking differences, they are also incredibly easily deceived, ask anyone who has had yellow skii goggles on for a few minutes what the world looks like when they take them off.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 1, 2013)

Garbz said:


> ask anyone who has had yellow skii goggles on for a few minutes what the world looks like when they take them off.



I prefer the red ones, but - still...


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

Garbz said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I calibrated my monitor with my eyes and a print from a calibrated printer
> ...



3 print sources says none of that matters.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

Garbz said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > I calibrated my monitor with my eyes and a print from a calibrated printer
> ...



3 print sources says none of that matters.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 1, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Dude, even something as cheap as the Pantone Huey, which you can probably find for like $20 now, will give you a better profile than just 'eyeballing' it.
(Don't waste any money on the Hue Pro though - same hardware, the "pro" part is all in the software, which isn't that good.)


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Garbz said:
> ...



I never said to not use hardware lol.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 1, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



But you did say that you calibrated your monitor with your eyes...

While, I agree, you are not telling other people not to use hardware, you seem to be implying that you yourself do not use hardware.

Or did I miss something?


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...



I'm saying that my calibration with my eyes is good enough for me where I can't see any difference, not to mention that my original post was tongue in cheek. I even said that hardware is the best way to do it, don't know why you guys are getting all worked up.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 1, 2013)

Not getting worked up.  Just saying - calibration doesn't have to be expensive.  "Something is better than nothing".


----------



## Buckster (Jun 2, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Once you get your calibration hardware, download dispcalGUI.  It's free, open source, and better than the software that comes with a lot of calibration units.


Interesting.  Quantify please.  How is it better?


----------



## creativecontent (Jun 2, 2013)

SCraig said:


> The only way to accurately calibrate a monitor is with a hardware calibration device such as a Datacolor Spyder, or a X-Rite calibration device.  Just using your eyes to calibrate a monitor will never work.



So, is this what I need: X-Rite ColorMunki Display Accurate Monitor Calibration CMUNDIS

I would like to keep the purchase closer to the $100 range than the $300 range, especially since at this point my work is just a (non-paying) hobby.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 2, 2013)

creativecontent said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to accurately calibrate a monitor is with a hardware calibration device such as a Datacolor Spyder, or a X-Rite calibration device.  Just using your eyes to calibrate a monitor will never work.
> ...



That should work fine.  If you want cheaper you might look at the Datacolor Spyder 4.  I have the Spyder 3 and it works quite well.  My NEC monitor came with an X-Ride i-One calibration device and it works better though.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Once you get your calibration hardware, download dispcalGUI.  It's free, open source, and better than the software that comes with a lot of calibration units.
> ...



Try it out and see for yourself.  I'm not the only one who thinks that either.

Basically everything is customizable.  How many samples you want it to take, how many iterations you want it to run, etc...  It takes longer, but you get a more accurate profile.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 2, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...


I don't care to put in the time and effort to DL it, install it, play around with it, learn about it, and all that it will take to actually find out for myself.  You've already done so and presumably know all about it at this point, enough to promote it as "better", so just tell me how you know it's actually "better" with some data on HOW it's actually "better".



O|||||||O said:


> I'm not the only one who thinks that either.


That's great but, just as an example, the number of billions of Muslims doesn't convince me that I should join their religion just because they all say it's "better".  I'm the sort of person that needs some actual facts and data to base my decisions on, not just popularity and the gut feelings of others.



O|||||||O said:


> Basically everything is customizable.  How many samples you want it to take, how many iterations you want it to run, etc...  It takes longer, but you get a more accurate profile.


How do you KNOW I'll get a more accurate profile?  That's what I want to know.  Where's the actual data that supports that statement?  Where's the comparison?  Show me the science that supports that statement.  Most importantly of all, is it a difference that makes ANY difference to human eyeballs?

Thanks in advance for you help with this.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 3, 2013)

You're arguing semantics Buckster, but lets take a look at some of the options that come with popular colour calibration tools shall we? 

Case one: Xrite Eye-One Match: I'm given the choice of:
A few selectable set of White balance targets
An input wheel to select gamma curve from 1.0 to 3.0

And that's it. That was short. Right off the bat I don't like it already. What about L* curve or the sRGB curve? When the software is finished it gives me a before and after shot, where's my graph of DeltaE values over brightness changes? No support for my monitor's internal LUT, no easy way to measure results in different locations off the screen to judge backlight bleeding, hell I don't even get a choice to limit max brightness or contrast ratio to meet the requirement of AdobeRGB viewing specs. Even the colour balance is almost fixed. There's a difference between D55 and 5500k which the software doesn't give you the option of, let alone custom entry of a specific kelvin value.

Heck the software that came with my monitor blows away the software that comes with most calibration units.  White point calibration by x and y co-ordinate. Calibration to DICOM curves. Heck I can make my own arbitrary gamma curve and load it into the display lookup table. 

And it looks like this software is one step even more customisable.

...

I'm happy that your solution works for you. The reality is that the results are likely to be the same when everything is set at default, unless your tool does something silly like not averaging low light measurements like X-rite match, in which case other software is likely to give you better results. But really the software that comes with most calibrators works only when the default settings are what will work for you. This is the sole reason other tools even exist and have a viable market share. 

As for your comment of not wanting to put effort into trying something new which (potentially) may be better. I'm disappointed and saddened. Mind you I also hate the words "good enough".


----------



## Buckster (Jun 3, 2013)

Garbz said:


> You're arguing semantics Buckster, but lets take a look at some of the options that come with popular colour calibration tools shall we?
> 
> Case one: Xrite Eye-One Match: I'm given the choice of:
> A few selectable set of White balance targets
> ...


It's really simple: I just want to know if the resulting differences are detectable by human eyeballs or not.

I don't care if it samples 10 times or a million times, if the difference between them is so slight that it takes a super-computer with a $100,000 array of sensors to "see" the difference.

If it's not a difference that human eyeballs can even see, why should anyone give a snit that it's supposedly "more accurate?  How will that make any real-world difference?

If it _*IS*_ a difference that human eyeballs can see though, that should be something that can be shown, measured, quantified, explained without too much fuss.  So just do it, instead of giving me lip about why I'm questioning it.

Just show me.  Give me a real reason to DL it, install it, get to know it and love it and hug it in my dreams.

Is that really such an outrageous request?


----------

