Help profiling monitor with Spyder2, problem in shadows

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've just purchased a ViewSonic P225fp monitor (CRT) with the new
Spyder2 from colovision. When I use soft profiling in Photoshop CS the
color rendition seems to be correct, but not the brightness in the
shadow areas. Despite trying several different papers, each with its
own printer profile, there is considerably more shadow detail seen on
the monitor than in the print.

Have others had a similar problem? Is there a way to see more accurate
shadow detail on the monitor? I'd prefer not to go out and buy another
product, but are the Monoco or Gretag-Macbeth colorimeters
significantly better?

Many thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>When I use soft profiling in Photoshop CS the color rendition
>seems to be correct, but not the brightness in the shadow
>areas. ... there is considerably more shadow detail seen on
>the monitor than in the print.

If you're getting a good color match then you should count your
blessings, this is more than most people get.

When you soft-proof are you setting 'paper white' or not? This will
dim the monitor view considerably as it tries to match the more limited
reflectivity of the paper compared to your monitor's brightness. You
might try this and see if it gives a closer match.

Also, how are you viewing the prints? With a very bright,
color-balanced light you might see more shadow detail in the print than
with dimmer light.

>Have others had a similar problem? Is there a way to see more
>accurate shadow detail on the monitor?

Soft-proofing ... indeed, the entire ICC color managed work flow ...
gets you most of the way but you simply won't get a 100% match. Even
the top guys in the field (at least those not selling color management
tools) will agree with me on that. If you're getting a close color
match then you're doing very well.

>I'd prefer not to go out and buy another product, but are the
>Monoco or Gretag-Macbeth colorimeters significantly better?

My understanding is that the Monaco is similar to the Sypder and that
the G-M Eye-One is better than either, especially for LCD calibration,
but not "significantly better" for CRT's, which is what you have. I've
taken advanced printing classes with some of the top guys, like Bill
Atkinson, and that seems to be the consensus. I'm using the Spyder but
if I bought an LCD I'd get the Eye-One, based on what Bill said during
a workshop. So I think you're OK with what you're using, especially
since you're getting a good color match everywhere but the shadows.
Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is the URL I mentioned about last night:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn [...] _tools.htm

The rest of the site has a lot of good info also.


(and since it appears nobody say's thanks anymore....)

You're welcome, my pleasure, hope it helps,

Bob S.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

First of all - Thank you. You certainly did not have to take the time
to reply to my question, or to look up the site you referred me to. I
do appreciate it.
Secondly - I was interested to see that what I complained about (shadow
detail) is where my Spyder 2 is supposed to be at its best compared to
other calibration tools. I guess that switching to Monoco or G-M is not
likely to help, so I guess I'll have to learn to live with what I have.


I am curious whether it would be worthwhile trying to run a profile
with the brightness of the monitor turned down lower than recommended.
With the Spyder software you are instructed to set the black luminance
by lowering the brightness to the lowest level that still allows you to
distinguish between 4 blocks from black through 3 shades of dark gray.
I assume that setting it even lower will reduce the shadow detail on
the monitor that I find is not indicative of what I get on paper. I
wonder, though, if it will affect color accuracy. Guess I'll just have
to give it a try.

Thanks again,

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Okay, again it's a bit late to go into it tonight - been a long day. But I
will get out the emails I've been swapping with ColorVision and compile them
into a "How to Fix" the scanner. Please bear in mind that what I did may not
work on yours (my disclaimer) but the steps I did should at least get you to
the source of the problems (there are 3 that I find).

They did send me another scanner and although it's not as bad as the first
one - it skews like crazy. I don't have their permission to open and tweak
this one as I did on the first. My tweaks cured about 99% of the skewing
and that's based on running over 100 prints thru it - with and without the
plastic sleeve. So the difference from it initially not being able to get a
calibration print thru it without jamming to a slight skewing 50% of the
time is a significant difference. What took me several hours to figure out
and do can be done in less than 5 minutes. So for only $19.95, I'll sell
the magic smoke............;-)

Look here for a rather long posting tomorrow sometime.

Bob S.


"Biggles" <dave@stewart50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41f6e529$0$14620$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> > Bob S.
> I'd be interested to hear what you did to the scanner and what were the
> results. Mine refuses to draw the print through staight most of the time.
>
> Dave Stewart
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob <spitz@snet.net> wrote:
> I've just purchased a ViewSonic P225fp monitor (CRT) with the new
> Spyder2 from colovision. When I use soft profiling in Photoshop CS the
> color rendition seems to be correct, but not the brightness in the
> shadow areas. Despite trying several different papers, each with its
> own printer profile, there is considerably more shadow detail seen on
> the monitor than in the print.

This sounds to me like you may not have an accurately profiled printer
-- not than anything to do with your monitor.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob <spitz@snet.net> wrote:
> Andrew,

> Maybe I don't understand soft proofing, but I thought it was supposed
> to show what a particular printer profile would produce regardless of
> the "accuracy" of the profile.

To the extent that is possible; a monitor can't simulate everything.

> For example, I have 2 different .icc printer profiles for Epson
> Velvet paper using black point compensation and relative colormetric
> rendering on an Epson 2200 printer, and the profiles do produce
> somewhat different results on the Epson Velvet paper. Soft proofing
> works reasonably well in demonstrating the difference that I get on
> paper, so I often use it to decide which printer profile to
> use. However, with both profiles (as well as other profiles for
> other papers) I have the problem described above with more brigtness
> and detail in the shadows on the monitor than on paper.

Did you set "ink black" in the soft proof dialogue?

Andrew.