Monitor Calibration

[BDM]

This may be an impossible question to answer but here goes.

I have just received an Epson 2200 printer. Included in the package I purchased was a Colorvision Spyder with Photocal software to calibrate my monitor so that it will display images I am editing in Photoshop that will be closer in appearance to the prints the Epson turns out (hopefully).

I ran the program this evening and immediately noticed that my Dell monitor is a lot dimmer than it was before and the contrast is lower. Is that normal? Previously I had set it up using Adobe Gamma. Presumably, this device will result in a more accurate profile.

It may be that I was running my monitor (it's a plain vanilla Dell) brighter than I should have. Has anyone had experience with this?

Bruce

[bikerider]

yup' that sounds normal, i had the same experience, the monitor is now a 'cooler' white.....from what i've seen with most peoples monitors they are quite bright, you get used to that colder effect after a while.

[Jesper]

Did you remove Adobe Gamma from the Startup folder in the Start / Programs menu? You should, otherwise it interferes with PhotoCAL (which is also loaded at startup).

To what color temperature did you set your monitor? It's best to set it to 6500K for photography editing purposes. By default, most monitors are set to 9300K, which gives a very bright and slightly blue image.

In PhotoCAL, you have to calibrate (= set the controls optimally, like brightness, contrast etc.) first. How did you do that?

I also used Adobe Gamma before I got a Spyder and PhotoCAL, and the Spyder works MUCH better than Adobe Gamma.

[chris.bailey]

Out of interest how do your prints compare to the "view proof" in PS?

[scottbergerphoto]

I use the exact same setup:
Dell CRT set to 6500K
Spyder/Optical-profile saved as default profile
Adobe Gamma removed from startup using msconfig
Epson 2200
Epson 2200 ICC profiles loaded into Windows/......../color folder-they are on the install CD and should automatically install with the printer driver.
The calibrated Dell monitor will be noticeably dimmer. You should work in a dim room. I do the calibration with a sheet over me and the monitor to eliminate extraneous light. The Sony Artisan monitor comes with a hood for that purpose.
If you follow the instructions and use the correct settings in the printer driver, use Epson Paper and Ink, your prints will be nearly identical to your screen. Awesome, simply awesome!
Regards,
Scott

[BDM]

Did you remove Adobe Gamma from the Startup folder in the Start / Programs menu? You should, otherwise it interferes with PhotoCAL (which is also loaded at startup).

To what color temperature did you set your monitor? It's best to set it to 6500K for photography editing purposes. By default, most monitors are set to 9300K, which gives a very bright and slightly blue image.

In PhotoCAL, you have to calibrate (= set the controls optimally, like brightness, contrast etc.) first. How did you do that?

I also used Adobe Gamma before I got a Spyder and PhotoCAL, and the Spyder works MUCH better than Adobe Gamma.

Yes I did remove Adobe Gamma. I set the brightness/contrast according to the Photocal instructions. The monitor is set for 6500 K. I first set contrast to maximum. When the Spyder read the monitor it said I was considerably above the brightness range desired. I could not get it down to the correct range with the brightness control. Photocal said in that case I should reduce the contrast setting until the brightness came into range. I did that.

Actually, I have now just gotten the printer setup and going. The results are very nice and seem to be very close to what the monitor shows. I am very new at this and relatively unsophicticated but I am very hapy wih the first six or eight prints I've done so far. And boy am I impressed with the Drebel. The results (on an 8X10 print) are sharp, clean and really look like medium format film based prints. They are a lot better than most 35 mm film based prints.

Thanks so much for the helpful reply.

Bruce

[BDM]

yup' that sounds normal, i had the same experience, the monitor is now a 'cooler' white.....from what i've seen with most peoples monitors they are quite bright, you get used to that colder effect after a while.

Thanks for the reply. I have now gotten the printer going and the results seem very close to what I see on the monitor. That is a nice gadget.

Bruce

[BDM]

Out of interest how do your prints compare to the "view proof" in PS?

I just got the printer set up and going. (I'm taking a day off from work). The results seem to be very close to what I see on the screen. And I am very happy with the first six or eight prints I've done so far. Of course, I am not very experienced at this (all of six or eight prints worth of experience) but the prints are as good or better than what I can get from printing 35 mm film based images in my wet darkroom. In fact, at the 8X10 size, they compare very favorably to medium format images and that has been a surprise to me.

Bruce

[BDM]

I use the exact same setup:
Dell CRT set to 6500K
Spyder/Optical-profile saved as default profile
Adobe Gamma removed from startup using msconfig
Epson 2200
Epson 2200 ICC profiles loaded into Windows/......../color folder-they are on the install CD and should automatically install with the printer driver.
The calibrated Dell monitor will be noticeably dimmer. You should work in a dim room. I do the calibration with a sheet over me and the monitor to eliminate extraneous light. The Sony Artisan monitor comes with a hood for that purpose.
If you follow the instructions and use the correct settings in the printer driver, use Epson Paper and Ink, your prints will be nearly identical to your screen. Awesome, simply awesome!
Regards,
Scott

Boy, I'll say they are awsome!. My first six or eight prints have been quite an experience. I'm using Premium Luster paper which is very close to the E surface Kodak Color printing paper I use when making prints in the wet darmroom. At 8X10, the Drebel shots are sharp, clean and, frankly, better than most 35mm film based images I have printed in my darkroom. In fact, they are very close to medium format quality and that is a great surprise to me. Now if the 2200 could print 20X24 prints, perhaps I would see a difference but since that is not possible, the medium format "advantage" may be academic at this time.

I do have a couple of images I'm going to reprint at 11X14 and see what happens. I'm not experienced enough yet with Photoshop, etc. to be really critical but I am very impressed so far. One of the shots is of a backyard bunny who I caught lunching on my grass. His fur is so sharp I swear I can almost see the fleas on it! I admit I've been a bit heavy handed with the unsharp masking but not to the point where I have noticed any funny artifacts.

Incidentally, I did the calibration at night with all of the room lights turned off.

Now I have to find out if the Premium Luster will dry mount OK, It's strange but I haven't come across any refernce to that yet.

Bruce