Datacolor Spyder 4 Pro, giving poor results

tonylong wrote in post #14168713
Amanda, I'm curious: are you saying that you are getting very good results printing, ones that do a good job of "matching" your monitor, but that you are not satisfied with your images when viewed on the monitor?

Most of my printing has been done with my previous settings in my monitors. I had set them up using open source line up programmes etc and got a good balance between what I saw on screen and what I saw in print. Now I look back at those same photos on my calibrated screen and find they look awful. I need to do more research and printing to see if I am getting a unity between screen and print. I realise that one is emissive and one reflective in nature, so I am looking more to see if flesh tones and things like grass, look 'honest'.

kirkt wrote in post #14168280
THe calibration and profiling you do should be based on the final output. That is, if you are intending your final output to be for display on your computer, you may want to profile for that representation. If the final output is print from a home printer, you should profile for that - if it is for a lab that prints photos, you should profile for that. You may end up having many profiles, one for each output device. The final output is your reference, and you need to know what the reference looks like to choose target values for calibration and profiling of your display related to that final output. You may find that gamma 2.2, 6500°K and 120 cd/m2 give you good display targets for viewing on your laptop or the web, but L*, 5700 °K and 140 cd/m2 give you a good match for those same files printed on your inkjet with photo glossy paper and viewed under a Solux daylight lamp, etc.

The general target values suggested on the web, etc. are, well, general. They may be a good starting point, but, ultimately, you need to have your final output viewed in a reference environment and then pick target values for calibration and profiling that match the final output. This way your display will give you an accurate representation of the image as it will appear on the output device, so you can make more informed edits on your display in the context of the final output.

I hope this makes sense.

kirk

It does indeed make sense and I think I am beginning to realise there isn't a one stop solution for everything. I do indeed need to have different profiles. ie one for web posting, one for printing etc. Thanks for the steadying hand

Have you looked into your Color Space settings? You could get a nicely matched print from an image that is in, say, the Adobe RGB color space but if you put that unconverted image out and viewed it in a "generic" Web browser or image viewer it could be off, since generic viewers and monitors as well will render images assuming something close to the sRGB color space.

Geordie Amanda wrote in post #14168142
I've been thinking quite a bit about this dipping my toes in the muddy waters of colour calibration and I don't think I am any more enlightened I had assumed that correcting my monitor with a white point of 6500K would mean accurate representation of my photographs, but the more I think about it the more confused I get. I must admit that I love to print of my photos, but in all honesty, I probably spend more time looking at them on my PC/Laptops. So if I correct my monitor with a calibrator and various colour channels are clipped etc, am I no longer looking at the most realistic image on my screen, but rather making the image correct for printing? I don't have trouble understnading the concept of a white point, but it may be that I should try to get used to my new settings for a while longer.

Perhaps I am still doing something wrong? or more likely misunderstanding the whole concept? I must admit I find many images look overly saturated to me now, but perhaps that's how it should be? One woman's saturated is another woman's washed out

I just plugged my Spyder in and used the defaults, my monitor and prints look good. I suggest you think less.

tonylong wrote in post #14169559
Have you looked into your Color Space settings? You could get a nicely matched print from an image that is in, say, the Adobe RGB color space but if you put that unconverted image out and viewed it in a "generic" Web browser or image viewer it could be off, since generic viewers and monitors as well will render images assuming something close to the sRGB color space.

Funnily enough I just did some test with Lightroom and sRGB etc. I haven't printed them off yet. From the many helpful post in this thread I have now tried a few different combos of things and have found that if my printer manages the colours, then the image most closely approximates the image that is adjusted with defaults on my Envy 17 and the Spyder (with a small tweak) on my Dell. If I get time I will try to pop down to Calumet and see what they think (they have always been very helpful to me

Big thanks again to the vast forum knowledge

Sorry to high jack this thread but I'm using Spyder 3 pro and to be honest I had problems getting it to look right on all my Macs I ended up using "colour eyes display pro" software with my Spyder puck, this give me fantastic result.

I'm wondering if upgrading my 3 pro software to ver 4 would give me better result or result more like the other software Im using, I would like to use just the datacolor software and keep it all simple.

Anyone used 3 then upgraded to 4 ?

I'm running 10.7.3 and Aperture 3.2.3 along with an older PhotoShop CS3 (10.0.1)

I just bought the Spyder 4 Pro yesterday and after reading this thread I am even more confused. I had the same result as the OP, after I calibrated my Dell monitor and XPS laptop my photos look much worse to me and documents like word, explorer, basically any whites now look like they have a green tint. I was very careful to follow the calibration instructions.

However, until reading this thread I assumed that even though my photos look worse, what I am seeing is now 'correct' and I could post process my photos accordingly. The color between my laptop and dell monitor is now very close to the same and I was very impressed with the precision. I am sure I will now be able print what I see on my monitors.

But I also thought that now what I see is what another person with a calibrated monitor will see and vice versa. But if people are using multiple and non standard profiles, it won't work that way at all. Was I incorrect in thinking after calibrating my monitors, most people with a calibrated display will see my photos how they look on my screen and I will now be able to see their photos how they intended?

I will be happy to be able to print accurately but the main reason I wanted the Spyder was to be able to see images how other photographers intended and how they view them on their monitors, and vice versa. Is their a way for me to do this as best as possible? Is there a profile that is 'standard' among photographers? Or am I misunderstanding something- is the Spyder just meant to calibrate your monitors, projector, printers etc together and not align monitors around the world?

Sorry for so many questions. Any help is really appreciated. I also commend Raphael from Datacolor for following upon this! Much appreciated.

It's correct that you can't be "responsible" for the many various viewing devices and software that are used, but you are best having a "standard" that will, as much as possible, balance things out in your system and software, your monitor, your printer, and also others who have a "color-managed" system.

As for the "outside world", well, it's kind of "anything goes", so what can you do?

The only thing you can do is make sure you are putting images out there in sRGB so that they can "translate" to a "generic" color space decently, and that the overall tones of your images are good.

But know that if you get good prints that is a good sign

Ok. I am still very new to this and really appreciate your advice.

So are you saying its best to use just one profile; one 'standard' that is a balance for all devices? Or one personalized profile for all of my devices, and a second 'standard' for use on the net (this forum, or a friends computer for example).

EDIT: I re-read your answer and better understand what you said. So I just have one question:

To get as close as possible to other photographers color managed systems should I just use the Spyders default/suggested values when calibrating. Or is there a better way to get that 'standard'.

tonylong wrote in post #14173351
The only thing you can do is make sure you are putting images out there in sRGB so that they can "translate" to a "generic" color space decently, and that the overall tones of your images are good.

But know that if you get good prints that is a good sign

I will read up on color spaces now to better understand this and I will get some prints done

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14173329
any whites now look like they have a green tint.

When the display is properly calibrated you should not have a tint.

Spyder default is Gamma 2.2 and Kelvin 6500. Whites will look warm, slightly yellow.

Have you looked at the images that came with the program? After calibration you can look at several images and choose the before/after button. If b&w images are fine, no tint, you are one step closer.

Also look at the calibration report. You could post the settings if you like.

mattmorgan44 wrote in post #14173436
I just have one question:

To get as close as possible to other photographers color managed systems should I just use the Spyders default/suggested values when calibrating.

Yes.

Standard: Gamma 2.2 and Kelvin 6500.

As far as a "tinted" display, you shouldn't have that problem. Our eyes can play "tricks" on us and ambient light can color things a bit, but I've never had a monitor show me something I'd identify as a "tint". But realize that monitors can be pretty nasty, especially those of a consumer brand.

But suppose you take an image and print it at a reputable lab with no color correctionor if you have a good quality inkjet photo printer and make a print having initially the printer manage things, and view the print in daylight without direct sun, and compared to the monitor the print looks great but the monitor has ugly colors in it or the monitor looks "good" but the print is ugly then you have problems!

I would like to see someone like Calumet to do an open day to promote the gear and understanding involved with Colour spacing, White points etc. And demonstrate what we should be looking at and how an image appears on a properly calibrated (6500K) monitor. Understanding my camera hasn't been so difficult as it is an evolution of what I have known before, but monitors and colour spacing is a field I never strayed into and now it appears to be more critical than ever.

I am also wondering if I took a couple of RAW photos of my screen displaying a colour chart (and using the different profiles), whether I could take this to someone for verification that I was heading down the right road.

Well, one thing you could do here:

Take a pic that should be plain white. It could be a "New" document from an image editor or a word processor or whateve.

From what you say, your monitor shows that with a tint. So, save it with that tint.

Then, use an image editor to color-correct it so that to you and your monitor it looks "plain white" and save it.

Post them here and we could give our input!

I purchased the Spider 4 Pro on the 22nd; have been going back and forth for the last couple years trying to convince myself that I didn't need one.

Ran the full spectrum test on my 24” HP desktop monitor and was quite frankly shocked at the changes it made. Next I ran a photograph through CS5 where I used tri-calibration card in the shot to get the white balance set for processing, and then printed it out on my 7-ink color printer; printed photo matched my screen very closely.

$160.00 well spent IMO as I have better confidence now that my photographs will come back from the lab resembling what I my computer screen was displaying.