Datacolor Spyder 4 Pro, giving poor results

tonylong wrote in post #14175195
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!

If I take a picture of a white doc, how do I know what the colour temp of the paper is? I am guessing that I would need to know this so that an 'absolute' reference can be given and assessment made.

My head is hurting I need an expert to lead me through all this in person, as I am still not happy with the pure Spyder results, especially on my Envy 17.

Just open a new doc in an editor, Photoshop, Word, whatever. Save it as-is as a jpeg (resize for the Web first). You say it will have a tint on it in your monitor and this will give us a "checkpoint".

Then, you can take the same doc and in your software adjust the color tint so that to you it appears white. Then you can resize/Save it. Post them both here (make sure that we are clear on which is which!).

J_R2 wrote in post #14173847
When the display is properly calibrated you should not have a tint.

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.

I will recalibrate tonight and look at the before and after images. Thanks for the advice

I noticed the tint when I opened word and explorer, not on photos. What Raphael says below may explain that tint...

dctech wrote in post #14160956
Finally, when judgeing the colors of your calibrated screen please only rely on colormanaged apps/programs such as the Spyder sample pictures in the after-view and for example Adobe Photoshop products.

Especially under Windows, lot's of programs/apps (Word, MS Fax/Picture-viewer, MS Windows Menus, Microsoft Internet Explorer...) are NOT colormanged, meaning they simply can't read the display profile created by Spyder. This is NOT to blame Microsoft, but they just didn't pay lots of attention up to now in regards to colormanagement.

Raphael

Datacolor Team

tonylong wrote in post #14177473
Just open a new doc in an editor, Photoshop, Word, whatever. Save it as-is as a jpeg (resize for the Web first). You say it will have a tint on it in your monitor and this will give us a "checkpoint".

Then, you can take the same doc and in your software adjust the color tint so that to you it appears white. Then you can resize/Save it. Post them both here (make sure that we are clear on which is which!).

If Raphael is correct, doing this won't work anyway. But if these programs simply "can't read the display profile created by Spyder" wouldn't they look exactly the same before and after calibration?

tonylong wrote in post #14174029
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 just ordered the Epson r2880 so hopefully I can try all this out in a few days

What I am saying is:

According to you a "plain white document", such as you would get by opening a New document in Photosop, Word, or even Paint appears on your screen to have a color tint. Is that not correct? You can verify this by going to the Info panel and then "mousing over" the new document in Photoshop -- it should show RGB values of 255, 255, 255, on other words pure white.

If you size that for the Web and do a Save As a jpeg, you will be saving an image that is white, no matter how it looks on your screen.

Now, take the image while it's still in Photoshop and adjust the color until the tint you see is gone and it appears to be white to you. Now if you check the RGB values after changing some color(s) you will see different RGB values, but that's OK for this -- resize and Save As (don't just save).

Now you have two images you can post here -- one that has the RGB values of white but appear to you to have a color tint and one that looks white to you.

I'm just suggesting this because it may help us to give you some informed input -- we can see kind of a "mirror image" of what you're seeing!

Just a thought...

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

Amanda

I have tried to make a really simple introduction to colour management - the why's and wherefores, what you should expect, and what to not expect, on fromcameratoprint.com. You may find it worth a look.

"One woman's saturated, is another's washed out" should not be a factor in a colour managed environment. That is the reason why you should load up a couple of standard images to look at. The test images that Datacolor supplies, and there are more on Keith Cooper's site ( northlight-images.co.uk) are deliberately chosen because, among other things, they contain "memory colours" - skin tones, orange and lemon skins and the like. If those colours jar when you look at them, your colour profiling or calibration is out of whack.

FWIW I struggled with a Datacolor SpyderPrint3 for some years trying to profile my printers before finally realising the spectrophotometer simply wasn't working properly. Since moving to another device I've had no problems. I wouldn't rule out a faulty colorimeter.

If you enjoy printing your own work - I know I do - then don't give up on the CM: it makes all the difference!

Cheers

Tim

tonylong wrote in post #14178378
Now, take the image while it's still in Photoshop and adjust the color until the tint you see is gone and it appears to be white to you. Now if you check the RGB values after changing some color(s) you will see different RGB values, but that's OK for this -- resize and Save As (don't just save)

Ok.. I did as you suggested. In case Amanda or anyone wants to know what I did I painted a plain document yellow, doubled the width of the canvas so I could see a before and after, and then went into Image Adjustments, Hue/Saturation. I set the Lightness to 90 and then moved the Hue slider to see if I could remove the "tint" and get a white image.

After doing this test I am convinced my screen is showing white correctly and my eyes were playing tricks on me

However I think I know why white didn't look correct on my screen. I think it is brightness rather than a tint that is the problem. My monitor is a fairly old Dell monitor with brightness adjustments only.. When I calibrate with the Spyder it takes an ambient light reading and recommends a target of 200cd/m^2 luminance with the lights on and around 130cd/m^2 in a very dark room at night with no lights on. Most of the time however there is ambient light so the recommended luminance is closer to 160-180cd/m. You are supposed to adjust brightness until you reach the luminance target. My problem is I can adjust the brightness to the maximum settings and my screen only reaches 113cd/m^2.

On my new laptop, I can reach the recommended luminance and the whites look much more white to me. Still, the test photos Spyder provides look a little dull but I am going to assume they are correct and I am just used to a warmer image. When my printer arrives if the prints look like what's on my monitor I will be happy.

Thank you for the advice. Let me know if you have any other suggestions.

Mac Mahon wrote in post #14178586
Amanda

I have tried to make a really simple introduction to colour management - the why's and wherefores, what you should expect, and what to not expect, on fromcameratoprint.com. You may find it worth a look.

"One woman's saturated, is another's washed out" should not be a factor in a colour managed environment. That is the reason why you should load up a couple of standard images to look at. The test images that Datacolor supplies, and there are more on Keith Cooper's site ( northlight-images.co.uk) are deliberately chosen because, among other things, they contain "memory colours" - skin tones, orange and lemon skins and the like. If those colours jar when you look at them, your colour profiling or calibration is out of whack.

FWIW I struggled with a Datacolor SpyderPrint3 for some years trying to profile my printers before finally realising the spectrophotometer simply wasn't working properly. Since moving to another device I've had no problems. I wouldn't rule out a faulty colorimeter.

If you enjoy printing your own work - I know I do - then don't give up on the CM: it makes all the difference!

Cheers

Tim

Thanks Tim.

Sorry I haven't responded before now. Sadly I am incredibly busy with work at the moment and can't seem to find a spare moment to check anything properly. I am typing this post on an old Acer and not a PC that I will need to correct anyway. As soon as I can find a bit of time and have one of my monitors that matter, to hand, I will persevere.

Tony

I see what you are saying and as I mentioned above, I really can't find the time of the monitors to attempt this (I work away a lot). I previously tried to screen grab my images, but of course this was pointless as the display profiles are downstream from the capture point! Doh!! I think it would be interesting to try and post 2 white images, but not say which one is the corrected one, just to get a blind opinion from the experts on here.

Thanks again for all your help

Amanda

Mac Mahon wrote in post #14178586
Amanda

I have tried to make a really simple introduction to colour management - the why's and wherefores, what you should expect, and what to not expect, on fromcameratoprint.com. You may find it worth a look.

"One woman's saturated, is another's washed out" should not be a factor in a colour managed environment. That is the reason why you should load up a couple of standard images to look at. The test images that Datacolor supplies, and there are more on Keith Cooper's site ( northlight-images.co.uk) are deliberately chosen because, among other things, they contain "memory colours" - skin tones, orange and lemon skins and the like. If those colours jar when you look at them, your colour profiling or calibration is out of whack.

FWIW I struggled with a Datacolor SpyderPrint3 for some years trying to profile my printers before finally realising the spectrophotometer simply wasn't working properly. Since moving to another device I've had no problems. I wouldn't rule out a faulty colorimeter.

If you enjoy printing your own work - I know I do - then don't give up on the CM: it makes all the difference!

Cheers

Tim

Hello again Tim

Wow! a lot of work gone into your excellent CM introduction. I knew roughly what the terms and differences were, but your explanation was so very thorough that I feel I understand what I am trying to achieve much more so than before (at least until I shake my head and all the good stuff falls out again). If i understand what might have happened correctly, does the Spyder change my ICC profiles to the AdobeRGB colour space (it claims I have a wide gamut monitor although it also claims it only covers 92% of that colour space-and 99-100% of sRGB) and this in turn is causing all my previously saved pictures (which were probably all done with sRGB) to look seriously over saturated?

Geordie Amanda wrote in post #14201982
does the Spyder change my ICC profiles to the AdobeRGB colour space

No.

The Spyder has nothing to do with colour spaces. It simply corrects the colors.

Geordie Amanda wrote in post #14201982
(it claims I have a wide gamut monitor although it also claims it only covers 92% of that colour space-and 99-100% of sRGB) and this in turn is causing all my previously saved pictures (which were probably all done with sRGB) to look seriously over saturated?

Check your previously saved images in Photoshop or another program just to make sure they are tagged with sRGB.

If they are tagged sRGB they should not look oversaturated in a colormanaged program like Photoshop. It they are not tagged they will look oversaturated in Photoshop if you are using a wider color space. You should to set Photoshop ( or whatever program you use ) to your preffered working space.

sRGB file in ProPhoto color spcace.

- John

Geordie Amanda wrote in post #14201867
I think it would be interesting to try and post 2 white images, but not say which one is the corrected one, just to get a blind opinion from the experts on here.

Thanks again for all your help

Amanda

I would be very interested to see your results after doing this myself and finding my eyes were playing tricks on me. Only for the tint of course.

Also FWIW my printer arrived and I have been able to thoroughly test it against the images on my screen. I am also using a new Dell XPS laptop and Spyder4 Pro. Even though I was having similar problems to you with my images not looking correct, the prints are impressively close to what I see on my monitor. The colors are almost exact. However the images MUST be embedded with the correct profile or they look completely different. If you had success with your prints in the past and they now look totally different there is a good chance they are in a different color space or have a different profile embedded.

With the older images that you say were fine but now look horrible after calibration, did you edit the colours, brightness, saturation etc extensively back then? If you adjusted the colours to look correct on your older uncalibrated monitors, it would make sense that they could look wrong to you on your now correct monitor. However if the images look "horrible", it is more likely an issue with the color space the older images are in.

Ps. next time you are editing a photo for print, tilt your screen upwards slightly and note the difference. I also believed this was a non-issue with the XPS wide viewing angle screen but it really does make a substantial difference.

Sorry I haven't updated this thread recently, but work has kept me busy. I have been sticking with the Spyder profile whilst working 'on the road' and although I haven't had a chance to print anything, I think I might be adjusting to the profile. I will continue with this until I upgrade my printer. I fancy the Epsom R2000 (partly as I believe it can print matt black with our purging the black line, so I can use it for some business matters and partly because I won a nice lump of money on the Grand National horse race).

As ever, thanks for the encouragement to stick with it and some great explanations.

Amanda

x

Hi guys! I have a similar problem and I am going crazy here!!!


I purchased an "expensive" Samsung Syncmaster SA550 27" LED and got the new Spyder4 Pro to calibrate the monitor... so far so good...


I calibrated the monitor with the suggested spyder settings at 6500K and 200 brightness... but at the end when the spyder indicates that the monitor's colour is only 90% of the RGB colourspace in comparison!!!


Where I really go mad is that if I convert an image in CS6 to sRGB for the web and view it on my monitor now, it looks fine and as processed in CS6, but the moment I upload it to the web the colors are clearly of with an almost yellow color cast!!!! All my other images which I uploaded to the web before (using another samsung LCD monitor and spyder3 pro) still looks great, but my new images are $%*^ to say the least!!


I used both an analog and a digital (hdmi) connection (and drivers) to the monitor from the computer, but no success!


What is really bothering me is that all images, new and old, looks 100% in CS5, LR4 and if I open it with windows picture viewer. BUT... in changing the color profile in CS6 the "bad" color will show for a split second (whilst the color profile changes to sRGB) and then the image will once again look 100% in CS6... but upload it to the web.... Aghhhhhh!!!!!!


CS6,LR4,the spyder4 pro, windows 7 x64,graphics card (Nvidia Geforce GTS 450) and monitor firmware all up to date...

Both CS6 and LR4 on camera RAW 7.1 and I even deleted my catalog and imported all images into LR4 with color space for external editing in LR4 and CS6 on Adobe1998 (even Prophoto does not work...)

The spyder4 confirms that my old monitor has been calibrated to 95% of the sRGB and my new one to 90% - 93%. Tried adjusting with RGB sliders on monitor and without... best result with adjusting the RGB sliders on monitor.

Is it the monitor, the spyder4, or me? I am really going mad this side and any help will be appreciated!

"200 brightness"? 200 Cd/m^2? That seems awfully bright. About 120 is recommended in most cases.
I think that screen is a "normal gamut" TN panel, so 93% of sRGB sounds normal.

Not at all sure what you are doing in PS with regard to profiles, but here's how it works:

http://www.getcolorman​aged.com/color-management/saveforweb/
http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …nagement/pscolo​rsettings/

Also, is the web browser you are using to do the viewing a color aware/color managed browser?