Calibrated with Spyder Pro....

[Paul Iddon]

So I have just used Spyder Pro 3 to calibrate my monitor to Gamma 2.2 and 6498K (recommended is 2.2 and 6500K) so very close.

But my screen to me doesn't look particularly white on my whites, and somewhat duller than I had it previously.

So I grabbed the camera and flash, and fired off a shot of my lass mucking about in the living room.

In the first I have imported the RAW direct from LR unchanged and converted to sRGB in PS for the website, and in the second, the same but using LR's AUTO button, but then tweaked by myself in LR to what I thought was better using a few of sliders. Finally, in the 3rd, I did all the adjustments in LR first myself, then exported to PS and used curves, levels, contrast, and finally saturation to get her blue PJ's more to what I saw them like with my eyes (lost the blue in the first two because of the flash I guess, even though it was diffused).

So the questions are:

Is it either looking as it should on someone elses monitor?

Is the 2nd image, tweaked better or worse than the first?

Is the 3rd, my interpretation, better or worse than numbers 1 or 2?

Or are all 3 not good...? :)


http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn206/pauliddon001/800rsi1.jpg

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn206/pauliddon001/800rsi2.jpg

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn206/pauliddon001/800rsi3.jpg

Paul.

[pathfinder]

Paul,

I prefer image #1 on my Apple Cinema Display that is calibrated with a Spyder2Pro.

The second seems over bright to me, and the third has too much contrast between the 1st and the third image. I can find real whites in the letters on the hat in #1, so I think there is a full range there.

Is #3 better than #1?? It definitely looks more processed to my eye with ?loss of shadow detail compared to #1.

Lets see what some of the pro image editing folks say when they drop by.

Properly calibrated screens tend to look a little lower in contrast and a different color temp than many folks are used to seeing with uncalibrated screens.

[GOLDENORFE]

#1 best for me paul, i use pantone huey by the way.

#2 way too pale & washed out.

phil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldenorfe/

ps have a look at river shot i just posted in landscapes.

[Paul Iddon]

Thanks Pathfinder.

I'll wait for more feedback.

Paul.

[Sing141]

Paul,

I just bought a Spyder3 Pro and today calibrated my monitor. Your number 1 photo looks best on my Dell monitor. Number 2 is a little washed out/overbright and number 3 has a little too much contrast. I think I would say something between 1 and 2 would maybe be even better in my screen. I asked my wife (not a photographer) to pick which she liked best and she said number 1.

I had previously used a Spyder 2 to calibrate and then bought my own Spyder 3 Pro. I could not tell the difference between the Spyder 2 and Spyder 3 calibration I ended up with on my Dell Monitor.

My biggest problem has been getting my printed photos to look like what I see on my screen, but I am beginning to figure that out and it isn't my monitor that is off.

[dwayne_bradley]

I agree with the others about #2 and #3.

Just for reference, I'm using an iMac G5 calibrated with a hueyPro (Color Temp = D65, Gamma = 2.2).

[Paul Iddon]

Thanks Phil (we must have posted almost simultaeneously, your reply didn't show until this morning!)

Cheers also Sing & Dwayne for taking the time to study the shots and the feedback.


Paul.