[argyllcms] Re: Display of iMAC

On 2008 Jul 27, at 10:30 AM, edmund ronald wrote:

> In a  single-user context one  has more latitude to  construct a
> color-managed system. If the iMac  is the only display,the white
> point settings aren't  critical as it doesn't need  to match any
> others as regards luminosity  or color temp. Furthermore, if you
> don't  happen  to own  a  color-stabilized  light-box, then  the
> precise color temperature  of the white point of  the display is
> -in  my personal  opinion- a  matter of  preference rather  than
> necessity.

Considering  the  radical  shifts  in  the  color  temperature  of
daylight  from one  hour  to  the next,  I'd  suggest that  you're
spot-on. Having the  white point  be on  the daylight  locus would
seem,  to  me,  to  be  /far/ more  important  than  a  particular
color  temperature,  *UNLESS*  you're trying  to  match  different
sources. Indeed, I'd suggest that you  should worry more about the
color of your mousepad than if your display is calibrated to 6700K
v 6200K.

> Of  course, you  would  profit  by leaving  some  white or  grey
> borders around  your images  when viewing to  allow your  eye to
> adapt to the white point of the display.

Curiously enough, Photoshop does exactly that....

> I'm  sure  I'm  going  to  get  a lot  of  flak  for  the  above
> non-orthodox advice :)

Not from me.

> I would of course agree with Ben Goren's recommendation that the
> iMac should  be run at  minimum brightness. I would  measure and
> then attempt to profile it at  the native color temp and minimum
> native brightness  in order to  give the profile  itself maximum
> bit-space to correct for the invariable non-linearities.

I've only  recently realized  that one need  not specify  a number
with the -t  argument in dispcal. Rather than  measure the display
and decide that, say 5200K is  close enough to the measured 5187K,
just specify -t  without a number and colprof will  use the native
white point adjusted to the daylight axis.

> By the way,  a couple of cheap clip-on Solux  lamps might make a
> good complement to  the iMac, giving you a  decent viewing light
> for prints.

I can  second that  recommendation. First time I've  ever actually
been able to put  a print / ColorChecker / etc on  one half of the
screen and not be able  to discerne the difference between monitor
and print.

A couple suggestions: measure the  color temperature of the SoLux,
and create  a profile with  that exact temperature. (Only  use the
profile when doing comparisons, and give  your eyes at least a few
minutes to  adapt.) Match the luminance by  holding a ColorChecker
(etc.) up to the screen while displaying a ColorChecker, and *move
the light* back and forth until they match.

Yeah, a $4k viewing booth with  dimmable lights and the like would
be  ideal. But, the  thing  is, Argyll  can make  it  so that  the
difference between screen and print truly is negligible. The SoLux
will be  invaluable for  me to make  the display  match real-world
objects, but,  with Argyll,  I no  longer have  to worry  about my
prints matching the screen.

Cheers,

b&

Other related posts: