[argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration

Try dispcalGUI - most advanced monitor calibrating and profiling solution.
It based on Argyll, of course.

2012/2/3 adam k <aak1946@xxxxxxxxx>

> Yes, but I'm not that good at it. Have keep learning.
>
> A Kielcz
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Aren't you using Argyll too? / Roger
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of adam k
> > Sent: February-03-12 9:55 AM
> > To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
> >
> > The lowest I can set with Colormunki software is 80. How can I try lower?
> >
> > A Kielcz
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, my NEC PA271 is adjusted for 62 cd/m2, that is plenty
> >> "bright" for everything I do. There is no need to strain one's eyes
> >> for doing color correction and the like in Photoshop. Right now, on
> >> this partly overcast winter day, there is 58 Lux @5754K falling the
> >> face of my monitor and it is very comfortable for viewing.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> On Behalf Of adam k
> >> Sent: February-02-12 11:08 PM
> >> To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
> >>
> >> Thank you everybody for taking your time and replies. I'll keep my
> >> u2410 at 80 cd/m^2 because it is very bright otherwise. Just out of
> >> curiosity I mat try 120 also.
> >>
> >> A Kielcz
> >>
> >> On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ISO-12646 suggests that 80 is good Luminance for screen to proof,
> >>> even today. 120 can be used too.
> >>>
> >>> Bottom line, trust the adapting visual mechanism to show us a good
> >>> visual match to a proof, even at the lower calibrated luminance.
> >>>
> >>> / Roger
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> On Behalf Of Philip Reed
> >>> Sent: February-02-12 7:49 PM
> >>> To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
> >>>
> >>> Hi Adam,
> >>>
> >>> 80 is quite a bit dimmer than 120.  I have a Dell Ultrasharp U2711
> >>> and calibrate to 120.  If I went with 80, I would not be able to see
> >>> detail in the dark areas or shadows and I get good matches with my
> >>> prints.  This however seems to be a very subjective topic and also
> >>> depends on your ambient lighting conditions.  I tend to edit photos
> >>> at night with no artificial lights.
> >>>
> >>> Regards - Phil (no guru either)
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> On Behalf Of adam k
> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:35 PM
> >>> To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
> >>>
> >>> I know that this group is full of gurus. I'm novice though. Is 80
> >>> cd/m^2 brighter than 120 cd/m^2?
> >>>
> >>> A Kielcz
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:35 PM, "János, Tóth F." <janos666@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It does make sense for me as my plasma display can not reach more
> >>>> than
> >>>> ~85 cd/m^2 anyway. But this is enough in a dark room.
> >>>> 80 cd/m^2 is a little too bright for web pages with bright
> >>>> backgrounds and black text but usually optimal for most of the
> >>>> movies and
> >> games.
> >>>> In a dark room which is actually not that dark if you have white
> >>>> walls and there is something on a relatively big display...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Other related posts: