[argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
- From: Roger Breton <graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:21:24 -0500
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:
