[argyllcms] Re: Monitor calibration
- From: adam k <aak1946@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:18:23 -0500
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:
