Are you calibrated? (Part 2)

Now that you know that you should calibrate your display (wasn't my last post convicing enough?) I'll explain the technical side of the why & how. Actually, a recent discussion with an email friend gave me the clue...

There are software calibrations programs around, there are websites that have some helping graphics to let you adjust your monitor, etc. etc. I've learned that Apple computers have a built in software calibration tool. Thats a step into the right direction (and I was tempted to believe that software calibration is actually good enough - for far too long).

How does software calibration work? Some website or program displays some sort of pattern around a solid colored block, and with half-closed eyes you have to adjust the brightness and color of your monitor until it all appears as one solid shape (with half closed eyes only, of course). Or you have to adjust your monitor until you can keep very similar shades of white and black/dark grey apart (been there, done that, got the T-Shirt).

The problem with that is... can you trust your own eyes? Well of course the answer is: no, you can't. Our eyes are an enormous miracle of creation (or whatever you believe in). The problem is the brain attached behind it, the "interpreter" of what you see - it adapts to lighting conditions and all kinds of ambient influences.

So (one of) the refined question(s) is: is the white you're seeing really white? Remember that neutral white is at 6500K for sRGB. How do you determine the color temperature of your monitor with your own eyes? It's impossible. And even if you adjust your monitor to 6500K (or the closest match) in the settings menu - can you really be sure that it is actually 6500K? You can't.

And thats not limited to neutral white, of course. How about gamma? And what is really neutral red, green and blue at different intensities (talking about RGB values here). It may very well be that the tonality of your monitor for red at 128,128,128 is different than at 255,255,255. What you need is proof!

Since you can't trust your eyes you need proof from someone/something that is absolutely neutral. That proof is this little magic device called "colorimeter", "spyder", or whatever. How does that work? You attach it to the screen, and then the calibration software displays all kinds of different levels of black/grey/white and red/green/blue. At the same time, the colorimeter measures the actual intensity and color and makes notes about the differences to what should be and what your display actually produces. These notes are collected in a color profile, and a small program loads these corrections into the lookup table of your graphics card when you boot your computer.

Of course, you can always get even better things. All the time. :-) There are hardware-calibrated monitors. They're expensive, and they're probably the real deal. You decide if its worth the money - either way, there's no way around calibration if you want predictable results. Your monitor is the starting point of your edits, and thats the first thing you should calibrate.

Waiting for spring

Nikon D70s, 1.8/50D @ f/4, 1/800s ISO200
This years february is really pleasing, no snow, little rain, mild temperatures... but nature is still mostly grey and brown, dried-out, the trees are naked or only decorated with last years old and dry foliage... these backlit reed appeared beside the track on this afternoons walk with the dog. I never thought I'd take out the camera, but you never know, and so I carried the camera bag with me just as usual. Nikon's AF1.8/50mm is partly guilty for the magenta touch. :-)

Are you calibrated? (Part 1)

There's a couple of things that I wish someone would have told me when I started using a DSLR camera, or maybe... when I found out that I really enjoy photography and want more from my pictures. One is shooting raw from day one... and the other is: calibrating your monitor.

One important lesson is: people don't listen. I've read it on countless websites about photography: calibrate your monitor. I didn't listen, and instead I tried to "soft calibrate" my monitor with the software package that came with it, adjusting brightness and contrast with half-closed eyes with the aid of some patterns on some websites, and whatnot.

I tell you something... its FUTILE. You just can't manually/software calibrate your display correctly. My monitor was too bright - therefore all of the prints were too dark, of course (look back at the "woes of printing" post from that era!).

Now my display is calibrated with the aid of an unexpensive Spyder2Express (there are other calibration devices, of course), and DARNIT, I should have done that earlier! At least when I switched to shooting raw. Working with a calibrated display means editing photos with confidence. And indeed, the printouts are exactly what I want them to be. (and the automatic white balance control of the camera is surprisingly accurate as well:-)

My point is not to tell people that they should calibrate their display (that information is everywhere, and did I listen? Noooo). The real point is that people should listen what others who've been down this road have to say. I've had one or the other discussion in internet forums and via email in the meantime, and its quite interesting how similar all of these discussions are: Those who haven't calibrated their display (yet...) think its not really necessary until they "get more serious". Those who already have a calibrated display fully agree that its one of, if not THE single most important thing to do when you're working with digital photographs.

But which is the moment that you are getting "more serious"? When you switch to raw? (good point - remember that I wish I would've used raw from day one:-) Either way... its too late for all the photos you took earlier! Most of my photos from the "uncalibrated era" are too dark and I have to fix them by adding some fill light. Thats half a year of photos that could be better.

And btw. - its the same with raw. And tripods. And filters. :-)