Just a cactus

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:13 am

lauriek wrote:These look a lot better to me!!

Does anyone here actually run calibrated monitors (I mean calibrated with a proper hardware dongle, not by eye) and if so what hardware do you use, and how do you find it?

Craig how easy do you find the S3 to use, and do you recalibrate regularly?

I calibrate my monitors with Eye1 (colorimeter) and iMatch (software) from Gretag-MacBeth. But it is a software calibration, i.e. the parameters of the video card are changed. For me this is sufficient right now.
The much better solution is, of course, hardware calibration where the parameters are written to the LUT of the monitor itself. However, these monitors are much more expensive.
My EIZO 2431 cost a bit more than 700 EURO. The one I would have liked but could not afford (EIZO CG241, which allows hardware calibration) ) costs twice as much.

There are several options for calibration devices: GretagMacBeth, Spyder, Monaco, basiccolor, EIZO offers its own software (color navigator). etc. They all are around 250-300 EURO (colorimeter + software) at the moment. Probably the best affordable software currently is that of basicolor. They have their own colorimeter but it also runs with Eye1 (being the same build).

In my opinion it is worth the investment. Initially I calibrated my monitors with Adobe Gamma and was astonished how different everything looked when I first used a colorimeter.

But be prepared - color management has a certain learning curve.

Cheers

lauriek · Post by **lauriek** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:52 am

Thanks for the info! I'll have a look around the net at these devices. I just got a new monitor and suspect it's not calibratable in that way and I'm not about to update it again so the colorimeter option sound like the way to go for now.

As you say this adjusts the video card settings, do you need to be careful to get a colorimeter (or rather the software) which works with your particular card or do they all work in a generic way with all cards?

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:10 pm

lauriek wrote:As you say this adjusts the video card settings, do you need to be careful to get a colorimeter (or rather the software) which works with your particular card or do they all work in a generic way with all cards?

Basically, they all work similarly. Some make better profiles for the shadows other work better for the highlights, but meanwhile they are all good.

I think I have heard that some may have problems with 64-bit OS's, but I am not sure about that. I run Vista Ultimate 64-bit and had no problems whatsoever with Gretag MacBeth's imatch software. In case of GMB you only pay for the colorimeter, the software can be downloaded for free from their website, that means you always have access to the latest version.

It does not depend on your video card. My old PC had on-board graphic and it also worked.

If you decide for Gretag MacBeth and have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I can guide you through the steps, but it also has a more or less automatic setting.

Cheers

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:32 pm

Laurie,

The Spyder3 Pro works fine for me. I brought it out of the US for about $80.00. I needed the 'pro' version because that will handle a dual monitor setup.

The Spyder came highly recommended and after using it I can only pass on that recommendation. It is a gem.

My video card is a dual DVI Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX. It is running 2 Samsung 226BW 22" LCDs (TN). One is an "S" panel and the other is a "C" panel. The Spyder sorted them out. The "S" was good to go out of the box; but the "C" needed the Spyder. The difference between an "S" panel Samsung 226BW and a "C" or "A" panel Samsung 226BW is well documented on www.behardware.com

I re-calibrate once per month.

I think it's time we started a new topic in regard to Monitors and Monitor Calibration. There has been some important information discussed in this thread.

Craig

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:35 am

Strange how my original post has brought up the subject of monitor calibration on a couple of posts. Somebody on another site recommends the following, but cautions it is far more expensive than a Spyder:-

http://www.xritephoto.com/index.cfm?menuitemid=649

There is a review on Spyder here:-

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/arti ... r2pro.html

Personally I am not sure I can justify the cost of a hardware monitor calibrator, even if I knew how to use one. I am not a computer geek so don't like fiddling with them too much unless I scramble everything and can't put it right again!

DaveW

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:47 am

Dave,
The Spyder is easy to use. Just need to install the software and hang the Spyder (spider) over the front of your monitor. There are many things you can tweak, or you can just let the Spyder go for it. It is a smart little beast!

There have been some improvements and enhancements made with Spyder3 as opposed to Spyder2.

www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/pro ... elite.html

Craig

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:05 am

Harold Gough wrote: Parodia/Notocactus have at least yellows, oranges, reds or purples

You misquoted me Dave!

Perhaps you have a shot of N. ubelmannianus to post as your pennance?

I have just decided to ask my agency to let me have a CD of their scans of my cactus trannies, which include the above species. Then, if I can get the hang of the Photoshop, etc. software, I may be in the position to make some postings of my own. It would not be good for your health to hold your breath on this issue!

Harold

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:11 am

lauriek wrote: Does anyone here actually run calibrated monitors (I mean calibrated with a proper hardware dongle, not by eye) and if so what hardware do you use, and how do you find it?

I'm not sure how far one should go with calibration. After all, if you view your monitor sometimes in daylight, on sunny days and sometimes at night, by incandescent light what are you calibrating for? If you are adjusting colour balance in your images by eye surely there will be inconsistencies.

Harold

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:36 am

Harold,
The various colorimeters mentioned take ambient light measurements and can adjust accordingly on-the-fly. I have this feature turned off because my setup is static.

Craig

Aynia · Post by **Aynia** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:01 am

I don't have my monitor calibrated but sometimes print out on my small canon selphy printer to see what the colours are like.

However in relation to colour/monitor calibration, how come there is a difference in various printers and a bigger difference when sending stuff off to get printed professionally?

Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:19 am

Colorimeters: When I decided for the i1/iMatch combo, the Spyder package was not very reliable - it was particularly weak in dealing with shadow detail. And still, although Spyder3 has improved considerably, I have heard many complaints about inaccuracy in color metering. There has to be a reason why it's cheaper than others

.

Anyway, when you use Spyder3, be sure to have the latest software. If 100 $/€ more or less are not an issue and you are after professional stuff I would recommend the basiCColor/Squid or iMatch/i1 packages.

Aynia wrote:However in relation to colour/monitor calibration, how come there is a difference in various printers and a bigger difference when sending stuff off to get printed professionally?

Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Also printers have to be calibrated so the prints match the calibrated monitor. In fact you would need a profile for each individual paper type.

The problem with printing by companies (even when they claim to be professional) is that very often the files are digitally enhanced, producing over-saturated colors, or use wrong profiles or lack of printer maintainance, or the customer sends files in a color space they cannot reproduce. The reasons are manifold.

When I send files to be printed externally (very rarely) I insist that no enhancements are carried out. Sometimes I even ask for their printer/paper profile and convert the files to this profile but then it is important to let them know, otherwise a double profiling would throw the colors completely off.

That is why I print most of my stuff at home on my Epson R1800. I have not calibrated my printer because I use genuine Epson inks and Epson paper and the profile provided by Epson are quite good. Also, the calibration tools for prints are far more expensive than those for monitors.
If I had the money and were a nit-picker I would of course create my own profiles for all my paper types and use an RIP. But that is beyond my financial possibilities and also beyond my needs.

The only time I have some of my pics printed externally is when I need larger formats than the A3+ my printer can do, or when I have to print many copies of photos which is then cheaper than doing it at home.

Cheers

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:13 am

The main use for calibration as I understood it Anyia was to make your printers print out match what you saw and Post Processed on screen. Or in the case of the professionals to get the same colours when printed out in books or magazines as they see on their screen. Just calibrating the monitor (as I need) does not mean my printer will reproduce what I see on the monitor, but then I only print out pictures once in a blue moon so that does not bother me.

Not sure I did misquote you Harold, I was referring to Notocactus sensu stricto, not as part of the enlarged genus Parodia sensu lat. As half a penance anyway here is a Notocactus uebelmannianus , but an intermediate form collected by Hofacker, not the intense purple one.

N. uebelmannianus was described based on the purple flowered form which in fact is untypical of the population since the commonest flower colour is yellow (although this was described as v. flaviflorus). I cannot remember the percentage now but the purple form only comprises a minor part of the population, and both colours evidently grow together in places. Obviously there are also intermediates like the plant above.

DaveW

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:26 am

Here's another form called by Prestle "Notocactus oligacanthus" but obviously an N. uebelamnnianus. Prestle was notorious for giving every slight variation a new name. Incidentally on the transfer to Parodia, as a Parodia uebelmanniana already existed and so took priority, N. uebelmannianus was re-named Parodia werneri but in the latest treatment has been reduced to synonymy under Parodia crassigibba.

DaveW

augusthouse · Post by **augusthouse** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:16 am

Dave,
They are beautiful. Your photographs have certainly helped me to appreciate these guys more.

I feel inclined to buy some and add them to my 'growing' bonsai collection.

My grandfather had a thin cactus (excuse the common language). It was about 12" tall and it only flowered once every seven years; but when it did it was magnificent! A single, light-purple cup-shaped flower about half the size of a teacup.

I do have a photo of it somewhere that I took when I was knee-high to a grasshopper. I was told it would flower one day so I waited and waited - with the usual patience of a child - and one year - for one day, it did!

My camera at the time would have been a Practica - it was all I could afford. I still have the original written receipt of my first B/W darkroom outfit. I had it all on 'layby' and would peddle my bicycle into town each week to pay off a bit at a time (a grand total of $110.00 which seemed like a fortune at the time). Ahhh, I can still smell the 'fixer'.

Larry,
You've raised another important matter in this thread - printing. That also certainly deserves a dedicated discussion. It isn't talked about all that often; but it should be. Afterall, it is the 'other end' of our digital darkroom if our intention is to make 'hard copies'.

I would be interested to hear about your experience with the Epson R1800. I've had my eye on either the R1800, R2400 or the A4 R800. It was the pigment ink and the range of textured archival quality paper that caught my interest; plus I've always been inclined to use Epson printers; I don't think there was originally any particular reason for this preference.

I have a printing consultant here in Australia who is passionate about his output and the materials he stocks and sells. He is also a wealth of information and quite happy to pass his knowledge on. When he talks about paper he uses the word 'beautiful'; that's always a good sign when looking for a printer for those bigger jobs.

http://www.imagescience.com.au/index.html

Craig

rovebeetle · Post by **rovebeetle** » Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:51 am

augusthouse wrote: I would be interested to hear about your experience with the Epson R1800. I've had my eye on either the R1800, R2400 or the A4 R800. It was the pigment ink and the range of textured archival quality paper that caught my interest; plus I've always been inclined to use Epson printers; I don't think there was originally any particular reason for this preference.

Since there is no Larry in this thread I guess you mean me

.

The R1800 and R800 are virtually identical, the difference is just A4 vs A3+. Both printers are excellent, but the 2400 is even better from what I have heard. I am not really familiar with the 2400 regarding the inks it uses, but it is said that it produces the better B/W prints. The previous two have a tendency to have slight color casts when printing B/W.

Otherwise you can't go wrong with either of these, just make sure that you print something at least every 2 or 3 weeks because the print head is more prone to clogging because of the pigment inks. I had a Canon i950 before and thought it was good but when I saw the shadow detail that the Epson produced I was hooked.

Concerning paper - there is a wide variety that can be used (not only Epson brand). I mostly use Premium Glossy and Archival Matte (not sure if the names are still the same), but you can also use some heavy weight hand-made paper by Hahnemuehle if you want fine art BW prints.
The 1800 and 2400 also take roll paper which is fine when you want to print panoramas or other unusual formats.

Something else I can recommend is a little piece of software - Qimage - probably the best affordable printing software out there. It is cheap and once you are registered you have life long free upgrades:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/
Especially handling of profiles is very convenient and much easier than printing out of PS.

Hope this helps
Cheers