I'm getting a 27" imac to use for photo editing and had a question. I plan on using windows and OSX and wondered if I would need to make a separate calibration for windows and OSX? I will be using a Spyder 4 Pro.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Calibration
- Thread starter Kayakphotos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If I recall, you will not be "calibrating" but creating profiles so as the other person said, yes for both. Calibration is done to monitors and what you are doing is not really changing anything about your monitor but providing a profile that the monitor will use.
Huh? I've never heard of this distinction. Yes, you will create a profile, but in the end you have a calibrated output. Also factory calibration does not change anything about your monitor, it's just that the profile is saved someplace else.
Forget about factory calibration. All panels drift overtime.
You are creating a profile which is correct. This is a software calibration.
The only thing better is if your monitor has a LUT (look up table), then you can do a hardware calibration. I do this with an i1 pro on my Spectraview 241.
But doing a software calibration is probably 95% as effective.
You are creating a profile which is correct. This is a software calibration.
The only thing better is if your monitor has a LUT (look up table), then you can do a hardware calibration. I do this with an i1 pro on my Spectraview 241.
But doing a software calibration is probably 95% as effective.
We are in agreement and I have an NEC monitor as well. The main distinction between the two - proper equipment for hardware calibration tends to be more accurate than many software "profilers." We see that not all "Calibration" meters with software behave the same or give identical results - Spider, Munki, Huey etc. Some of the latter do better on some monitors over others and this too should be a consideration. I'll just say that if a profiler is being used, best to explore and research which ones work best with Mac screens as well as being prepared to do the profile exercise on a schedule as screens drift et al.
In both cases, you do hardware calibration (as opposed to software calibration tools which rely on the user's eyes), the only difference is where the profile is applied and the quality of the equipment (a $70 hardware/software combo can't be expected to perform as well as a $$$$ calibration tool). (The way you distinguish between hardware and software calibration is new to me.) If you have an expensive screen, the profile changes the LUT rather than the OS. Often these LUTs have a color depth of 10 bit or more, so the calibration can be more nuanced. But in principle, you're doing the same thing, and you rely on hardware to do the measurements.
We have to be careful here. For 70 bucks you get a Colormunki Smile or a Spyder4Express which haven't got an ambient light sensor. So your ambient light won't be considered to correct brightness or contrast of your screens.
For some more money you get a Spyder4Pro for around 140$ which will calibrate to ambient light. Furthermore the Spyder4Elite costs more but will only vary in software functions...
I calibrate with the Spyder4Pro since 2 years and work as a professional photographer. I never had issues of color results not being as expected.
Yes.
The spyder 4 Pro is good, ive used spyder for years on my Dell's and at present on my u3011, and will continue to do so on my future iMacs once they upgrade the displays to the rumoured 4K. just make sure you have the spyder profile selected in display settings.
You should really control the lighting where you edit, rather than use the ambient light settings on any calibrator.