Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by xgman, Dec 13, 2012.
Or is it factory color calibrated?
Apple says all of the new iMacs are factory-calibrated with state-of-art spectroradiometers. But I actually can't say for sure since here in Russia I haven't seen a new iMac atm.
I guess Apple is just saying that they're calibrating all monitors to their standard color profile. I'll be calibrating mine when it gets here.
I usually calibrate all monitors, but the Apple 27" colors look good from stock. Trouble is what looks good isn't always true to life for photoshop, printing etc.
Always calibrate so you know what you're looking at is true
Calibration does not last forever. Recalibrate at least once a month.
Caaaalibrate! ..... Caaaalibrate!
I have had my 27" over a year now, never calibrated (never heard of this) so from the responses I am thinking I should calibrate? But, how do you do that?
In the display settings/Color tab or better if you have a calibrator tool, but they are kind of expensive.
I calibrated mine right out of the box.
I never mess with the calibration settings on my computer. I can never get it to look "right".
Did it need calibration? How significant were the required adjustments?
Calibration is really only needed for certain professions.
Are you just browsing the web, playing games, sending emails and viewing photos? If yes, then you don't really need to calibrate.
Are you a graphic designer? photographer? web designer? publishing items for professional use? If yes, then calibration should happen often.
Just my .02c.
Not that expensive. You could pick up one for less than £100. You need to calibrate about once a month and they also take into consideration your ambient lighting and stuff. A cheap one is either a Spyder Express or ColorMunki Smile. For a bit more you get a better quality Color meter and more control with a Spyder 4 pro or ColorMunki display.
Mostly the first option, but I do use Final Cut Pro to make snowboarding videos, just amateur stuff for youtube. I ran through the calibration process but I don't know enough about that stuff and didn't make any changes.
The factory calibration of the new iMac, Retina MacBook Pro and iPhone 5 is much more accurate than a DataColor Spyder 4 or X-Rite iDisplay Pro from my experience. I have since sold both calibration tools since even in an artificially controlled D65/6500K environment they have produced terribly magenta or cyan tinted profiles.
I have not seen results of gamut percentage for the new iMac yet but both the Retina MacBook Pro and iPhone 5 produce 99% of the gamut of sRGB and therefor you see the slightest difference when changing from their factory profile to sRGB.
And since Apple keeps a very uniform calibration between all the products in their ecosystem you would literally be one in a million viewing your images with a different more 'accurate' profile. As a amateur photographer I'd rather have my photos look good to every other iOS/Mac user in the world instead of just me.
You also must also consider how much those 'pros' on the datacolor and x-rite websites got payed to say they use the respective products.
How do you know that the factory settings are more accurate than an i1d3 produces? Judging by eye? Unless you're measuring with a spectrophotometer or a better colorimeter than either of the two you listed, what you say doesn't make any sense. A color calibration performed with a accurate colorimeter is always going to be more accurate than "eyeballing" it. That's the whole point -- the devices are using objective measurements to verify accuracy. Just because you think something looks too magenta or too blue doesn't mean it's inaccurate, it just means that, subjectively, you don't like it. Any number of things could cause it to look bad to you (ambient lighting, personnel preferences, etc). Eyeballs are notoriously inaccurate calibration tools. If I want accuracy, I'd go with a decent colorimeter any day.
And to say that Apple keeps a uniform calibration between all devices in their ecosystem is hogwash. I can put two supposedly identical iPads next to each other and their white points can vary wildly. Clearly there's a large amount of allowed variance in Apple's display calibrations or you wouldn't see literally hundreds of threads of people complaining about "too red" or "too blue" or "too yellow" screens only to have those same people be satisfied when they get a replacement device that happens to have a different color tint.
Photographers generally recalibrate their screens every 2 or so months so you will be recalibrating it again anyway. May as well do it from the start to ensure continuity.
From the stated calibrators I have used they have produced a magenta hue that anyone would notice as too prominent. Taking your eyes away from a screen and then having everything still way too magenta when you return day after day is not accurate. Yes, our eyes are not machines and they do fluctuate. But it doesn't matter how optically accurate a screen is when everyone looking at it is saying "why is everything so purple?"
I'm only going off the calibrators I've used, more expensive units most likely yield better results. Though I'd be very surprised if a $162 unit like the Spyder gave better results than the spectroradiometer Apple uses.
I've used these products on my old Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, 3rd gen MacBook Air and Retina MacBook Pro, being super uptight about recalibrating about every 2 weeks. And now in retrospective my photos have turned out looking a lot better across more screens just sticking to the default profile. In other words I wouldn't recommend any of the calibrators I've used
I find this discussion interesting, however it's leaving me confused. I was always under the impression that calibration is best, even when using the less expensive Spyder4 and similar tools.
Could it be that Apple calibrates so well that we don't need to calibrate? What about for print design? I'm leaning toward calibrating, but the OP brings up some points that may be valid. Hmm?
It sounds to me like something was wrong with the colorimeters you were using. My experience has been that Apple displays vary wildly -- so much so that I can't imagine that using the default color profile would yield consistent results. The new X-Rite colorimeters are vastly improved with regard to accuracy and drift compared to any prior generation so I'd be inclined to trust one -- especially after time goes on and the characteristics of your display such that the as-shipped profile is no longer accurate (assuming it ever was).
@WrrN: what is the OP? Many say calibration is best. Having used the two mentioned calibrators I have had more luck with photo color consistency from Camera to Computer to Printer using Apple's built in .icc profile than the calibrators.
Another example in my experience was putting both to equal calibration settings (D65) and getting the following:
Spyder: Strong magenta hue
X-Rite: Strong cyan hue
So which one is more accurate? Theoretically they should be identical. At this point it's your own eye that will do the deciding, and the Apple 'Color LCD' .icc appeared most balanced.
In Russia, iMac calibrates you?
I hear ya. In my case both my rMBP and my iMac measured very close to D6500 right out of the box using my i1d3 (my iMac originally more blue than my rMBP) but the X-Rite auto-calibration software brought them both right to D6500. For what it's worth, I have two 65" Panasonic plasmas that both measured almost exactly at D6500 from 10 to 100 IRE when set to their warmest color temperature -- just I expected them to per the many reviews I've read. In my case, given the measurements I've taken and the results I've gotten, I'm inclined to trust my X-Rite colorimeter.
Also, evidently Spyder colorimeters are nowhere near the accuracy/performance of the new X-Rite colorimeters. I have no experience with this; it's just what I've heard.