Should we calibrate the 27" imac screen?

[WrrN]

@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.

I believe I confused the OP (original poster) with another poster. Ignore that.

So are you saying that you do not perform any calibration now? If so, is your printed material (subjectively) close to what you see on screen via Apple's icc?

----------

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.

Am I understanding you correctly that you perform a calibration "test" and find the original icc from Apple as very close to satisfactory?
Are you in a workflow that goes from source file to print, or just for screen use?

 

[kaellar]

In Russia, iMac calibrates you?

I guess, it's supposed to be a joke/sarcasm/both. But I can't understand it due to lack of either my English fluency or your sense of humour. Or maybe both.

 

[Mr Dobey]

I believe I confused the OP (original poster) with another poster. Ignore that.

So are you saying that you do not perform any calibration now? If so, is your printed material (subjectively) close to what you see on screen via Apple's icc?

I do not perform any calibration with my 15" Retina MacBook Pro anymore.

Of the Spyder, X-Rite and Apple profiles, Apple's is by far the most on target.


----------

Am I understanding you correctly that you perform a calibration "test" and find the original icc from Apple as very close to satisfactory?
Are you in a workflow that goes from source file to print, or just for screen use?

I am very satisfied with the calibration Apple provided out of the box. Happily it's identical on my machine to sRGB IEC611966-2.1 (ie the screen stays exactly the same when switching between sRGB.icc and Color LCD.icc)

With clients my workflow is Nikon D700 to Retina MacBook Pro.
For cross checking and just for fun I print from time to time.
I don't have my Retina iPad any more but I used to always check my photos between iPad 3/iPhone 4S/Retina MacBook Pro before sending them off.

 

[tonyep]

Did it need calibration? How significant were the required adjustments?

Yes it does.

Take this black point chart for an example.

Without calibration, values below 20 were not visible at all.

After calibration, values were visible till 15.

I do not perform any calibration with my 15" Retina MacBook Pro anymore.

Of the Spyder, X-Rite and Apple profiles, Apple's is by far the most on target.

This is totally misleading. I have both the 15" Retina and 27" iMac and on both Apple's profile, they don't look the same.

 

[mariocapo]

Does it say anything that I can see up to the 7,8,9 on my iPad (3rd Gen)? I know the screen is regarded as phenomenal as far as its sRGB profile.

Yes it does.

Take this black point chart for an example.

Image

Without calibration, values below 20 were not visible at all.

After calibration, values were visible till 15.




This is totally misleading. I have both the 15" Retina and 27" iMac and on both Apple's profile, they don't look the same.

 

[tonyep]

Does it say anything that I can see up to the 7,8,9 on my iPad (3rd Gen)? I know the screen is regarded as phenomenal as far as its sRGB profile.

That's when brightness is at maximum and the black does not appear as deep anymore.

Regarding the iMac value at 15 is cause I calibrated mine to native luminance and the xrite is compensating for current ambient light.

 

[mariocapo]

That's when brightness is at maximum and the black does not appear as deep anymore.

Regarding the iMac value at 15 is cause I calibrated mine to native luminance and the xrite is compensating for current ambient light.

I see. So when my 27" iMac shows up, I should probably expect to not be able to see below 20 with a normal brightness setting?

 

[Mr Dobey]

@tonyep

The test photo you're using, what value does the test call for? Those images ask to adjust your screen 'until 10 disappears etc..' not more numbers the better.

A great way to see how well your screen reproduces an image (because this is what we're all going for no?) is to get a high quality magazine with well known professional photographers like Vanity Fair or Vogue (sadly a lot of photography magazines print and very low quality paper and have matching quality photographers from my experience) and than find the same photo online as in the magazine and see what .icc profile matches the print the best. Any washed out or overly dark profiles will become very apparent. Though I will only recommend this for high quality modern displays like Retina ones or Eizo screens.

Please note: For those who prefer to have more technical accuracy (ie be true to test patterns) instead of a visually appealing end product I will respect that opinion and say calibrate away! But in the field it has not worked for me

----------

Though if anyone here has the Eizo ColorEdge CG276 self calibrating Color Management monitor I would love to hear your experience!

Hopefully one day I'll work with this monitor, arguably one of the most accurate monitors on the market!

 

[tonyep]

@tonyep

The test photo you're using, what value does the test call for? Those images ask to adjust your screen 'until 10 disappears etc..' not more numbers the better.

To be able to see the gradients of shadows and highlights clearly when you do editing and subsequently outputting them to prints. With the right paper, printers are able to print as dark as roughly 10 but how are you able to tell if your monitor is uncalibrated and you are unable view it?

The purpose of calibration is to have a controlled workflow whereby you can see the same exact details during post processing and printing.

A great way to see how well your screen reproduces an image (because this is what we're all going for no?) is to get a high quality magazine with well known professional photographers like Vanity Fair or Vogue (sadly a lot of photography magazines print and very low quality paper and have matching quality photographers from my experience) and than find the same photo online as in the magazine and see what .icc profile matches the print the best. Any washed out or overly dark profiles will become very apparent. Though I will only recommend this for high quality modern displays like Retina ones or Eizo screens.

Prints in magazines are soft-proofed before printing. They are matched to the low quality paper's gamut. Having to randomly find an icc profile that match the print best defeats the purpose of calibrating isn't it? That's just trying your luck figuring it out and not having a controlled color workflow.

Please note: For those who prefer to have more technical accuracy (ie be true to test patterns) instead of a visually appealing end product I will respect that opinion and say calibrate away! But in the field it has not worked for me

----------

Though if anyone here has the Eizo ColorEdge CG276 self calibrating Color Management monitor I would love to hear your experience!

Hopefully one day I'll work with this monitor, arguably one of the most accurate monitors on the market!

If you are fine with your workflow, then that's good for you. I am merely stating my opinions.

The CG276 is not out yet, only been announced. I have been working using the CG243W and is waiting for this. That extra resolution is definitely useful.

 

[kfscoll]

This is totally misleading. I have both the 15" Retina and 27" iMac and on both Apple's profile, they don't look the same.

Same here. Out of the box, using Apple's profiles, they don't look the same. After calibration, they do look the same. After all, that's the whole point.

 

[tonyep]

I see. So when my 27" iMac shows up, I should probably expect to not be able to see below 20 with a normal brightness setting?

It's fine for general use unless you're doing color critical work.

 

[chevalier433]

Or is it factory color calibrated?

Are you a pro video editor or photographer?

 

[theSeb]

Unless you're doing work that is destined for paper publishing, then colour calibration is not that critical. If your video is destined for youtube or you create websites, then what exactly does colour calibration give you? Not much considering that people will be viewing your work on a myriad of devices all with different states of calibration.

----------

Yes it does.

Take this black point chart for an example.

Image

Without calibration, values below 20 were not visible at all.

After calibration, values were visible till 15.

Interesting. On my entirely uncalibrated 24" ACD I can see all the way to 12.

So let's say you calibrate and you could not see below 20. Now you can see up to 15. That's great. So you use those colours for some effect not knowing if people will be able to see what you've done on their screens. It seems a bit silly.