How much do you color manage?

[johnastovall]

Just who much do you manage your color? I'm not including camera caliberation but if you do select the Full.

[ndsimm]

can't afford the hardware to calibrate yet, so I am just using a calibrated image from one of my print companies and since I am also using their ICC profile, I've been satisfied so far. I plan on getting the hardware eventually, but that's my method for now...

[AlexMorse]

Don't print my own so don't need to bother calibrating any printers, just make sure it looks right on the monitor and that the print shop does things right!

[boomerd35]

I bought a Spyder monitor calibrator, but was not satisfied with my initial results. I didn't realize when I bought it that some LCD monitors can't be calibrated. I've got a cheap-o LCD monitor, and it doesn't have very many adjustments available. I need to try again, and see if I can get better results.

Troy T.

[jeffkohn]

I'm pretty obsessive about it. I use Eye-One Photo to calibrate monitor and create printer profiles. I've spent (and am still spending) quite a bit of time experimenting with settings to maximize print quality and consistency for different paper types.

[srwatters]

I use the Eye-One and have printer profiles for my labs. I do no home printing. Soft proofing in Photoshop using A/B comparisons side by side. I usually get pretty darn close to what I see on the monitor in my portfolio prints.

[adirty1]

I use the Eye One and usually it's pretty close to what i see on the monitor is what i am getting back from the lab.

[Duffy Pratt]

I do corrections on my laptop now. A small tilt in the screen, or a shift in my posture, is enough to throw the colors off. That doesn't even take into account the effect of shifts in ambient lighting.

When it comes to critical printing, I am forced to evaluate a print and make adjustments accordingly. So, for now, I'm always in a position of asking myself how much more time I want to put in to get something better.

I'm still on the low end of the learning curve, so I don't think this is too much of a problem. In general, most people think my stuff looks good and I end up being my own worst critic. Eventually, I plan on getting a new computer and a monitor that has a wider gamut. Then, I know I will have to rework a bunch of my pictures, but that's fine. I figure I've learned something since I last worked on them, and I should be able to make them better.

Does anyone know of any place where there are studies of the accuracy of different calibration techniques. Lets suppose that some independent source has determined that a color swatch has a neutral value in 16 bit of 3000, 3000, 3000 (out fo 4096). How close can a camera get to that value on successive shots? How much closer does the camera get to that value when calibrated? What effect does converting into any color space in Photoshop have on that value? What margin of error is there with a calibrated monitor? and then what margin of error is there with a calibrated printer?

Of course, in an ideal world, the swatch would end up printed a 3000,3000,3000, provided you wanted a scientifically accurate color representation. The question is: What is the likely range of error for a great, a good, a typical, and then a bad system?

Duffy

[darktiger]

I also use eye one and have been pretty pleased with it.... Makes a big difference between a calibrated and uncalibrated moniter...

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

I do corrections on my laptop now. A small tilt in the screen, or a shift in my posture, is enough to throw the colors off. That doesn't even take into account the effect of shifts in ambient lighting.

When it comes to critical printing, I am forced to evaluate a print and make adjustments accordingly. So, for now, I'm always in a position of asking myself how much more time I want to put in to get something better.

I'm still on the low end of the learning curve, so I don't think this is too much of a problem. In general, most people think my stuff looks good and I end up being my own worst critic. Eventually, I plan on getting a new computer and a monitor that has a wider gamut. Then, I know I will have to rework a bunch of my pictures, but that's fine. I figure I've learned something since I last worked on them, and I should be able to make them better.

Does anyone know of any place where there are studies of the accuracy of different calibration techniques. Lets suppose that some independent source has determined that a color swatch has a neutral value in 16 bit of 3000, 3000, 3000 (out fo 4096). How close can a camera get to that value on successive shots? How much closer does the camera get to that value when calibrated? What effect does converting into any color space in Photoshop have on that value? What margin of error is there with a calibrated monitor? and then what margin of error is there with a calibrated printer?

Of course, in an ideal world, the swatch would end up printed a 3000,3000,3000, provided you wanted a scientifically accurate color representation. The question is: What is the likely range of error for a great, a good, a typical, and then a bad system?

Duffy

You forgot using a D50 light to view the prints with.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

I do corrections on my laptop now. A small tilt in the screen, or a shift in my posture, is enough to throw the colors off. That doesn't even take into account the effect of shifts in ambient lighting.

When it comes to critical printing, I am forced to evaluate a print and make adjustments accordingly. So, for now, I'm always in a position of asking myself how much more time I want to put in to get something better.

I'm still on the low end of the learning curve, so I don't think this is too much of a problem. In general, most people think my stuff looks good and I end up being my own worst critic. Eventually, I plan on getting a new computer and a monitor that has a wider gamut. Then, I know I will have to rework a bunch of my pictures, but that's fine. I figure I've learned something since I last worked on them, and I should be able to make them better.

Does anyone know of any place where there are studies of the accuracy of different calibration techniques. Lets suppose that some independent source has determined that a color swatch has a neutral value in 16 bit of 3000, 3000, 3000 (out fo 4096). How close can a camera get to that value on successive shots? How much closer does the camera get to that value when calibrated? What effect does converting into any color space in Photoshop have on that value? What margin of error is there with a calibrated monitor? and then what margin of error is there with a calibrated printer?

Of course, in an ideal world, the swatch would end up printed a 3000,3000,3000, provided you wanted a scientifically accurate color representation. The question is: What is the likely range of error for a great, a good, a typical, and then a bad system?

Duffy

You might want to ask that question to these people.

[Gordon]

So the poll doesn't seem to include those hardy souls who also create profiles for their printers & inks & papers, as well as monitors & cameras.

CM is a multi-translation process after all, so profiling/ calibrating the monitor is just 1/3rd of what's needed (*)

I've had results beyond my expectations by using a calibrated/ profiled monitor and printer profiles from a reputable lab that spends a lot of time keeping their chemistry balanced and/or their profiles up to date. I even get okay results with the stock profiles Epson ship with their printers - when using the right paper/ ink/ printer triplet that the profile is made for.

* for arbitrarily small values of needed

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Gordon

So the poll doesn't seem to include those hardy souls who also create profiles for their printers & inks & papers, as well as monitors & cameras.

CM is a multi-translation process after all, so profiling/ calibrating the monitor is just 1/3rd of what's needed (*)

I've had results beyond my expectations by using a calibrated/ profiled monitor and printer profiles from a reputable lab that spends a lot of time keeping their chemistry balanced and/or their profiles up to date. I even get okay results with the stock profiles Epson ship with their printers - when using the right paper/ ink/ printer triplet that the profile is made for.

* for arbitrarily small values of needed

That was assumed in the Fully color managed workflow using ICC profiles option.

[Clint_Smith]

I color manage for my labs printers only...the rest of it doesn't matter because I don't sell inkjet.

[billbunton]

Full here, Eye One Photo hardware and Profile Maker Pro software (actually, I use ColorEyes for the display, PMP for printer (and camera, potentially). Don't have the scan module, so I have Match for scanner profiles).