Digital photo geek questions

[goodtimes]

So I'm not really a photo geek...but am taking on a project this summer that will force me to act like one. But that is easier said than done...so I have a few questions.

First, what is everyones take on monitor profiling? I'm talking about going beyond Adobe Gamma...something along the lines of Monaco Optics XR (or other similar products).

How about the Gretag-Macbeth color checkers? Using their 140 color digital card, would it be wise to create a profile for each lens used on the same body? Or would it be overkill to try to profile each lens since the sensor stays the same? Should I skip this all together (saving $140 in the process) and simply calibrate and profile the monitor, then manipulate the image to achieve the color(s) that I want, regardless of what the natural colors are (were)?

The stuff is expensive...but I am concerned about spending alot of time getting the colors right during post-processing, then having them shift when they are printed...what other options are out there? (or am I just being paranoid....)

 

[DaveInDenver]

My monitor has a profile and I do adjust the gamma, even running a ColorVision colorimeter once (my sister is a graphics artist). At the newspaper everything was calibrated, as is the case with any good graphics place. It's important to calibrate your monitor to the final output so that once you have your source your adjustments result is exactly what you want when it's printed. I'm not hip to all of the ins and outs, but with the web it seems less critical because no one zeros their monitors anyway. You are not being paranoid, if your target is a printer, then calibrating is one of the most basic things you should do. All printhouses and photo processors will provide you profiles for their equipment so that you get your color balance right. If they don't, they are not worth using IMO.

 

[jeffryscott]

I wouldn't bother - do Adobe Gamma and make it good. There are too many variables to do it. Since you are not a production house, a monitor calibration tool is overkill. As Dave said, you need to calibrate to your final output, and since you don't know what that is, anything on your end other than the basics is too much.

A printing house is going to have it's own set of numbers that every image goes through. Sso as long as you give them a clean image, they will be fine. If you do too much to an image, it makes it harder for the final imager to make it right. Every step you do at your end is taking original information away. Leave the image as intact as possible.

The cameras with auto white balance do a good job out of the box. Focus more on your exposures, etc ... when you take the picture. Also, with the Canon's I tend to underexpose by anywhere from 1/3 to 1 stop. They seem to be biased a little hot.

 

[bigreen505]

First, what is everyones take on monitor profiling? I'm talking about going beyond Adobe Gamma...something along the lines of Monaco Optics XR (or other similar products).

Personally, I think it is absolutely critical. I need to know that what I see on the screen is reality, and I need to know that when I send a file to my printer or to my lab there will be no surprises. However, I'm exceptionally picky.

How about the Gretag-Macbeth color checkers? Using their 140 color digital card, would it be wise to create a profile for each lens used on the same body? Or would it be overkill to try to profile each lens since the sensor stays the same? Should I skip this all together (saving $140 in the process) and simply calibrate and profile the monitor, then manipulate the image to achieve the color(s) that I want, regardless of what the natural colors are (were)?

I'm a profiling freak and beyond monitors I have a profile for every paper that I use, and every printer and paper combinations used for each of the labs I work with. I also have several profiles that I use for my cameras for different lenses (Zeiss is cool, Leica is warm) and different skin tones and saturation levels. However, I think profiling a camera in that manner with a Gretag is generally unnecessary. Instead, consider borrowing or renting a MacBeth ColorChecker, photograph it in the light conditions you typically shoot in and with all your lenses. Use the Fors Calibrator to develop a calibration for each lens, average the results and use those numbers for ACR or Lightroom.

The stuff is expensive...but I am concerned about spending alot of time getting the colors right during post-processing, then having them shift when they are printed...what other options are out there? (or am I just being paranoid....)

For about $150 or so you can get a Monacco Optix XR or Gretag I1. This is good enough for most uses and most people. Stay away from any calibrator whose name sounds like an arachnid -- they are bad news (expensive and subpar). If you really want to do it right, $325 gets you a copy of ColorEyes Display and a X-rite DTP-94 puck. I suppose you could also go full bore and get the package from Gretag that will profile anything for $1,500 - $3,000 depending on your needs and make your own printer profiles too, but I prefer to have printer profiles made for me and then run a linerization periodically.

 

[GunnIt]

Get one of these: http://www.colorvision.com/product-mc-s2p.php
I use this device on all my monitors and inform everyone that I sell photos to that the photos are already color corrected.

 

[goodtimes]

I wouldn't bother - do Adobe Gamma and make it good. There are too many variables to do it. Since you are not a production house, a monitor calibration tool is overkill. As Dave said, you need to calibrate to your final output, and since you don't know what that is, anything on your end other than the basics is too much.

A printing house is going to have it's own set of numbers that every image goes through. Sso as long as you give them a clean image, they will be fine. If you do too much to an image, it makes it harder for the final imager to make it right. Every step you do at your end is taking original information away. Leave the image as intact as possible.

Actually, I am hoping to take some "artistic freedom" with the images...and really don't want anyone mucking with them after I decide I like them. The original train of thought (which is definately open to change...) was to do all the post processing, typesetting, etc myself. Basically I plan to give a [very large] file to whatever printhouse and have them simply print, cut, cover and bind. Should I reconsider that?

The cameras with auto white balance do a good job out of the box. Focus more on your exposures, etc ... when you take the picture. Also, with the Canon's I tend to underexpose by anywhere from 1/3 to 1 stop. They seem to be biased a little hot.

funny you should mention Canon's tending to overexpose....I have had other people tell me that...but, mine tends to underexpose during good light (morning, evening), and seems spot on during the heat of the day. I have my camara set to automatically overexpose by 1/3 of a stop, which gets me pretty close until the sun gets pretty high, at which time it overexposes the images. I do shoot in RAW so I can help cover my mistakes a little easier (and I make lots of them...:smilies27).