[clsmith]

I would like to know if anyone has a system for color calibrating monitors.I'm at an advertising agency and work in the prepress dept.We have several computers and when we open documents on different ones the color is different for each one.Any suggestions would be great. Thankyou CS.

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: clsmith ]

[MikeM32]

Monitor color calibration is something I've yet to see really done in any pre-press environment. My last job (first in this field) was printing to paper. We basically just accepted the default monitor colors. Paper proofs were stamped so the clients knew the colors wouldn't be "perfect", and for the most part that was always good enough. The files themselves separated to films for plates perfectly, regardless of differences in display or color printer output.

What you'll notice is even if the monitor display is perfect (although I've yet to see this myself anywhere), you'll get different color when you output to a color printer. So there's almost no "point" in over-doing it (unless your colors are way out of whack). I've seen people go nuts trying to figure this out and I've come to the conclusion that it's usually not necessary.

Your displayed colors are usually "good enough" to get the point accross to the user. Your output devices (color lasers, digital printers, color inkjet printers) are really where you "may" have to concentrate should a client demand "perfect" color on a proof (but hey, it's just a proof). If they demand perfect color give 'em a matchprint made from the actual films or a press-proof, and charge 'em extra for it. Or you could color correct to compensate for your output device, but remember you'll also be effecting the way the file separates to films or to a direct to plate system. In such a case it's best to output your films or plates from the non-color corrected file(s).

Now I actually do color correction work in dye dublimation printing to fabrics. But even here I don't believe montitors are calibrated. When we color correct we do so to compensate for the differences in the way each of our wide format printers prints to our transfer paper and then to the fabrics on the heat presses. So wer'e constantly running swatch tests and sublimating to fabric to get the color right. The irony is sometimes the customer wants us to match to our screens, and the same file will look slightly different depending on which system it's openned on. Unless they provide a print-out to match to or specify PMS colors, we really don't go nuts with it, because telling us to match to our screen is like saying "as long as blue=blue then it'll be okay"

Mike

[zilmer]

That's an interesting insight indeed. In fact I haven't heard something that stupid in a long time. You know... at least learn about monitor profiles, gammas and effect of White Point changing in Photoshop, and you'd discover how much difference does a decent monitor calibration make and how much it effects the final result. Either working with, print, web, fabrics or whatever...

clsmith: there's a lot of info on color management on Apple site (under ColorSync) + if you read the software manuals - they usually contain info about how to calibrate. If you really want a top-nocth calibration - ask a pro to do that. It's a long and time-consuming process, but it's worth it. Because "blue is not always blue"...

[andi*pandi]

I have to agree here, for pros in graphic design, calibration is nice. For pros in pre-press (scanning, output, etc.) CALIBRATION IS A MUST. Designers trust those.

I say this, because as a designer, I'm usually speccing things that relate to a PMS or swatch. If I can trust the PMS/conversion, then I'm usually ok.

I REALLY hate vendors who, when I'm about to give them a file, give me a "swatch" list of colors they can print, and ask me to backwards redesign my file to accommodate this. It's their job to calibrate their machinery to accommodate me, dammit!

Where it gets fuzzy is with images 4/c, knowing how they will print to different printers, line screen, blah blah. I sat thru the most boring seminar at seybold once, and they take home message was: make sure your lights are not fleurescent, and at least do the basic gamma corrections in your apple control panel. That will help a lot, a good monitor (lacie) will help a lot.

If you do pre-press, please I hope your company has one of those little spiders that you suction onto the monitor that calibrates, will set settings so each monitor is the same.

[careca]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>Monitor color calibration is something I've yet to see really done in any pre-press environment....
Mike</STRONG>

I had to read through this more than once to decide if it was intended to be a joke.

The fact that proper color calibration of a system can be difficult doesn't mean that it can't be done, or even more importantly, that it doesn't matter. I've spent too much time on press "over-doing it" because it matters. That's after doing all I could to see that the rest of the process was calibrated to the greatest extent possible. I shudder to imagine what the output would have been otherwise.

[MikeM32]

Well thanks for jumping down my throat But seriously, unless you've worked extensively in production then "talk to the hand". I've worked with people that have been in my line of work far longer than myself and I always hear the same thing where color output is concerned. It's not an exact science, and you'll never get the same color from one mac to another or from one printer to another.

Actually I'm only into my second "production" related art job in almost 5 years (pre-press/printing). The last company I worked for has been in business for 75 years, but only recently even adopted color proofing, prior to which black and white lasers had to be pain-stakingly marked-up for color breaks to make proofs.

So like I said if there's an environment that depends on true monitor to output device color calibration I haven't worked in it. In both cases nobody has the time to study-up or perform such calibrations.

*And* working now in an environment where we output to several of the same wide-format printers I can say that I can output to one printer from my mac at work and get totally different color than another printer (even though they are the same make/model). The monitor color wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Production art can be a thankless lot, since we usually deal with other peoples files that don't have the first clue as to what is involved in getting "their design" to press, and expect the impossible. "Your design" is not the only one we have to output, while the client is expecting the job yesterday. So it's always helpful to know what you can "get away with" if anything.

I've only tinkerred with colorsync briefly due to time constraints and like I said, there seems to be no ryme or reason to it mainly due to output devices. So to those that actually have the time to tinker with things like that, my hat's off to you.

Mike

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]

[careca]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>...

So like I said if there's an environment that depends on true monitor to output device color calibration I haven't worked in it. In both cases nobody has the time to study-up or perform such calibrations...

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]</STRONG>

Not meaning to jump down your throat, it's just that you're giving your work experience that doesn't conform to the environments that you HAVEN'T worked in. Since the original question had to do with calibrating monitors, the only possible answers are "No, I don't do it" or "Yes, I do calibrate". Your answer was "No, I don't" but you went on to justify why you don't as if coordinated calibration between the input and output parts of the system were useless to try to accomplish. In your experience this is apparently the case. In the case of MOST pre-press professionals, I venture to say that this couldn't be further from the truth. No, it's not an exact science, and it isn't a snap. But I've seen it make the difference in getting repeat business.

Here's a simple test that demonstrates the need for it: walk through a mall that has a GAP or similar stores with big picture posters of their clothes hanging right behind the actual clothes on mannequins. You will notice that the photographs are an extremely close match to the real thing.
That's not by accident. Some people sweated over every step of the production to make that happen. Again, that doesn't match your work experience, which is not a putdown of your work, it's just what happens in a lot of other work environments.

clsmith...check out the following for help in hardare/software for monitor calibration: http://www.colorcal.com/home.html

[zilmer]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>Well thanks for jumping down my throat But seriously, unless you've worked extensively in production then "talk to the hand". I've worked with people that have been in my line of work far longer than myself and I always hear the same thing where color output is concerned. It's not an exact science, and you'll never get the same color from one mac to another or from one printer to another.

...

*And* working now in an environment where we output to several of the same wide-format printers I can say that I can output to one printer from my mac at work and get totally different color than another printer (even though they are the same make/model). The monitor color wouldn't make one bit of difference.

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]</STRONG>

What the...?? If I bring you a file being prepared using my perfectly calibrated monitor (totally tested) and you print it out with absolutely wrong colors... I could only blame it on your unadjusted printers. Or on your not-calibrated monitor that you have used to adjust my file!

[MikeM32]

Originally posted by careca:
Not meaning to jump down your throat, it's just that you're giving your work experience that doesn't conform to the environments that you HAVEN'T worked in. Since the original question had to do with calibrating monitors, the only possible answers are "No, I don't do it" or "Yes, I do calibrate". Your answer was "No, I don't" but you went on to justify why you don't as if coordinated calibration between the input and output parts of the system were useless to try to accomplish. In your experience this is apparently the case. In the case of MOST pre-press professionals, I venture to say that this couldn't be further from the truth. No, it's not an exact science, and it isn't a snap. But I've seen it make the difference in getting repeat business.

Here's a simple test that demonstrates the need for it: walk through a mall that has a GAP or similar stores with big picture posters of their clothes hanging right behind the actual clothes on mannequins. You will notice that the photographs are an extremely close match to the real thing.
That's not by accident. Some people sweated over every step of the production to make that happen. Again, that doesn't match your work experience, which is not a putdown of your work, it's just what happens in a lot of other work environments.

Okay granted it hasn't been my experience to work in such environments where the client was more concerned about the color of a proof then the color of 100,000,000 finished prints. What I'm doing now is the closest I've come to working with nothing but color correction, and here there is absolutely no way to calibrate mainly due to the printers themselves. Thus the need for a team of actual artists to adjust colors. But un-like my last job, this place must get each piece perfect because the client often only ever orders a single 30 ft x 50 ft banner to hang in Madison Square Garden or someplace. These wide format inkjet printers (Rastergraphics 5440's & 5442's) run using actual ink tanks and parts similar to those I recall from my days running printing presses, and they are very tempermental to humidity and static and many other things.

Also the GAP poster analogy is good, but you do have to remember that a great percentage of the outcome of that poster is not only the result of skilled pre-press artists, but also skilled press operators.

Originally posted by zilmer:
What the...?? If I bring you a file being prepared using my perfectly calibrated monitor (totally tested) and you print it out with absolutely wrong colors... I could only blame it on your unadjusted printers. Or on your not-calibrated monitor that you have used to adjust my file!

What kind of monitor and what kind of printer? I think you're seriously missing my point even worse than I thought anyone could. If you send me a printout from your calibrated monitor and output device, it's not "my fault" I don't own the same exact monitor and printer. If my blue is a bit more magenta then yours it's because we're not using the same hardware or calibration. Plus, if you came to my place of work looking for us to do the pre-press on your job you would have been handed a list of our specifications including hardware. So you should have known this coming in.

If you still want your colors on the proof to match something you must first provide something to match them to, and then realize you will be paying extra for adjusting my printout to what yours looks like. Or you could find someone that does use the exact same equipment you do, and has everything calibrated the same way you do (hey, might as well just do it yourself) it's really no sweat off my back.

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I REALLY hate vendors who, when I'm about to give them a file, give me a "swatch" list of colors they can print, and ask me to backwards redesign my file to accommodate this. It's their job to calibrate their machinery to accommodate me, dammit!

In pre-press we generally provide our clients with specifications for the files we can deal with and as much information as we can so there won't be problems getting your job to press. If you cannot meet said specifications then you have to consider paying more to get your job done. This is probably the biggest problem in this industry and why I'd rather "just" be a designer. Many (most really) designer(s) who send these files just don't seem to understand the parameters listed on a pre-press department file and equipment spec sheet, they don't understand why wwe don't have some obscure font they want us to use, they never seem to provide us with all the information we require or they do so but when the job is almost finished.

As I mentionned, at my last place of work we never dealt with a client who was more concerned about the color on a proof then what was on a finished print. Clients like JCPenney, Macy's, Kessler Financial, Merck, Wyeth, Clinique, Estee Lauder, etc., etc (to name a few). just want X (thousand/hundred-thousand/million/hundred-million) number of thier finished business forms or direct mailers (like credit card applications and so forth).

The only time I recall they ever had a client with color issues was when an image of a credit card on a credit card application didn't match on a proof which was clearly stamped that colors would not match exact press colors (standard procedure, and clearly understood by most of thier clientele). Now, what made the situation "vague" was the client didn't provide us with anything to match it to in the first place *nor* did we have any idea the color was so crucial on a proof. So (without any idea of what the customer wanted except "they didn't like the color") we provided a press-proof (at thier expense) and it matched perfectly as always. Yet they still wanted it to also match on a color laser proof, so someone had to spend days "adjusting" a stupid little tiff of a credit card just so the color on the color laser proof matched the color of the original image as it output on press. That "adjusted" file would never R.I.P. correctly to an imagesetter however.

Needless to say the special proofing image was useless once the job was finally approved and went to films as the originally supplied image separated into 4 c/p correctly from the get-go. It just amazes me that they'd want to pay $85.00 per hour for "perfect" color on a color proof when the finished print off the press was perfect from the beginning.

Mike

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]

[careca]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>
Also the GAP poster analogy is good, but you do have to remember that a great percentage of the outcome of that poster is not only the result of skilled pre-press artists, but also skilled press operators. </STRONG>

That's why I said that a lot of people sweat over it to make it happen. However, when I do pre-press for 4/C output, I am on press to make sure that the skilled press operator does his job to MY specifications, since I'm still going to be held responsible for the final product. It is up to me to be just as skilled in my work on my monitor, which brings us back to calibration from beginning to end. Now, obviously there are many situations that don't call for the same attention to detail or that you aren't getting paid to deliver that kind of color accuracy. And many people demand much more of you than you are getting paid to deliver, and they have no idea how much time and work you have to put in just to produce what, to them, should be the the logical result of your work: correct color.

Anyway, I think this whole thread demonstrates some of the frustrations that we all face in trying to deliver the best product to the largest number of clients we can. I would rather start out with a calibrated monitor, and then tackle the rest of the mess as it comes!

[Eric_Henao]

Originally posted by careca:
<STRONG>

clsmith...check out the following for help in hardare/software for monitor calibration: http://www.colorcal.com/home.html</STRONG>

Word of caution about ColorCal. The software doesn't work on a dual 450mhz G4, nor do they plan on making a patch or EVER supporting it. Check with them first before purchasing...I'm glad I asked first...

Eric Henao

[Eric_Henao]

Originally posted by careca:
<STRONG>

clsmith...check out the following for help in hardare/software for monitor calibration: http://www.colorcal.com/home.html</STRONG>

Word of caution about ColorCal. The software doesn't work on a dual 450mhz G4, nor do they plan on making a patch or EVER supporting it. Check with them first before purchasing...I'm glad I asked first...

Eric Henao

[careca]

eric...

What was the reason given, if any, for the ColorCal software not working on that particular model of Mac?

[iChaz]

I've used colorvision's spyder on lots of different Macs including several dual processor machines without problems.
Haven't run across a dual 450 yet, though.
Everyone please ignore mikem32 completely.
Just because he's worked in a whopping two print shops doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. In fact his uninformed comments prove he doesn't.
Sure, a completely icc compatible workflow takes some learning, some expense, and some testing, but the results are worth it.
The first step is always the same: calibrate and profile your monitor.
As to the original question, a good profile for each monitor will bring them closer to each other. LaCie offers a solution that makes reference profiles specifically intended for the purpose of getting several monitors to match. (LaCie monitors, of course)
Make sure that your monitors at least have the same white point/color temp selected if you're using Apple's default calibrator.

[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: iChaz ]

[Eric_Henao]

Originally posted by careca:
<STRONG>eric...

What was the reason given, if any, for the ColorCal software not working on that particular model of Mac?</STRONG>

None. They said that there were bugs that prevented it from working and that they didn't plan on providing an update to making it work.

Bugger.

Eric Henao

[buchrob]

There is, unfortunately, no magic "buy this $9.99 shareware, click on the button and all will be perfect"-solution.

For years I worked in color separation and correction and our best point of reference was our 60+year-old traditional scanner operator who had worked in an era when making it "a little more blue" involved using bleach with a fine brush on the negative to shrink or expand the halftone dots. He didn't really care if something looked a little off on the screen, because he would read a CMYK value with the Photoshop densitometer and know that adding another 1 or 2 percent of cyan or 1 percent black was going to make that gold tint turn into an ugly green, regardless of what it looked like on screen.

It's an art as well as a science.

The most successful path for my designer clients was the following: take your printed job and look at each original photo on screen. After playing with the Adobe gamma control panel for about 20 pictures, your screen will probably be adjusted as well as can be expected to the final printed result since we are, after all, dealing with completely different color spaces.