Wanted to thank everyone for totally depressing me by showing the incredible variation of our monitors. :) Ah well, such is life. Anyway, one thing I noted was that somehow I got use to looking at very warm skintones. I've tried to compensate for that in these. The skin should still be warm, just not as deep as the previous ones. Of course, now I've found that monitor calibration page, watch it throw everything out the window. I really do need to invest in a monitor calibration tool and take all the guesswork out of this. Just for piece of mind it has to be worth the $200.

Pantone Spyder with PhotoCal
Just did some checking ... Pantone's monitor calibration tools, the Spyder with Photocal, is now only $149. Going to research other ones out there (although, Pantone is pretty damn solid when it comes to color matching), but I think I am going to have to pick either this up (probable) or some monitor calibration tool.

-=>Donald

doin the cobra dance k- Donald... but i think our monitors match up pretty close these are too cool... hard to say which, out of this group, is my fave, luv all 3, but that 3rd one really shows the total package & i really do luv that outfit! could you nab it for me? :]

...monitor calibration tool? These spyder thingies have been around for quite a few years, and $149 is pretty cheap. There can't really be much electronics involved. A sensor of some sort. Maybe, if its fancy, a red, green, and blue LED as color references... Maybe... You already have a much more precise color sensor. I wonder, if you'd generate a neutral gradient in Photoshop, and then photograph it with your Canon, and then compair the two... Interesting mathematics. Think I'll go back and read that aim-dtp.net article a bit more carefully...

Colorimeters are more precise than most people think and a lot more complex - I've had to disassemble a few (both monitor and print based). They use precise sensors for measuring chrominance on multiple wavelengths (most of the really good ones work by measuring at least 7 wavelengths for chrominance). CMOS and CCD arrays don't have a precise enough color balance and neutrality across all elements (most of the sensors don't even have an even distribution of RGB - most are RGBG based). Not enough precision for profiling. The company I mentioned in my IM makes a product that is perfect for digital photographers who print their own stuff. Extremely high calibration/profiling of both the monitor and sRGB printers for precise color workflow (most new photo printers, even though they are CMYK based, use the sRGB colorspace to try and match what the user sees on his/her screen). But the package costs $1500. They make a monitor calibration only package that's $250. Seriously thinking about that one. BOING Hey Misha! I just thought of something, it just popped into my head for some reason. You were talking about the difference in your two monitors. I wonder, does Windows allow you to utilize 2 color profiles at once, one for each of your monitors, or is it using only 1 profile? If it only uses one then you have one monitors that is correct and one that is a bit whacked out because it's not displaying color using it's own profile. Know what I mean? -=>Donald -=>Donald

these are lovely images. the colour looks less saturated and natural than the previous set.

Can I ask why you need to have such precise results Donald if its for the Web the variation between different set-ups makes it a waste of time... And if it is for colour printing Why not save the best settings for your Printer? Or have I missed the point? I use the Adobe tool to set up my system and the Colour Prints from my Canon A3 are superb after some tweaking..

The output for the web is a secondary consideration, but it would be nice if people actually saw my images the way I intended them to see them ... it's a dream I have. Having a correctly calibrated and profiled monitor is the first step in having control over your output. The next step is having a correctly profiled printing device. If your workflow is calibrated, then there is no need at all for tweaking. No experimentation. You just hit print and out it comes. So, for instance, if everyone here had a correctly profiled monitor, we would all see images pretty much the same (all makes of monitors have slight variations in their colorspace size, but it's probably not something we can detect by eye). I know, that's not going to happen. So why bother? I not only print my own photos, I also send them away to be printed (there are several places I send digital images where they output them onto photo paper). If I have a calibrated display and I know that the companies I use have calibrated output devices, then what I see before I send them the file is what I will get back from them. No surprises. No wasted money. -=>Donald