PC Monitor Colour Calibration - Worth it ?

Hi All,

Just after opinion as to if its worth attempting to calibrate our basic monitor to give more accurate images from our old Moto g3 phone 13mp or Cannon 16mp compact camera.

The screen is just a 24" LG type 24MK400H with PC onboard Intel HD4400 graphics.
LG 24MK400H 23.5" Full HD 75Hz LED Monitor - 24MK400H-B

In the past using such photos, colour accuracy has not really be a problem, but taking photos of some hobby flowers has shown the supple differences between the real thing and the images.

We can correct them by using photo editing tools, but thought it might be simpler to first adjust the monitors colours etc.
Know years ago it was just down to matching with Pantone cards but seems now its done with expensive screen detectors.

So for the equipment we have, it is worth spending time and money on trying to calibrate it, or better just editing the individual photos ?

Or are there some simple methods / tricks to help us non techie folk along ?

thanks

 

Hello @ricky101

I would say that it is absolutely worth it, it makes working with Photos, either Local or Online so much better.

Over the years I have always Calibrated my screens with the Datacolor Spyder systems.

I hope this helps.

Kevin

 

You should not confuse calibration with editing.
I am not saying this as some given rule from the gods of photography, but rather as something which will save you lots of trouble on the long run.

If you were to use just one single monitor, one video card and one printer all your life long, and if all of your photographs were meant to be seen exclusively through your monitor and the prints you make, there would be no true advantage to calibrating.
You could just edit your image the way you want them to look on your monitor, using pantone reference card as a starting point and tweaking them to look the same when you print, and that would be all.

However, your photographs are likely to be seen on a variety of devices and monitors, and printed with different devices over the years.
For instance, lets say that you spent lots of time editing some images today. They look good on your monitor, just the way you want, and similar enough on prints.
Then next year you get a new monitor and/or computer and get rid of the old one.
All of sudden your old images will look different, not anymore like you decided. The image files are exactly the same, but the colour space of your monitor is different. You might be unable to tweak it to bring the look back, also because you do not have a reference image anymore, it is all gone but perhaps for some prints which might be similar enough.
This happens because your final editing was not independent from your hardware. It was a combination of the image file data, which are the same, and your hardware, which is not. Incidentally, even the same hardware can drift in colour rendition over time, so even keeping the same monitor for years and years is not a truly effective solution.

And of course, there are all the people who will be looking at your images through their monitor. Which migh be bad or good, well set ot not, calibrated or not. You have no control over that. Actually, I knew a very dedicated photographer who specialized on winning online competitions. He did all his final editing on two pretty mediocre monitors, and did his best to make them look great on those. Any delicate gradients and shades which did not show there, he dumped. And of course he won tons first prizes partially because of that.

So, it really depends on your aims.
But even if you only publish for the web, calibration allows you to keep the look of your edited image reasonably similar now and forever.
In any case, good screens calibrated by the producers are becoming increasingly more common on all devices, so chances are that many viewers will see something close enough to what you see on your calibrated monitor.

Calibration is not really a matter of making images look better or more real, when it comes to image editing. It is just a case of matching as closely as possible the colour codes in your image with what your hardware is displaying to you. The initial result might or might not be good. You then adjust it by retaking a shot with different camera settings and lenses, and/or by editing.
And the result will stay consistent across all calibrated devices you will ever use, within the limits of the hardware.

Spyder's are generally good in my experience, but there are many alternatives too. Even a cheap one will serve you well for the purposes I mentioned.

 

Hi,

@Kevin Cowans - many thanks

@Aldo - many thanks, the point very well made and well taken.

Just a couple of follow on questions if we may.

Our current cheapy LG monitor assume it would be capable/ worthwhile of being calibrated to a reasonable degree ?

If in the near future if we look to upgrade our monitor (probably 24" again) is there any brand or particular model you would say is better suited to accurate colour control ? or our kind of hobby work rather than studio work .

Lastly, have been looking at some ytubes of the Spyder X pro/elite and they do get good reviews etc though at from £160+ rather expensive, though cannot currently see any much lower priced ones that Aldo mentions, could you point us in the right directing there please ?

 

Hello @ricky101

I agree that the Spyders are relatively expensive but I can honestly say that they are worth it.

Unfortunately,, since I am only familiar with the Spyders I do not have any recommendations for others, sorry.

One thing I will say is do not go too cheap as the results are not good.

I hope the above helps.

Kevin

 

LG made so many models, meaning that could vary from absolutely rubbish to excellent, in terms of colour displaying capabilities.
Then it would depend on the state of your specific display, as I mentioned displays can deteriorate and drift over time.
Lastly, quite (in)famously, displays producers have been known to retail unders the same model code screens with quite different component. It is not infrequent to hear people suggesting to get brand Y and model X, but only if produced between certain dates, because the components changed after.
So unfortunately it is hard to give you reliable advice on your specific screen.

There are so many variables and technical sides to this. But, essentially, a capable monitor will be able to display a very fine grained range of luminosity levels between pitch dark to pure white light, without large steps. This means that, if there is details in your shadows and/or highlights, your monitor will be able to display it.
Also, it should offer a large colour range without gaps. So for each levels of luminosity, it should be able to modulate the light into a vast range of colours.
Finally, it should be able to do so all over the screen surface. Unfortunately, most screens will not perform the same at the center and towards the bezel. But a good screen will do an acceptably consistent job everywhere.

Many screens intended for different uses might not have the above characteristics and still be expensive, so the price is not necessarily a safe criteria. Some gaming monitors might favour good contrast and refresh rates, office display might need good contrast only, entertainement displays might remap to very eye catching colours, but not necessarily display a very large range of them. Most monitors will do a better job in the green range, just because our eyes are more capable in that range (microsoft backgrounds used to be very green for that reason). But beyond that, producers will cut corners to give specific end users what will impress them most but not necessarily more, and still call a display "best".

The way hardware calibration works is that the sensor will sit in front of a small portion of the screen and go through thousands colours and gradations of luminosity.
For each combination, the software will check the result and, if not what expected, will try alternative codes (basically, if the Siena Red colour code does not display that, it will try different shades of colours, looking for a close match).
If it does not find a match, it will finally resort to mapping the colour to something similar which your monitor can actually display correctly. Every time that happens, you loose a shade of colour.
The result is mapped to the LUT table, a conversion table mapping, for each colour code found in an image file, what actual code will actually be sent to the monitor instead. This table sits between colour managed applications and the monitor.
Basically, a monitor might be able to display most required colours but for each of them might need to be told a different colour instead for it to get it right. The calibration will make that monitor perform great.
But if the monitor cannot display a shade of colour properly, or if the calibration software fails to figure out how, and the result will be a compromise. Too many compromises and calibration will give you a pretty flawed result.
Here is an example of a not so cheap monitor which did not do well when tested for calibration, when using a mode theoretically superior for colour fidelity, and then calibrated well in "standard" mode:
Dell U2410 Review - TFTCentral
Meaning that it is worth reading some reviews for this kind of details.
TftCentral is a pretty good site which seem quite honest in their reviews.


Anyway..
If you have a not so good monitor, my suggestion it to perhaps ask around to see if any friend might have a spyder or other calibrator, and borrow it. See how well the calibration goes, if the software gives you an extimate of the outcome at the end.
If your model features on TftCentral, TechRadar or TomsGuide, that might give you some indications too.
Other sites could be good too, but frankly most are sponsored by producers, so not entirely reliable.
In general, calibration should at very least remap a portion of the colours correctly on most monitors. If you know for sure you will buy a better monitor at some point, it might be worth.

As for models to buy, I would give a look to monitor reviews on the sites I listed above.
In general, part of the Dell Ultrasharp range are good and sometimes reasonably affordable, IPS type screens are worth the extra expense, if you are patient and keep looking for prices and offers.
But even in the Ultrasharp range there is always been a certain variability between models, which change quite often, so your best bet is checking recent reviews. Or not so recent if you are willing to go for second hand.

As for calibrator models, sorry, I should have phrased it differently. There are not that many alternatives right now. So Datacolor, Xrite or Pantone. What I wished to say is that you do not necessarily need the top of the range models. For instance, the Elite range features are probably not very useful to most photographers. Things like automatic matching of multiple displays, print proofing extra features or projector calibration which are both limited implementations. I never used the automatic colour adjustments based on the light sensor, the last thing I wanted when editing were the colours shifting in front of my eyes every time a cloud passed by.
I did fit a gray cardboard hood to my editing monitor though, and that helps a lot.

I see that Datacolor has an Express model, which retails for £90.
Mine, which is old, was an equivalent to the Pro somewhat. But looking back 10 years, even as an open box deal it costed me not much less that £160 in today's money.
You could scout for open box or even second hand, but of course that is always a bet. There are no moving parts, so in principle they can last for a long time and are hard to break, but second hand is always a risk (he says, after having just paid for an ebay item, but anyway :D )

 

Hi @Aldo,

Many thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply, extermely helpful .

Seems like its a subject very close to your heart.

Such a lot of detail there to follow up on so if its not metioned here in this reply it does not mean its forgotten, I simply need more time to check things out in detail. ( slow worker )

I do know what you mean about screens not being made by who you think the are, had a similar experience with a Phillips TV, not made by them at all, yet wearing their badge .

Know of Toms and Tech Radar but not a regular follower, TFT Central a new one on me but will give it a good look.

Have read about the Dell Ulta Sharp monitors being good from the Computer Active magazine, begin to wish we had gone for one of them instead of this LG, though it does what we wanted at the time and nearly half the price, so no complaints.
( had been thinking of getting a second monitor just for the security cameras, well that will be my excuse for getting one !)

You mention the DataColor Express for £90 though cannot say I have found that one ?
A German ebay user is advertising a new DC Express4 for £88 but did not know there was such a model and not seen it elsewhere ?
The DC SpyderX ( no Express model) does seem the choice one for our use, which seems to be the equivalent of your Pro.

You have also answered a point I was unclear about, as DataColors video shows how you must register its software and get a code back before its enabled, so did wonder how you go on for different monitors and pcs/ laptops, but as you say borrow one , assume there is no restriction in doing so ?

thanks again !

 

I used to be obsessed with photography, for 15 years or so, but I distanced from it several years ago because it was a bit incompatible with childcare. So it has been a while since last time I installed the spyder, but I remember there was a code I had to retrieve in order for a friend to try it on his computer.
So, if you know someone they might have to deactivate the software temporarily on their system for you to try it on yours.

@Kevin Cowans How does your works? Can you install it on multiple systems?


I saw the data colour express 5 at £90 while reading up about the Elite, but there is a chance I might have seen that price on a old review or something, so the quoted price was outdated perhaps..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/datacolor-S5X100-Datacolor-Spyder5EXPRESS/dp/B00UBSL2TO
Amazon sells it for considerably more.

While I am not familiar with Xrite, the display 1 is a bit cheaper, at £120
https://www.amazon.co.uk/X-Rite-EOD...XDE4WYZ8HJF&psc=1&refRID=GX99XCGG2XDE4WYZ8HJF

The DC SpyderX looks good, as it supports some current technologies, so it is perhaps more future-proof than older models.

Of the sites I mentioned, TFT Central is perhaps the most reliable, because they test all displays through the same procedure. Just, the amount of details they give can get a bit confusing and time consuming to unravel, at least for me.
They typically publish lists of suggested displays at regular intervals, and that is a good reference.

You are of course right about brands sometimes lending their badge to subsidiaries with completely different production lines. But what I was referring to is a bit different.
Basically, it is not infrequent for Dell, for instance, to start producing a model with a very high quality IPS panel, for instance, with great coverage of the colour space and perhaps no bleeding.
After 6 months or one year, they quietly start installing in that model a lesser panel.
Sometimes it is just a cost cutting decision, or their provider let them down and so they have to find alternatives.
But, to be frank, often it is simply a strategy. They know that people read reviews, but lots of reviews are just plagiarism of a few sites which actually test things well. Also, most reviews, and relative copies, are produced within the first months a product gets launched.
So, if the brand impresses reviewers with a top notch panel, that will generate tons of good feedback, which will stay there for years and years. When they switch components to cheaper ones, of course many sites will warn about it, but it will take digging to find them, the bulk of visible information will be still the older positive reviews, and people will buy based on that..
They do the same with laptops. My Dell laptop originally shipped with the fastest solid state drive you can find pretty much, and people were raving about it.
The one I received shipped with a very fast drive, but not that top one they sent to reviewers. My hard drive is still plenty fast, but if I had bought a panel covering only 80% Adobe space rather than 95%, at full price, well, I would not be very pleased :D

 

Hello @Aldo

Regarding installation of the Spyder software on multiple systems, I have never had an issue, just enter the Serial Number and away you go.

Unfortunately, I can not guarantee that will be the same now as things do change.

Kevin