raveneyes wrote:
aaaaannnnnnddddd...why are Macs better at graphics than PCs?

Because the average user doesn't have to try to make graphics work right on a Mac, and does on a PC.

http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/

Get the FUCK over yourself.  The original poster didn't even mention if the computers were MAC or PC. And yes, MACs do need to be color corrected too.

back to topic:  one of these will help.
http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profi … ent_id=401

this article might be of help too:

http://www.ephotozine.com/techniques/vi … m?recid=12

raveneyes wrote:
aaaaannnnnnddddd...why are Macs better at graphics than PCs?

I'm sorry--I normally respect what you have to say, but this is just a giant, stinky pile of misinformation.

A) Both Macs and PCs need monitor calibration.  It has nothing to do with the platform; it has to do with the nature of monitors. 

B) The link you provided is sufficient for the average user who wants to write email and look up porn, but for a photographer interested in getting a color managed workflow.

And I'm even sorrier--but the name they chose here is really funny:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/12

Gary L. wrote:
Get the FUCK over yourself.  The original poster didn't even mention if the computers were MAC or PC. And yes, MACs do need to be color corrected too.

Hrmm...and yet...even though the original poster didn't say it was a PC I knew it was! LOL

Come on guys...it's just a computer!

raveneyes wrote:
you guys are like the monitor calibration police out here.  The guy just asked if there was a way to set his girlfriends monitor so it didn't look muddy and crappy.  I wouldn't drag my monitor calibration tool out to calibrate the monitor of someone who isn't doing digital pre-press...it's too much hassle and expense.  Does anyone ever even read the original post?

You're assuming it's the girlfriend's monitor that's off and not the original poster's.  That's the problem with editing photos on an uncalibrated system and display - you have no idea whether what you're seeing on your machine is what ANYONE else will see. It's a total crapshoot, like closing your eyes before taking a photo.

raveneyes wrote:
aaaaannnnnnddddd...why are Macs better at graphics than PCs?

Because the average user doesn't have to try to make graphics work right on a Mac, and does on a PC.

http://epaperpress.com/monitorcal/

Thanks for the tip, my two 19 dell flat screens look fine

raveneyes wrote:
you guys are like the monitor calibration police out here.  The guy just asked if there was a way to set his girlfriends monitor so it didn't look muddy and crappy.  I wouldn't drag my monitor calibration tool out to calibrate the monitor of someone who isn't doing digital pre-press...it's too much hassle and expense.  Does anyone ever even read the original post?

Yup, and the answer to the original question: "Is there a standard on setting the brightness and contrast?" is: Yes, there is a standard brightness range and a standard contrast range. To get that fully correct, calibration is needed.

Now, if they're not doing color themselves, Adobe Gamma (shipped with most Adobe applications for Windows today) or ColorSync (included with the OS for Macintosh) is plenty, and each one only takes 2-3 minutes to do.

If, on the other hand, the monitor in question is older, and has been setup for game playing, or viewing in a brightly lit room, it may no longer be able to get to the defined standard, no matter what calibration tools are used.

So the short answer to the question in the original post is yes; the long answer has been given a number of times, as to how to get there.

raveneyes wrote:
you guys are like the monitor calibration police out here.  The guy just asked if there was a way to set his girlfriends monitor so it didn't look muddy and crappy.  I wouldn't drag my monitor calibration tool out to calibrate the monitor of someone who isn't doing digital pre-press...it's too much hassle and expense.  Does anyone ever even read the original post?

....its ok ......

they just dont understand....oh wait their just jealous........maybe....maybe its envy?....
or maybe they are kicking themselves for not buying one....dont know.....

hhahahahahahahahaaa (evil laugh)

...im just joking guys....i dont care who you are thats funny right there.......git er' donnnneee.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Yup, and the answer to the original question: "Is there a standard on setting the brightness and contrast?" is: Yes, there is a standard brightness range and a standard contrast range. To get that fully correct, calibration is needed.

Now, if they're not doing color themselves, Adobe Gamma (shipped with most Adobe applications for Windows today) or ColorSync (included with the OS for Macintosh) is plenty, and each one only takes 2-3 minutes to do.

If, on the other hand, the monitor in question is older, and has been setup for game playing, or viewing in a brightly lit room, it may no longer be able to get to the defined standard, no matter what calibration tools are used.

So the short answer to the question in the original post is yes; the long answer has been given a number of times, as to how to get there.

I guess the bold is true if you got one of those monitors that dont let you change the RGB slider, or color temperature etc ( tho most do now days ). My apple studio display which is hooked up to a PC has no control what so-ever, yet my Spyder2 was able to calibrate it, and my other monitor is a 1994 "Digital" Brand CRT 21" which used those VGA->BNC style hooks , but I can least adjust the red/green/blue balance and I was able to calibrate even better on that with the Spyder2. What it comes down to, if you are using a hardware calibration method, such as the Spyder, or Gretag's EyeOne, the software rewrites the color profile, or the drivers so to speak, that tells the video card how to adjust the color output so that its matched on the monitor. Provided the monitor doesnt automatically change color temperatures itself the hardware calibration should work bout all the time.

Oh and for those who say its a hassle, its not at all, once you got the balance set ( which isnt hard at all the tool helps you ), you just let it sit there and do it's job for about 5 to 10 minutes and you are done.

raveneyes wrote:
aaaaannnnnnddddd...why are Macs better at graphics than PCs?
Because the average user doesn't have to try to make graphics work right on a Mac, and does on a PC.

It has more to do with supply/demand and market size than it does to do with any inherent quality difference between Macs and PCs. Let me explain:
Since Mac users tend to buy their displays from Apple, and their other hardware from Apple, it's easier for Apple to specify their parts so that the results are predictable. So for a typical klunch user to take an Apple out of the box and hook it to an Apple display, it's going to look a little better than the typical klunch PC user who buys a frame from one vendor, a graphics card from another, and a display from a third, and plugs it together.

Apple has a terrific reputation for being a great graphics platform (and it has been a good graphics platform, consistently one or two steps ahead of PCs) but it's largely a factor of the control Apple is able to maintain over the range of options that are available to you. That results in higher prices. But in return you get predictability (it's gonna mostly work together) and a well-balanced system.

What am I getting at? Well, if you're any kind of graphics person with a clue you're going to calibrate your display no matter whether you're using a Mac or a PC. If you're using a Mac, odds are good you'll find it's fairly well-calibrated. If you're using a PC, you'll find the monitor calibration is all over the map until you've got it correctly profiled (I am assuming your monitor is not complete crap) -- at which point there is ZERO difference, except that the Apple stuff is really pretty and well-designed and more expensive.

mjr.

Simon A Gerzina wrote:
You're assuming it's the girlfriend's monitor that's off and not the original poster's.  That's the problem with editing photos on an uncalibrated system and display - you have no idea whether what you're seeing on your machine is what ANYONE else will see. It's a total crapshoot, like closing your eyes before taking a photo.

Yes and no.

The simple approach is that if you're creating content - even on an uncalibrated display - make sure a histogram of the image looks like it's balanced based on the tonal ranges it contains perceptually. You can get a long way just by checking that as a calibration.. In fact, a "digital step wedge" should be perceptibly centered in your histogram, and you should be able to discern detail at the black and white end of the spectrum. Visually calibrating a monitor for luminance is really really easy and if you care about images (either as a producer or consumer) you can take a few seconds and check!


What should this look like in photoshop's "levels" histogram?? The blacks and whites are "anchored" at the edges of the spectrum where they belong. If it doesn't look right on your monitor, your monitor is wrong.

mjr.