Incredibly frustrated, please help

[lunathea]

So I got the Spyder 3 Pro a few weeks ago, been enjoying my calibrated monitor (I forget who here had the "If you can't read this you need to calibrate your monitor" in their sig, but obviously I could read it). Got some prints from Mpix (who I was going to start printing from) and they don't look anything like my calibration. They are darker for one, and skin tones that look great on my screen (my fillipino brother) look a lot more orange.

So I raged. And then I calibrated, and recalibrated, and again. Messed with the settings (instead of choosing recommended every time), and still nothing. Finally I lowered the gamma on my monitor, now it's a lot closer.

However, I am viewing the prints under tungsten light, when I view them under daylight they look a million times more accurate to the origional calibration.

So I don't know what to do. If they're viewed in daylight they look awesome and pretty much match the Spyder. Under any other light they look dark and color skewed and therefore I have no idea what the print will look like. BUT if I stick with the 'under tungsten' calibration will they look like crap in daylight?

I'm so frustrated right now I just want to chuck my monitor and the Spyder out the window.

Dps is still working extremely intermittently for me, if this posts I will be so happy.

[Murtasma]

Did you calibrate your monitor with tungsten lights on? What about editing photos was that done under the same lighting?

How does this website look to you?
Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool

Have you ordered the calibration kit mpix? It's 3 dollars and could get you going down the right path.

Mpix.com - Sample Kits

What type of paper did you get prints on? This can make a big difference.

Update: Your most recent images on flickr look pretty good on my calibrated monitors,. Your older stuff looks a little dark. Was the image you sent off for printing edited on your calibrated display?

[johnske]

Originally Posted by Murtasma

Update: Your most recent images on flickr look pretty good on my calibrated monitors,. Your older stuff looks a little dark.

... same here

[nickbedford]

It's interesting that you would mention calibration. I recently bought a 27" iMac which has an IPS display built in so the colour reproduction is there. Despite owning a Spyder3, I actually ended up calibrating using both the Mac OS X colour calibration tool in expert mode and my eye. I set the brightness to 50% and I've had the most consistent colour and brightness than ever before. Mind you, I'm very picky when setting the tonal controls in the calibration software. Usually spend a minute or two on each page to make getting the setting just right.

I just got a large poster print from a portrait composite I shot last week and I'm stoked to find the colour and brightness is pretty much exactly how I see it on screen.

Pity, because I spent the money on the Spyder3 only to end up not using it with my new machine. In fact, I used it on my MacBook Pro in the beginning and the Spyder software actually produced a rather green hued, horrible looking profile. I used ColorEyes and that produced something a lot closer, but in the end I still seem to be able to get better calibration by just using the Mac OS X calibrator and a few reference photos (one's I've seen on other screens and have printed).

[lunathea]

Originally Posted by Murtasma

Did you calibrate your monitor with tungsten lights on? What about editing photos was that done under the same lighting?

How does this website look to you?
Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool

Have you ordered the calibration kit mpix? It's 3 dollars and could get you going down the right path.

Mpix.com - Sample Kits

What type of paper did you get prints on? This can make a big difference.

Update: Your most recent images on flickr look pretty good on my calibrated monitors,. Your older stuff looks a little dark. Was the image you sent off for printing edited on your calibrated display?

Yay logging in finally worked, I've been trying to respond for 12hrs now lol. Yes I calibrated my monitor and edit my photos under tungsten lighting.

On that website I can see everything except in the black circle I don't see the very middle circle (which I assume is there).

I haven't ordered the kit from Mpix, does it work in correlation with the Spyder pro or would I be doing it from my standard settings.

Finally I printed on their esource (I think that's what it was) paper. It's a bit less glossy, I actually really like the look of it and understand that being more of a matte finish would potentially mean a bit darker, but would it mean a bit more orange or sallow lol?

All the stuff I sent was edited under calibration.

Thank you so much for the help, I really appreciate it. I wonder if I should return the Spyder, although I don't think I have the box any longer, ugh.

[Biomech]

I use a Spyder3 too and often find photos printed come out darker both at home and at the "labs". The say that you should calibrate in the lighting that you usually edit in, but personally I true the lights off and use a cushion to push the spyder right up against the screen

[lunathea]

Originally Posted by Biomech

I use a Spyder3 too and often find photos printed come out darker both at home and at the "labs". The say that you should calibrate in the lighting that you usually edit in, but personally I true the lights off and use a cushion to push the spyder right up against the screen

May I ask what kind of light falls on the screen then when calibrating if any? I tried turning all the lights off and just tried to let the ambient natural light from our patio door (which is about 20 feet away hit it, but then it came out even lighter lol!

I find the print difference to be about a stop darker, I'm not as concered with that due to the fact that I can keep it in the back of my mind that it comes out that way and to compensate for it, as I am with the tones, having something look proper on my screen and then get sent to me a bit orange will not due.

[Murtasma]

I believe I have the kit from MPix. I'll see if I can find it when I return home to see exactly how it works.

[sk66]

The gamma setting is critical....should be 2.2. But it won't be 2.2 for all colors/luminance levels for most screens even after calibration.
LCD's often don't have the tenability of other types of monitors and are harder to get consistently good results from. I also calibrate my LCD in a dark environment. I think "reflected" light seems to affect it.

[Murtasma]

Adobe RGB also assumes you're using gamma 2.2. I would switch back to 2.2 and look at that website again. I bet your brightness/contrast are off which can affect color reproduction.

"Brightness" and "Contrast" controls