Just calibrated monitor. Could it be too old?

[Scott Stephen]

Hi, all.

I just received my new Spyder 4 monitor calibration device and used it last night. My monitor is a 5-year old 22-inch LCD (Dell 2208 WPF).

First of all, (and no big deal) it reccomended a brightness that my monitor couldn't even achieve on 100% brightness, but it adjusted for that when it realized that was impossible so I guess that is OK.

I also don't have direct controls for color temperature, only for brightness and contrast.

I did "reset" the monitor prior to calibration.

Anyway, here's the unsettling part: After calibrating it (twice) it offers you an array of 16 photos so you can "Spyder-tune" your monitor. I had to move the red slider all the way to full red, and i had to turn the purple slider all the way to purple just to get flesh tones to look human. That seems too drastic for a mere "spyder tune". And the kicker is, when I "switch" from the uncalibrated view to the calibrated view, the uncalibrated view still looks better to me. Post-calibration it still looks a little less bright and vibrant than I would like. And it is possibly (or maybe not) still a tiny little bit green?

I have by no means ruled out the possibility of blatant user error, b/t/w, but I did assiduously follow the directions it gives you. I have not sent any test shots to the lab yet so I have no idea how that would look post-calibration.

My questions, then:

1.) Any obvious screw-ups on my part?
2.) Is it ok to have such a drastic "spyder tune" in effect, and can that in any way hurt my prints?
3.) Could this monitor be too old to work well on this?

Thanks!

[andnowimbroke]

What kind of lighting do you have in your room?

[Scott Stephen]

We have recessed lighting cans with incandescent bulbs in them.

[Mark Elberson]

I have a Spyder3 and its calibration process was basically set it and forget it. It took a good 5 - 10 minutes but I didn't have to do anything. Generally speaking monitors are set to be brighter and more blue than what you'll see in a print. Before I calibrated all of my prints were too dark and overly red. You're saying that you had to manually manipulate sliders to set the color and brightness? That does not sound right.

"Post-calibration it still looks a little less bright and vibrant than I would like"

Out of the box most monitors are overly bright, overly contrasty and overly saturated. That's fine but the purpose of calibration is so that your prints match your screen or WYSIWYG

Does your colorimeter have suction cups that stick to your screen?

[Scott Stephen]

Hi. No, no suction cups, but the cord has a counterweight you drape over the back so it will lay flat on the monitor, which it did. I also made sure with my finger.

The big problem was not the brightness, which I am already more or less used to. The issue is the color, and the insane adjustment I had to make manually. When the calibration was done, it presented you with 16 pictures, each of which presents a particular challenge to the monitor's settings, and you are invited to "Spyder-tune" the color manually.

In any event, I found it startling that I had to wedge the RED slider all the way to red, and the PURPLE slider all the way to purple in order to get rid of some pretty powerful greenish tinge. I was not sure if "tuning" it so dramatically will defeat the purpose of the calibration, or if it will compensate for your adjustments when you export for print. And if it is still not looking ideal after all that, will this prevent me from adjusting photos properly?

[acmojica]

I think you should let Spyder do its automatic calibration, and then order some prints from a lab. From there you can compare your screens calibration to an actual print, which is the end goal of calibrating your monitor. It's also possible that you're just so used to the old monitor settings that everything looks off right after you calibrate. I know that after calibrating my screens, to me it *looks like* there's a red color cast on my monitor, but after comparing it to prints I've ordered I know that my screen is now "what you see is what you get."

It also seems silly to me to try to calibrate your monitor by using photos that are displayed on that very monitor. Seems kind of like trying to calibrate a scale using your own body and what you think you weigh.

[andnowimbroke]

The room light (I believe) is connected to the brightness needed. Also check Adobe Gamma is not running on startup, and you video card is up to date. Does your monitor have a kelvin scale or is it just RBG?

[Scott Stephen]

No control for Kelvin. Just brightness and contrast.

[Scott Stephen]

Not familiar with the monitor you mentioned and didn't look up the specs to find out the RGB or Adobe RGB coverage it is supposed to have. My question for you is whether you looked at the report after calibrating to see what your coverage is like? It is possible that your monitor just doesn't have the ability to reproduce the full gamut.

I looked at it, yes, but in the same uncomprehending way a chicken watches a card trick. I believe it said 90%, but I really wasn't sure what that was supposed to mean. What percentage would I want to see there?