The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Color Calibration of Apple iMac 27"

Good day all

I am currently using a NEC Multisync 2690WUXI2 monitor (with built in color calibration that works very well) and am considering going to a new 27" iMac computer. For those who calibrate their iMac monitors, what colorimeters, software etc. do you use and are you happy with the results?

Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Paul
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I run the iMac 5k with a companion NEC PA272W wide gamut display. I would agree that the Apple screens are good but don't have the best gamut for critical work.

I've used a Colormunki for years and I can use it on both displays since I use the default X-Rite software for the iMac display and I have the NEC Spectraview calibration software for the PA272W.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
That is probably best practice at this point.

I do not have room for 2 large monitors so my Dell 27 5K will remain and I will limp along with my 2010 Mac Pro until they release the
new versions next year (?) or a decent calibration scheme arrives for the iMac Pro.

I have an original iOne spectro and the i1Profiler that I use with the Dell. Probably should upgrade to the second generation of the
spectro at some point.

Bob
 
That is probably best practice at this point.

I do not have room for 2 large monitors so my Dell 27 5K will remain and I will limp along with my 2010 Mac Pro until they release the
new versions next year (?) or a decent calibration scheme arrives for the iMac Pro.

I have an original iOne spectro and the i1Profiler that I use with the Dell. Probably should upgrade to the second generation of the
spectro at some point.

Bob
Thanks Bob

This is why I asked the question. I keep hearing stories about the difficulties of getting good color calibration on Apple monitors. My fall back system might be a MacBook Pro plus a NEC monitor, with built in calibration, used just for photo/video work. It's an expensive way to go. I am surprised Apple hasn't come out with a photography/videography optimized computer because lots of folks do this sort of thing. I believe the old compact tower configuration combined with a NEC, EIZO, or equivalent, monitor would sell well. I run a Panasonic m4/3 (G85) so I don't need much processing power.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
TBH Apple have not had much enthusiasm for supporting high end workstation machines for quite a while. Their focus is overwhelmingly on iDevices and even the last MacBook Pro wasn’t a significant improvement over the previous version unless you really love USB-C and bags full of dongles, less battery life and emoticon bars.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I dunno, folks. I have been using an Apple Thunderbolt Display 27" for years and years now, calibrated to my targets (120 luminance, 5600°K white point, 1.8 gamma) with an X-Rite i1Display Pro. It produces on-screen display which images with very very high fidelity to what comes out of my Epson P600 printer, thus is an excellent reference standard to gauge what adjustments to make when doing my image processing.

No it's not 16bit, it's not $10000 or more worth of display and colorimeter equipment. Doesn't seem to matter ... it just produces the results I want. :D

G
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Godfrey,

That is good news ... I would rather go to the iMac Pro than wait for whatever the new Mac Pro might entail.

I have begun the move of internal drives to a NAS anticipating the change to the iMac Pro.

The new wide gamut color space looks like it will cover most of the captured spectrum.

Bob
 

pfigen

Member
"120 luminance, 5600°K white point, 1.8 gamma"

Why would you use a Gamma 1.8? There was a Mac based myth over twenty years ago that Macs were supposed to be Gamma 1.8 but that was just a myth and it only because Gamma 1.8 sort of matched up to the very early laser printers.

It's much better to keep your monitor calibrated closer to it's native gamma, which is usually 2.2-2.4. The advantages of that is that there will be less correction in the video card lookup tables which would force a simulated 1.8 resulting in even fewer actual viewable levels on screen. This would not be as big an issue with an Eizo that does internal 12 bit hardware calibrations before sending data to the video card, but very definitely an issue with an iMac that starts at 8 bit and goes down from there with any video card LUT correction.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
"120 luminance, 5600°K white point, 1.8 gamma"

Why would you use a Gamma 1.8? There was a Mac based myth over twenty years ago that Macs were supposed to be Gamma 1.8 but that was just a myth and it only because Gamma 1.8 sort of matched up to the very early laser printers.

It's much better to keep your monitor calibrated closer to it's native gamma, which is usually 2.2-2.4. The advantages of that is that there will be less correction in the video card lookup tables which would force a simulated 1.8 resulting in even fewer actual viewable levels on screen. This would not be as big an issue with an Eizo that does internal 12 bit hardware calibrations before sending data to the video card, but very definitely an issue with an iMac that starts at 8 bit and goes down from there with any video card LUT correction.
It wasn't a myth. Using 1.8 gamma was deemed correct and the system was designed for it, back in the days of CRT based displays. The problem was that the gamuts of CRTs at that time was not as well-standardized as it later became with the sRGB spec and Apple found that there were issues with gamut if they set the CRT closer to a "native" gamma (near 2.2). Setting the display to 1.8 gamma allowed them to split the difference between the controller board and the display with a more linear control capability while achieving a wide enough gamut for web-press printing (the basis of the Adobe RGB (1998) calibration spec) and for the early Color LaserWriter as well.

Modern LED flat panel displays have a native gamma in the 2.2-2.4 range and a native white point much bluer (6200-6800°K). Most modern inkjet printers seem almost totally agnostic to whatever gamut and colormetric you push to them ... the printer and inks have more range than the papers do. I tried the native specs when I first started using flat panel displays in the early '00s but I find those specs awfully contrasty and hard on my eyes, and I had to do more extensive adjustments to achieve the neutral outputs with the tonal curve I want for printing and exhibition display. After several rounds of experimenting, I determined that dropping back to 1.8 gamma and the much warmer 5600°K white point produced good results that I liked with much less adjustment required in the rendering. So that's what I standardized on in 2004 and have used ever since.

I've calibrated displays on at least three dozen iMacs (at least those past the ones with the overly-bright displays in the 2008-2009 time period) to these targets and had nothing but excellent results with them.

I worked for Apple for 24+ years, had access to both any machines I wanted and to all of Apple's hardware and software engineering folks as well. Most of my experimentation was guided and vetted by the people who designed the hardware AND software, and participated in the development of the ISO specs for many of these colormetrics ... I'm completely satisfied that I'm doing the right thing because I'm very happy with the results I get... :D

G

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
... I'm completely satisfied that I'm doing the right thing because I'm very happy with the results I get... :D

G
If photography is an art ... there is no absolute and the end result that satisfies our vision is the determinate and should suffice.

Were we discussing reproduction and the need for exact duplication ... then the fine details may make a difference.

And Godfrey ... I like what I see from your work on my i1Profiled monitor.

Regards,

Bob
 
Top