Monitor calibrators - recommendations, hints and tips please

Of course, it's a matter of how used you are to each tool but when it comes to "magic" selections, PhotoLab now has an evolution of the "U-Point" technology with Control Points and Control Lines.

Take this image…
View attachment 18342
I want to enhance the sky detail. View attachment 18344So I first create a Control Line mask…

This consists of a gradient portion, a "full strength" portion and a pipette to select the affected Luma/Chroma range. The trick is to create an area that is as near to white as possible, using the Luma and Chroma selectivity sliders. in this case, only one Control Line was necessary but multiple lines and points, both positive and negative can be added to the one mask to refine it.

As you can see, the mask is just B&W and should be constructed before attempting to make any local adjustments.

Once satisfied that everything I want is selected or not, I hide the mask and use the "equaliser" sliders to apply the necessary edits…View attachment 18345
I suppose Adobe uses AI selections now, but DxO has used this technology for years and it isn't as prone to false selections as AI can be.
You seemed to have seized the opportunity to turn another thread into a DxO advertorial ..... ;) Monitor calibration has morphed into a U point tutorial !
 
I suppose my findings are influenced by my working room
@Joanna Carter , What are your thoughts on the Studio Display, is there anything you don't like about it?

I have my sights on a Mac Studio but need to pair it up with a monitor. I have been looking at BenQ 4K but this will not scale properly to 4K using the Mac whereas the Apple monitor will
 
@Joanna Carter , What are your thoughts on the Studio Display, is there anything you don't like about it?

in a word - Wow! I've used 27" Apple cinema displays attached to MacBook Pros for years and, as good as they are, when the time came, I decided to treat myself to the nano-texture version and absolutely love it.

The room I work in lets in lots of light in the early morning and I got all sorts of reflections but, now, there are virtually no reflections. Well worth the extra to my mind.

As for buying the Mac Studio, I don't see the point. It's going to cost you about £1000 more than a Mini that would be perfectly adequate. That's without the extra £1750 for the monitor. That is, unless you feel you deserve to be extravagant for Christmas :p
 
As for buying the Mac Studio, I don't see the point. It's going to cost you about £1000 more than a Mini
This is the biggest dilemma I have. I have nothing against the Mac Mini M2 apart from the lack of ports.
As for performance, having the extra cores that the studio offers would be nice for those high-end CPU-intensive tasks such as rendering 4K which I seem to be quite a bit of lately.

Going Arm also gives me some jitters which is why I haven't bought something sooner as not all my applications are Arm compatible and I don't like the idea of running Rosetta.
 
I have nothing against the Mac Mini M2 apart from the lack of ports.

Well, the only extra ports you get are two Thunderbolt. If you really need them, that is easily compensated for with a much cheaper hub.

As for performance, having the extra cores that the studio offers would be nice for those high-end CPU-intensive tasks such as rendering 4K which I seem to be quite a bit of lately

From what I have heard in the DxO forums, it's not CPU cores that you need but GPU cores. But even then, people seem to be perfectly happy with less, as long as they are M2, which are a whole lot faster.

not all my applications are Arm compatible and I don't like the idea of running Rosetta.

What apps do you have that you don't think will run? And why do you perceive it as a problem? For many years I ran Windows for developing Windows apps on my MacBook Pro, using Parallels, which is a virtual machine, without any real problems. Rosetta is just a VM and I don't see any problems being complained about on t'interwebbythingy.
 
Color-Perfect for converting Linear Gamma 1.0 scans into Gamma 2.2 positives

Hmmm. 9 year old software. macOS has changed a lot since then. But, since it is only a plug-in for PS, I would have said it's unlikely to cause too many performance problems going via Rosetta.

But then I use Epson Scan software to create TIFF files and, as far as I can tell, that can use 2.2 straight off if wanted.
 
Back
Top