Monitor settings
 

PeterN wrote:

On 5/16/2017 2:45 PM, sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see
then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing
to do.


Yes, if all you do is show family and vacation images. If you want
others to appreciate your images, then calibration is a must. Otherwise
there will be color shifts, and the other viewers will not see your
images as you would like them to be seen.

Clearly not so, as demonstrated already by nospams inability to determine
any difference in images presented.

--
sid

Monitor settings
 

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see
then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing to
do.

It depends upon what you mean by 'really accurate'. While the human
eye is capable of seeing quite small variations in color it does not
mean that a human can properly balance R, G, B and luminance when
attempting to set a display. Nevertheless that same human eye will be
aware of subtle variances of color in a print (or display) to the
point where the human will know that what they have got is not what
they want.

I'm referring to the difference between an eye calibration and a hardware
calibration.

--
sid

Monitor settings
 

On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:18:21 +0100, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see
then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing to
do.

It depends upon what you mean by 'really accurate'. While the human
eye is capable of seeing quite small variations in color it does not
mean that a human can properly balance R, G, B and luminance when
attempting to set a display. Nevertheless that same human eye will be
aware of subtle variances of color in a print (or display) to the
point where the human will know that what they have got is not what
they want.

I'm referring to the difference between an eye calibration and a hardware
calibration.

So am I.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Monitor settings
 

On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:11:25 +0100, sid wrote:

PeterN wrote:

On 5/16/2017 2:45 PM, sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see
then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing
to do.


Yes, if all you do is show family and vacation images. If you want
others to appreciate your images, then calibration is a must. Otherwise
there will be color shifts, and the other viewers will not see your
images as you would like them to be seen.

Clearly not so, as demonstrated already by nospams inability to determine
any difference in images presented.

nospam (and any one else) cannot see color differences when they only
see the end result. They have to have a starting point in order to
determine a color *difference* in the end result.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Monitor settings
 

On 5/16/2017 7:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:05:11 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your pictures
look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're pretty much good
to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see then creating a
profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing to do.

Well, not as I understand it. While it doesn't make much difference
to the average photographer if the green leaves aren't the same green
as the trees, what monitor calibration does is ensure that what you
see on the monitor is what you see on the print.

I know someone who sells beads on the internet. She uses an X-Rite
color checker to make sure the color in the photo is the color of the
bead, but doesn't have a calibrated monitor. The print will be
accurate even if the monitor and print differ in look.

The print will only be accurate if the color of the bead is within the
gamut of the ink and paper combination. Few printers can cover even
the sRGB gamut, let alone Adobe-RGB.

Since both the bead and a print are perceived via the reflective color
spectrum, it is far more likely that the colors can be acceptably
matched than when viewing in the RGB transmitted color spectrum. It
sounds to me like the bead-maker understands this pretty well.

--
best regards,

Neil

Monitor settings
 

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:11:25 +0100, sid wrote:

PeterN wrote:

On 5/16/2017 2:45 PM, sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera
AND display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable,
but I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of
the nice "must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you
see then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the
thing to do.


Yes, if all you do is show family and vacation images. If you want
others to appreciate your images, then calibration is a must. Otherwise
there will be color shifts, and the other viewers will not see your
images as you would like them to be seen.

Clearly not so, as demonstrated already by nospams inability to determine
any difference in images presented.

nospam (and any one else) cannot see color differences when they only
see the end result. They have to have a starting point in order to
determine a color *difference* in the end result.

You're only helping to prove my point here. What should one do, make sure
sure there is a colour chart included in all images so you can satisfy
yourself that the colours are accurate?
--
sid

Monitor settings
 

On 5/16/2017 11:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.


Total and complete agreement.

I have umteen thousand dollars tied up in printer, ink and papers. I
have several umteen thousand dollars tied up in camera, lenses,
tripods and various associated bits and pieces. It would be foolish of
me to at the last minute skimp on a few hundred dollars for a screen
calibration device which help me better attain the ends to which I am
striving.

yep.


OMG. nospam and I have agreed before, but the three of us. This is a first.

--
PeterN

Monitor settings
 

On 5/17/2017 3:28 AM, sid wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:30:38 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:

Once again I invite you to cast your critical eye over my work and
perhaps suggest which of the images you think would have been improved
with an accurately calibrated monitor. Or perhaps you'll be able to
easily see which have been processed on an uncalibrated monitor

https://www.flickr.com/photos/722928...h/34531133981/

without the original subject or what your goal is with the photos,
that's not possible and you know it.

That's exactly my point!

The important question is not whether or not the viewer likes the end
results but whether or not you are getting consistent results which
*you* like.

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment consistently,
calibrated or not.
Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wrong.
If no one else is going to see your work, ahem nospam, then clearly it makes
even less difference.


Monitors change the display over time. That is why calibration should be
done periodically. As to relying on peers, It is rare that someone will
tell you that your image sucks, and more importantly, why. On the
Internet, I get meaningful comments from the Duck, and frequently from
the PSA digital groups. Off the net, I get meaningful comments from my
CC, and my severest critic, my daughter.

--
PeterN

Monitor settings
 

On 5/17/2017 3:30 AM, sid wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 5/16/2017 4:04 PM, sid wrote:
android wrote:


a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you
see then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the
thing to do.

If you can't be bothered with color accuracy then you hardly need
resolution or high levels of optical definition. Crops from your
smartphone of any year, level or make will do.

what, like this

https://flic.kr/p/UBp65Z


Nice shot. but, the color does seem a bit flat, to me.

Thanks, but perhaps you need to calibrate your monitor!


;-)



--
PeterN

Monitor settings
 

On 5/17/2017 4:11 AM, sid wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 5/16/2017 2:45 PM, sid wrote:
nospam wrote:

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I think that there is a tool in W10 for calibrating the display by
eye... Anyways: If you are spending more than £500 on your camera AND
display then:

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/V15870...x-rite/colormu
nki-smile

Thanks for the suggestion, and the price doesn't seem unreasonable, but
I have been using cameras for long enough to know that most of the nice
"must have" gadgets won't actually make any real difference.

a properly calibrated display *does* make a difference. a very big
difference. in other words, such 'gadgets' are *well* worth the price.

Accurate monitor calibration is only really necessary for pro use where
colours have to match. For the general photographer as long as your
pictures look pretty much the same on a range of devices then you're
pretty much good to go. If you want to print easily to match what you see
then creating a profile for your paper and ink combination is the thing
to do.


Yes, if all you do is show family and vacation images. If you want
others to appreciate your images, then calibration is a must. Otherwise
there will be color shifts, and the other viewers will not see your
images as you would like them to be seen.

Clearly not so, as demonstrated already by nospams inability to determine
any difference in images presented.


nospam is not a true representation.


--
PeterN