Monitor settings
 

PeterN wrote:

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.

Maybe not but he is the kind of measurebater that would pick fault were he
able to.

--
sid

Monitor settings
 

On 5/17/2017 12:11 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:57:43 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
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.

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.

That's a bit unkind.

Thanks! :-)

Monitor settings
 

In article , sid
wrote:

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment consistently,
calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known standard.

Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wrong.

which is what everyone in this newsgroup is telling you.

Monitor settings
 

In article , sid
wrote:

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?

that's one possibility, but not a very good one.

a much easier one is calibrate your display.

Monitor settings
 

On 2017-05-17 13:56:31 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 13:54:29 UTC+1, peterN wrote:
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 impro
ved
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 consistentl
y,
calibrated or not.
Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wron
g.
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.

People do too :-)

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.


I'm pretty sure The Duck for one doesn't see your images through your calib
rated monitor, so who see these using your calibrated monitor ?

Certainly while we are not sharing monitors, or viewing color images
under similar light, I have a calibrated monitor, and a color managed
workflow. Doing that means any image I am viewing should be a
representation of the intent of the editor.

It also means that any major inconsistencies I see on my monitor are
going to be the result of one of four things, or all of them, either
poor choices made when the image was captured, the artistic
interpretation of the photographer during editing, poor editing
workflow, or editing done on a monitor in need of calibration.

While what I see of other folks images might not be an exact
representation of their final rendition of their shared work (or
theirs' of mine), it should be within at least a range which does not
appear abnormal. If the color does appear abnormal to me, on my
calibrated monitor I can come to the conclusion that they screwed up
somewhere along the way, are using an out of whack monitor, or are
going to use the "artistic expression" alibi.

So how do you think people judge your images through your monitor or throug
h your prints or through their own monitors and doesn't some of this also d
epend on the persons colour vision and the lighting conditions ambient to t
hem ?

So I'm realy not sure how you can control the colours that the majority see
s in your images. Can I tell you've spent time and money calibrating your m
onitor. I doubt it.

Probably not. However, if the image appears to be "wrong", then one of
the factors I listed above could apply. That includes a monitor on
either end that is improperly calibrated. One way to confirm is if a
third veiwer also sees, or doesn't see the reported inconsistencies.

The sort of experiment I'd like to run is to show say an image of yours ful
ly calibrated to be show on various devices such as smartphones and monitor
s and then viewing the same images under flourscent, tungsten, bright sun,
storm skies and any other lighting conditions to see how it affects how dif
fernt people see that image for themselevs.

Probably the best image to use for that experiment would be of an
X-Rite ColorChecker under those different light conditions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/05s4esy14m5wq4r/_DSF3276.jpg

However, one should bear in mind that the camera/lens used and the
light conditions are going to be factors when veiwing that image. So
even that is no sure-fire test online. I use mine to establish
camera/lens profiles in my color managed workflow.

In experiments it's found that colour temerature even affects the tastes of
things and moods, even sounds can.

Always, and many times the color rendition of the image has nothing to
do with reality, or faithful color rendition.

Even that selfie taken by the monkey was that calibtated I doubt it but who
would notice unless it was taken by a complete amateur ;-)

The monkey had nothing to do with the post processing of that selfie,
just releasing the shutter.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Monitor settings
 

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment consistently,
calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known standard.

As long as the eyeball calibration is repeated at the same frequency as any
hardware calibration would be then the results will be equally consistent
for the purposes required.

Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wrong.

which is what everyone in this newsgroup is telling you.

No, even you agreed that you can't tell a blind bit of difference.

--
sid

Monitor settings
 

In article , sid
wrote:

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment consistently,
calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known standard.

As long as the eyeball calibration is repeated at the same frequency as any
hardware calibration would be then the results will be equally consistent
for the purposes required.

nonsense. an eyeball is notoriously *not* accurate.

Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wrong.

which is what everyone in this newsgroup is telling you.

No, even you agreed that you can't tell a blind bit of difference.

i did not say that.

Monitor settings
 

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

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?

that's one possibility, but not a very good one.

a much easier one is calibrate your display.

But you can't tell the difference in my images which were processed on a
calibrated display and which weren't. So what was the point again?

--
sid

Monitor settings
 

In article , sid
wrote:

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?

that's one possibility, but not a very good one.

a much easier one is calibrate your display.

But you can't tell the difference in my images which were processed on a
calibrated display and which weren't. So what was the point again?

that you don't understand *anything* about colour management.

Monitor settings
 

sid:
Thanks for the veiled compliment. To be honest I only really put the images
on flickr so they can be shared elsewhere easily. I've always been able to
remember where I was when I took a photo so GPS has never been a thing I've
felt the need for, even though it is built in to my current camera it stays
off to conserve battery life.
Anyway, is this more to your liking?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/722928.../in/datetaken/

Most excellent! It's all the more important when you're sharing with
others. It makes all the difference in the world.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm