View Single Post
  #73  
Old May 19th 17, 04:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Monitor settings

On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:50:33 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 7:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:53:29 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 7:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 05:42:05 -0400, Neil
wrote:

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.

I suspect the only color gamut with which the bead maker was concerned
was that of the selection of colors they had available to them.

She was apparently concerned enough about the accuracy of her printed
material to verify the image output with her X-Rite color checker. As
one who has created tens of thousands of pages of printed color
material, her approach makes more sense to me than ignoring that aspect
and simply calibrating her monitor.


What she was doing makes sense if she was primarily interested in the
printed output. What it looked like on the screen would be almost
irrelevant except that if the screen is calibrated it makes it easier
to get it right in the print.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it makes training the eye to spot
problems easier. However, the way to get predictable output in print is
a bit more complicated.

Using a calibrated screen makes it easier to get it right in other
calibrated (or near calibrated) screens. If neither the source nor the
target screens are calibrated it's anyone's guess what colors the
target viewer will end up seeing. Of course, this may not matter.

IMO, one needs to realize that only a minute percentage of on-line
viewers will have anything close to a calibrated screen. Photographers
that create images for the web sometimes steer well clear of those
portions of the color spectrum that can be detrimental to viewing on
uncalibrated monitors.


.... especially some of the older monitors.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens