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