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