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