View Single Post
  #22  
Old May 16th 17, 09:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Monitor settings

In article , sid
wrote:

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.


it's useful for everyone who is interested in quality work.


The quality of your work is no better for having an accurately calibrated
monitor.


nonsense.

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.

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.


that would be luck. buy a lottery ticket.


Lets be clear here, we are talking about eyeball calibration as opposed to
calibration with a gadget.


eyeball calibration is a contradiction.

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.


which requires a calibrated display.


no, just a display.


with just a display, you're relying on luck.