View Single Post
  #75  
Old May 19th 17, 05:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Monitor settings

In article , sid
wrote:

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment
consistently, calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known
standard.

As long as the eyeball calibration is repeated at the same frequency
as any hardware calibration would be then the results will be equally
consistent for the purposes required.

nonsense. an eyeball is notoriously *not* accurate.

It doesn't need to be if you're not doing colour critical professional
work.


nonsense.

plenty of non-professionals want accurate high quality results. it
ain't just colour-critical work.

just because you aren't interested in quality doesn't mean the rest of
the world isn't.


Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.


then it's a good thing i didn't insult you or anyone else, isn't it?

if anyone has no real argument, that would be you, something even more
clear now than it was before.

Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something
wrong.

which is what everyone in this newsgroup is telling you.

No, even you agreed that you can't tell a blind bit of difference.

i did not say that.

You said it was not possible to tell which photos had or had not been
processed on a colour calibrated monitor. To anyone with half a brain
that implies that there is no difference. If you meant something else
perhaps you should have said something else.


no it doesn't imply that at all.


So, what does it imply?


that you don't understand colour management, what a colour managed
workflow is and why it's beneficial to everyone (not just you), and
that you aren't interested in learning anything.