On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:05:11 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, 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.

Well, not as I understand it. While it doesn't make much difference
to the average photographer if the green leaves aren't the same green
as the trees, what monitor calibration does is ensure that what you
see on the monitor is what you see on the print.

I know someone who sells beads on the internet. She uses an X-Rite
color checker to make sure the color in the photo is the color of the
bead, but doesn't have a calibrated monitor. The print will be
accurate even if the monitor and print differ in look.

The print will only be accurate if the color of the bead is within the
gamut of the ink and paper combination. Few printers can cover even
the sRGB gamut, let alone Adobe-RGB.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens