If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
PeterN wrote:
On 5/17/2017 4:11 AM, 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 is not a true representation. Maybe not but he is the kind of measurebater that would pick fault were he able to. -- sid |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/17/2017 12:11 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:57:43 +0200, android wrote: In article , 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. If you can't be bothered with color accuracy then you hardly need resolution or high levels of optical definition. Crops from your smartphone of any year, level or make will do. That's a bit unkind. Thanks! :-) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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. Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wrong. which is what everyone in this newsgroup is telling you. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , sid
wrote: 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? that's one possibility, but not a very good one. a much easier one is calibrate your display. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 2017-05-17 13:56:31 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 13:54:29 UTC+1, peterN wrote: 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 impro ved 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 consistentl y, calibrated or not. Peer review will very quickly let you know if your doing something wron g. 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. People do too :-) 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. I'm pretty sure The Duck for one doesn't see your images through your calib rated monitor, so who see these using your calibrated monitor ? Certainly while we are not sharing monitors, or viewing color images under similar light, I have a calibrated monitor, and a color managed workflow. Doing that means any image I am viewing should be a representation of the intent of the editor. It also means that any major inconsistencies I see on my monitor are going to be the result of one of four things, or all of them, either poor choices made when the image was captured, the artistic interpretation of the photographer during editing, poor editing workflow, or editing done on a monitor in need of calibration. While what I see of other folks images might not be an exact representation of their final rendition of their shared work (or theirs' of mine), it should be within at least a range which does not appear abnormal. If the color does appear abnormal to me, on my calibrated monitor I can come to the conclusion that they screwed up somewhere along the way, are using an out of whack monitor, or are going to use the "artistic expression" alibi. So how do you think people judge your images through your monitor or throug h your prints or through their own monitors and doesn't some of this also d epend on the persons colour vision and the lighting conditions ambient to t hem ? So I'm realy not sure how you can control the colours that the majority see s in your images. Can I tell you've spent time and money calibrating your m onitor. I doubt it. Probably not. However, if the image appears to be "wrong", then one of the factors I listed above could apply. That includes a monitor on either end that is improperly calibrated. One way to confirm is if a third veiwer also sees, or doesn't see the reported inconsistencies. The sort of experiment I'd like to run is to show say an image of yours ful ly calibrated to be show on various devices such as smartphones and monitor s and then viewing the same images under flourscent, tungsten, bright sun, storm skies and any other lighting conditions to see how it affects how dif fernt people see that image for themselevs. Probably the best image to use for that experiment would be of an X-Rite ColorChecker under those different light conditions. https://www.dropbox.com/s/05s4esy14m5wq4r/_DSF3276.jpg However, one should bear in mind that the camera/lens used and the light conditions are going to be factors when veiwing that image. So even that is no sure-fire test online. I use mine to establish camera/lens profiles in my color managed workflow. In experiments it's found that colour temerature even affects the tastes of things and moods, even sounds can. Always, and many times the color rendition of the image has nothing to do with reality, or faithful color rendition. Even that selfie taken by the monkey was that calibtated I doubt it but who would notice unless it was taken by a complete amateur ;-) The monkey had nothing to do with the post processing of that selfie, just releasing the shutter. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
nospam wrote:
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. 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. -- sid |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
nospam wrote:
In article , sid wrote: 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? that's one possibility, but not a very good one. a much easier one is calibrate your display. But you can't tell the difference in my images which were processed on a calibrated display and which weren't. So what was the point again? -- sid |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , sid
wrote: 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? that's one possibility, but not a very good one. a much easier one is calibrate your display. But you can't tell the difference in my images which were processed on a calibrated display and which weren't. So what was the point again? that you don't understand *anything* about colour management. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
sid:
Thanks for the veiled compliment. To be honest I only really put the images on flickr so they can be shared elsewhere easily. I've always been able to remember where I was when I took a photo so GPS has never been a thing I've felt the need for, even though it is built in to my current camera it stays off to conserve battery life. Anyway, is this more to your liking? https://www.flickr.com/photos/722928.../in/datetaken/ Most excellent! It's all the more important when you're sharing with others. It makes all the difference in the world. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I wonder why such odd settings | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | May 20th 09 12:27 AM |
Tried some new settings | SteveB[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 14 | July 29th 07 09:16 AM |
RAW and ISO settings | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 18 | July 13th 05 08:53 AM |
Raw Settings Help Please. | TAFKAB | Digital Photography | 0 | March 18th 05 08:25 PM |
Raw Settings Help Please. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 18th 05 07:04 PM |