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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- sid |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
Eric Stevens 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. It depends upon what you mean by 'really accurate'. While the human eye is capable of seeing quite small variations in color it does not mean that a human can properly balance R, G, B and luminance when attempting to set a display. Nevertheless that same human eye will be aware of subtle variances of color in a print (or display) to the point where the human will know that what they have got is not what they want. I'm referring to the difference between an eye calibration and a hardware calibration. -- sid |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:18:21 +0100, sid wrote:
Eric Stevens 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. It depends upon what you mean by 'really accurate'. While the human eye is capable of seeing quite small variations in color it does not mean that a human can properly balance R, G, B and luminance when attempting to set a display. Nevertheless that same human eye will be aware of subtle variances of color in a print (or display) to the point where the human will know that what they have got is not what they want. I'm referring to the difference between an eye calibration and a hardware calibration. So am I. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:11:25 +0100, 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 (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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/16/2017 7:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
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. Since both the bead and a print are perceived via the reflective color spectrum, it is far more likely that the colors can be acceptably matched than when viewing in the RGB transmitted color spectrum. It sounds to me like the bead-maker understands this pretty well. -- best regards, Neil |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 09:11:25 +0100, 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 (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? -- sid |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/16/2017 11:34 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens 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. Total and complete agreement. I have umteen thousand dollars tied up in printer, ink and papers. I have several umteen thousand dollars tied up in camera, lenses, tripods and various associated bits and pieces. It would be foolish of me to at the last minute skimp on a few hundred dollars for a screen calibration device which help me better attain the ends to which I am striving. yep. OMG. nospam and I have agreed before, but the three of us. This is a first. -- PeterN |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/17/2017 3:30 AM, sid wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 5/16/2017 4:04 PM, sid wrote: android wrote: 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. what, like this https://flic.kr/p/UBp65Z Nice shot. but, the color does seem a bit flat, to me. Thanks, but perhaps you need to calibrate your monitor! ;-) -- PeterN |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- PeterN |
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 |