A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Monitor settings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 20th 17, 04:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Monitor settings

In article , sid
wrote:

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.

So, let me get this straight, *you* can't tell which of my images have or
have not been processed on a colour calibrated monitor means that I don't
understand colour management? It means to me that you cannot see a
difference ergo it makes none.


ignorance is bliss.


I'm glad it makes you happy.


whoosh.
  #82  
Old May 20th 17, 09:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Monitor settings

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:

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.

So, let me get this straight, *you* can't tell which of my images have
or have not been processed on a colour calibrated monitor means that I
don't understand colour management? It means to me that you cannot see
a difference ergo it makes none.

ignorance is bliss.


I'm glad it makes you happy.


whoosh.


At least your description of the sound in your vacuous head is accurate.

--
sid
  #83  
Old May 20th 17, 09:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Monitor settings

In article , sid
wrote:

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.

So, let me get this straight, *you* can't tell which of my images have
or have not been processed on a colour calibrated monitor means that I
don't understand colour management? It means to me that you cannot see
a difference ergo it makes none.

ignorance is bliss.

I'm glad it makes you happy.


whoosh.


At least your description of the sound in your vacuous head is accurate.



In article , sid
wrote:
Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.

  #84  
Old May 21st 17, 03:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Monitor settings

On Sat, 20 May 2017 11:17:50 +0100, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

So, let me get this straight, *you* can't tell which of my images have or
have not been processed on a colour calibrated monitor means that I don't
understand colour management? It means to me that you cannot see a
difference ergo it makes none.


Oh, it does. The problem is that you are not using an appropriate
test.


If it makes such a difference surely you'd be able see that difference
somehow?


You could offer me a tape measure, or perhaps a set of scales. But
which of the images I like best is not a test of color accuracy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #85  
Old July 7th 17, 03:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Monitor settings

Tony Cooper
Tue, 16 May 2017
20:12:41 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:08:38 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony
Cooper 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. 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.


it's not just printers, but also other devices, both one's own and
other people's.

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.


no it won't, other than sheer luck.

maybe her beads are magic beads.


I will inform her that what she's been doing successfully for
quite some time is wrong according to the person who knows
everything even though he has no personal knowledge of the
situation.

I'm sure she will feel that your input is as valuable as I think
it is.


Now, that was a kodak moment. Oh me? I'm just 'catching up' in my,
uhh, que.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

A dandelion for your thoughts *--
  #86  
Old July 7th 17, 03:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Monitor settings

Savageduck
news.com Tue, 16
May 2017 00:30:49 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

On May 15, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

newshound:

I just tweaked my monitor settings using a couple of the
websites with "free" setup images and this has certainly
improved my views of photos from a wide variety of sources.
However I'm now finding that text in Thunderbird, Google,
Facebook, Amazon, etc. is a bit pale and lacking in contrast.


Your Mac's built-in calibration utility System Preferences
Displays will do an excellent job of calibrating your display.


Why did you assume “newshound” was using a Mac?
That is a pretty wild guess considering he is using aWindows NT
edition of Thunderbird.


His headers gave it away, didn't they?




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Take thee this thing covered with that stuff and give it unto that guy,
that he may do things with it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:25 PM
Raw Settings Help Please. [email protected] Digital Photography 0 March 18th 05 08:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.