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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article ,
newshound wrote: 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. FWIW the Duck's recent Yosemite pics look good to me, prior to the tweak the gopher and river shots would have been a bit lacking in shadow detail. I don't believe I have any significant visual impairment apart from presbyopia commensurate with my age (68). Any views or suggestions, short of adding a second monitor? I'm not a sufficiently serious user for it being worth getting a proper calibrator. undo whatever you did and don't use some random website to calibrate your display again. Not "some random website". With a bit of experience, it is not too difficult to identify ones which seem to be covering the bases well. And I picked two which were clearly independent, and got similar results from both. yes some random website. you never mentioned which one and there are *way* too many variables for a web site calibrator to work properly anyway. worthless would be a better term. I'm currently using settings from the Win 10 tool. A little "brighter" than my original manual settings, but better for text than the previous sites. it will be better than some random web site but your display is still not calibrated properly. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- sid |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , sid
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. it's useful for everyone who is interested in quality work. 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. that would be luck. buy a lottery ticket. 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. which requires a calibrated display. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- teleportation kills |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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 -- sid |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/16/2017 7:57 PM, 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. Too silly for words. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
nospam wrote:
In article , sid 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. it's useful for everyone who is interested in quality work. The quality of your work is no better for having an accurately calibrated monitor. 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/ 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. that would be luck. buy a lottery ticket. Lets be clear here, we are talking about eyeball calibration as opposed to calibration with a gadget. 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. which requires a calibrated display. no, just a display. -- sid |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
sid:
what, like this https://flic.kr/p/UBp65Z Not entirely shabby. But would it kill you to give your photos meaningful titles on Flickr? "IMG_2656--2017-05-14--13-32-39" is unworthy of that photo. How about the popular name and maybe the binomial of the animal? See a naming example at https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/29351637460 and note the binomial in the EOL format in tags. While I'm complaining, where's the GPS data? Your referenced photo would be an excellent candidate for the Encyclopedia of Life Flickr pool, but a photo of a wild animal without a location is all but useless. -- 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 |