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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- PeterN |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/16/2017 2:47 PM, 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. 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. And the proper profile. If someone is happy with their non-calibrated monitor, then I will not try to convince them. I am simply stating that the tool is available. I have no dog if they decide not to use it. -- PeterN |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , PeterN
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. Yes, if all you do is show family and vacation images. and on the same display as the one used to adjust them. 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. yep. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- PeterN |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On 5/16/2017 7:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 17:22:49 -0400, Neil wrote: On 5/16/2017 4:05 PM, Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Since there are colors in the RGB spectrum that can't be reproduced in CMYK and vice versa, there will always be differences between monitor and print presentations of a photo. Once I would have agreed with you, You're not disagreeing with me... you're disagreeing with the elementary physics of reflective vs. transmitted light frequencies. That will be a hard one to win... ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:39:23 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 5/16/2017 11:56 AM, 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. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- sid |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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! -- sid |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
Davoud wrote:
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. 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/ -- sid |
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 |