Nikon D40 or Canon XT or ?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:04:55 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:35:01 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Eric Stevens wrote:

Which is based (hopefully) on the average monitor leaving the
factory, not on one that has run and aged for I don't know
how many thousands of hours.

I prefer to sell my monitors when they get to that stage. :-)

Even just 8 hours every workday is 2000 hours a year.
You sell your monitors every year or two?

It would probably average about every 2 or 3 years. The rapid progress
with LCD monitors has caused a recent acceleration.

Just for fun, can you toggle between the installaion ICM curve
and your latest curve from recalibration?

In the case of the Dell the change is still almost imperceptible. I'm
very impressed by its stability.

Then there is perceptible change. Little change, but if colour
is critical ...

If colour is _that_ crtical I would hand the job on to a professional.



Eric Stevens

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:26:18 -0700 (PDT), Mike Eisenstadt wrote:

Here we descend to pure gibberish?
. . .
That sight unseen you would deny that the prints I have spoken about
do not faithfully reproduce the objects they are photographs of is
truly amazing. There is something in Usenet fora that brings out this
behavior.

Yes, and it's people like you most responsible for that behavior.
Your descriptions are unclear and at times ambiguous, and your
supercilious attitude to those that are trying to help and who know
much more about profiling than you do isn't very helpful. Though
it's not very easy, some are *trying* to understand by reading
between the lines to try to puzzle out the information that you
haven't yet provided. You should try to work harder to meet them
halfway if you really want your problem to be solved. Or you could
continue to be one of those usenet denizens that you deplore.