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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |