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
  #11  
Old May 16th 17, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,331
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 04:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,331
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 07:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 07:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,331
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 07:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,686
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 09:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 09:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,331
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
newshound
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 162
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 09:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default 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  
Old May 16th 17, 09:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default 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

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 08:25 PM
Raw Settings Help Please. [email protected] Digital Photography 0 March 18th 05 07:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.