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
  #71  
Old May 19th 17, 12:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Monitor settings

On Thu, 18 May 2017 22:39:47 +0100, sid wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:00:26 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam (and any one else) cannot see color differences when they only
see the end result. They have to have a starting point in order to
determine a color *difference* in the end result.

You're only helping to prove my point here. What should one do, make sure
sure there is a colour chart included in all images so you can satisfy
yourself that the colours are accurate?


What one should do is use a color managed work flow with both the
author and the viewer using calibrated screens. That way the viewer
will see on their viewer the same colors as the author saw on their
viewer (subject only to measurement error).


Well that is never going to happen. A whole heap of different devices are
used to view photos and most of them look fine straight out of the box,
perhaps a little bright and over saturated, but nevertheless completely
acceptable to the majority of users. Good luck getting them all to calibrate
their viewing devices so you know you photos are "just so."

As things stand, while your image is acceptable to me,


There's that point your making for me again.


I have no way
of knowing whether or not what I see is what you see or what you
intended me to see.


But nevertheless perfectly acceptable.

If you are not using a color managed work flow it
is almost certain that what I see is different from what you see. The
differences could be significant.


But 99 times out of a hundred completely insignificant.


It depends how fussy you are.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #72  
Old May 19th 17, 12:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default Monitor settings

On 5/18/2017 7:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:53:29 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 7:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 05:42:05 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 7:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:05:11 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, 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.

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.

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.

The print will only be accurate if the color of the bead is within the
gamut of the ink and paper combination. Few printers can cover even
the sRGB gamut, let alone Adobe-RGB.

Since both the bead and a print are perceived via the reflective color
spectrum, it is far more likely that the colors can be acceptably
matched than when viewing in the RGB transmitted color spectrum. It
sounds to me like the bead-maker understands this pretty well.

I suspect the only color gamut with which the bead maker was concerned
was that of the selection of colors they had available to them.

She was apparently concerned enough about the accuracy of her printed
material to verify the image output with her X-Rite color checker. As
one who has created tens of thousands of pages of printed color
material, her approach makes more sense to me than ignoring that aspect
and simply calibrating her monitor.


What she was doing makes sense if she was primarily interested in the
printed output. What it looked like on the screen would be almost
irrelevant except that if the screen is calibrated it makes it easier
to get it right in the print.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it makes training the eye to spot
problems easier. However, the way to get predictable output in print is
a bit more complicated.

Using a calibrated screen makes it easier to get it right in other
calibrated (or near calibrated) screens. If neither the source nor the
target screens are calibrated it's anyone's guess what colors the
target viewer will end up seeing. Of course, this may not matter.

IMO, one needs to realize that only a minute percentage of on-line
viewers will have anything close to a calibrated screen. Photographers
that create images for the web sometimes steer well clear of those
portions of the color spectrum that can be detrimental to viewing on
uncalibrated monitors.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #73  
Old May 19th 17, 04:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Monitor settings

On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:50:33 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/18/2017 7:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:53:29 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 7:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 05:42:05 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 7:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:05:11 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Tue, 16 May 2017 19:45:22 +0100, 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.

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.

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.

The print will only be accurate if the color of the bead is within the
gamut of the ink and paper combination. Few printers can cover even
the sRGB gamut, let alone Adobe-RGB.

Since both the bead and a print are perceived via the reflective color
spectrum, it is far more likely that the colors can be acceptably
matched than when viewing in the RGB transmitted color spectrum. It
sounds to me like the bead-maker understands this pretty well.

I suspect the only color gamut with which the bead maker was concerned
was that of the selection of colors they had available to them.

She was apparently concerned enough about the accuracy of her printed
material to verify the image output with her X-Rite color checker. As
one who has created tens of thousands of pages of printed color
material, her approach makes more sense to me than ignoring that aspect
and simply calibrating her monitor.


What she was doing makes sense if she was primarily interested in the
printed output. What it looked like on the screen would be almost
irrelevant except that if the screen is calibrated it makes it easier
to get it right in the print.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it makes training the eye to spot
problems easier. However, the way to get predictable output in print is
a bit more complicated.

Using a calibrated screen makes it easier to get it right in other
calibrated (or near calibrated) screens. If neither the source nor the
target screens are calibrated it's anyone's guess what colors the
target viewer will end up seeing. Of course, this may not matter.

IMO, one needs to realize that only a minute percentage of on-line
viewers will have anything close to a calibrated screen. Photographers
that create images for the web sometimes steer well clear of those
portions of the color spectrum that can be detrimental to viewing on
uncalibrated monitors.


.... especially some of the older monitors.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #74  
Old May 19th 17, 08:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Monitor settings

nospam wrote:

In article , sid
wrote:


Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment
consistently, calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known
standard.

As long as the eyeball calibration is repeated at the same frequency
as any hardware calibration would be then the results will be equally
consistent for the purposes required.

nonsense. an eyeball is notoriously *not* accurate.


It doesn't need to be if you're not doing colour critical professional
work.


nonsense.

plenty of non-professionals want accurate high quality results. it
ain't just colour-critical work.

just because you aren't interested in quality doesn't mean the rest of
the world isn't.


Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.



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?

--
sid
  #75  
Old May 19th 17, 05:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,732
Default Monitor settings

In article , sid
wrote:

Consistent results are achieved by using the same equipment
consistently, calibrated or not.

nope. it's achieved by calibrating the equipment to a known
standard.

As long as the eyeball calibration is repeated at the same frequency
as any hardware calibration would be then the results will be equally
consistent for the purposes required.

nonsense. an eyeball is notoriously *not* accurate.

It doesn't need to be if you're not doing colour critical professional
work.


nonsense.

plenty of non-professionals want accurate high quality results. it
ain't just colour-critical work.

just because you aren't interested in quality doesn't mean the rest of
the world isn't.


Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.


then it's a good thing i didn't insult you or anyone else, isn't it?

if anyone has no real argument, that would be you, something even more
clear now than it was before.

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.
  #76  
Old May 19th 17, 11:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Monitor settings

nospam wrote:


just because you aren't interested in quality doesn't mean the rest of
the world isn't.


Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.


then it's a good thing i didn't insult you or anyone else, isn't it?

if anyone has no real argument, that would be you, something even more
clear now than it was before.


The more you know you've lost the more pointless your posts become.

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.

--
sid
  #77  
Old May 19th 17, 11:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19,732
Default 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.
  #78  
Old May 20th 17, 12:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,438
Default Monitor settings

On Fri, 19 May 2017 23:21:47 +0100, sid wrote:

nospam wrote:


just because you aren't interested in quality doesn't mean the rest of
the world isn't.

Plain old insults, shows you've got no real argument.


then it's a good thing i didn't insult you or anyone else, isn't it?

if anyone has no real argument, that would be you, something even more
clear now than it was before.


The more you know you've lost the more pointless your posts become.

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.


Oh, it does. The problem is that you are not using an appropriate
test.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #79  
Old May 20th 17, 11:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Monitor settings

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?

--
sid
  #80  
Old May 20th 17, 11:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
sid[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default 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.

--
sid
 




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 05:41 AM.


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.