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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , 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. 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. tell her to buy a lottery ticket. she's incredibly lucky. unless she has a calibrated display, it's pure luck that anything matches. if she replaces any component, she's in for a very big surprise, and not one she's going to enjoy. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
In article , sid
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. 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. nonsense. 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. 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. eyeball calibration is a contradiction. 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. with just a display, you're relying on luck. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. Calibrating the monitor makes it easier to train the eye to spot color problems prior to printing. It does little for on-line image presentation because most folks don't have calibrated (or calibratable) monitors. -- best regards, Neil |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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! -- sid |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. It depends upon what you mean by 'really accurate'. While the human eye is capable of seeing quite small variations in color it does not mean that a human can properly balance R, G, B and luminance when attempting to set a display. Nevertheless that same human eye will be aware of subtle variances of color in a print (or display) to the point where the human will know that what they have got is not what they want. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:57:43 +0200, 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. That's a bit unkind. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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, but over the last year (or so) my Epson 3800 printer died followed by my 10 year old Dell U2410 monitor and shortly after that my 4 year old Dell U2412 monitor. I now have an Epson SureColor P800 and two Dell UP2516D high gamut monitors. I am variously amazed, intrigued and impressed by the fact that when using the Epson Premium Gloss photopaper, the difference between 'proof' colors and normal settings are almost iniscernable. For practical purposes what I see is what I get with the lighting of the print being the limiting factor. Calibrating the monitor makes it easier to train the eye to spot color problems prior to printing. It does little for on-line image presentation because most folks don't have calibrated (or calibratable) monitors. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Monitor settings
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. -- PeterN |
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 |