kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Dpullum--what we are looking for is consistency across the workflow. Garbage in, garbage out. There IS a standard. Why not try to come as close to it as possible?

You will, for instance, notice that the music is much more pleasant if all the instruments in the orchestra tune to the same pitch ;)

JohninRockville Loc: Rockville, Indiana

But every piano tuner knows a piano sounds best when NOT perfectly to pitch. A piano tuned with an electronic instrument to perfect pitch sounds bad, so pianos are adjusted slightly out of tune.
You mention a "standard" - what standard would that be? What about personal preference - science demonstrated decades ago that color and design preferences differed between men and women. Many in society have varying degrees of color blindness, and we all have differing favorite colors. Photographic papers differ in tint - some are warmer while others are bleached super white, and the type of lighting certainly affects the appearance of colors viewed under it.
While industry related to photographic images/printing may have set standards, the products as viewed by the public vary greatly in perception and appeal. Just because a print doesn't match up with your "standard" doesn't qualify it to be labeled as "garbage".

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Reply to kymarto item by item:
1) "what we are looking for is consistency across the workflow. "
That is fine, I too strive for a consistent work flow. Typically knowing that my prints are better if I jack up the print brightness of a "finished" copy that looks great on the monitor or 32" HDTV. Monitor/TV are back lit projectors of light. Prints by reflection, dependent on gloss, and ambient lighting and viewing distance.

2) "Garbage in, garbage out..." implying that bad photo going into a presentation will be a bad image. OK, true but regardless of how well "tuned" the Camera/Monitor/Printer system is/or isn't the statement can be true. Humm now garbage is turned into methane (natural gas) and bio-diesel.

3) "There IS a standard <of true and faithful reproduction>. Why not try to come as close to it as possible?" Good question, simple answer... I do not strive for a Xerox Copy, rather I like photography as an art form. Check or Topaz Labs new ReStyle do a 30 day. Garbage in Gems out!!

4) "... tune to the same pitch" Oh! like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring (aka Le Sacre du Printemps) Printe Mpxs? Huh? Dissonance was the key! Perfect tuning of sound eliminates "beat notes" (pulse like sound if frequencies are off sync)

Please I do not want to project an "anti standard, anti precision/accuracy" image of my being. Having been a supervisor of a Fiber Physics Lab and a TSDF (Haz-waste disposal) Lab, I am acutely aware of standardization of instrumentation. Arsenic level is not a subjective measurement it is a +/- number. Only congress tolerates high numbers as they drink distilled water!! (sorry!)

Color, color intensity and the interaction of two colors is a subjective lighting/eye/mind/memory/mood-to-day highly variable "thing". kymarto, I agree with you, but to a lesser degree. I require only "reasonable" tuning-agreement because there is almost no real tuning... one illuminated system, one reflective/adsorbing.

Remember prints-film/slide-film? Slides were more life like than life... Viva Vivid... the chant of art lovers. Muddy colors even if a photograph of mud are not attractive.. jack up the yellows, use micro-detail enhancement (Topaz Detail)... photo becomes more real than real... then and only then will people appreciate the beauty of mud.

Birn's (digital) Lighting & Rendering (416 pgs) is a valuable "art" creation book. It is tuned to game creation, but what it demonstrates (for example) how a colors change when adjacent to another. Color is VERY subjective. I highly recommend this book. Perspective, lite, adjacent shape distortion are covered.

My latest pipe dream photo work deals with small mirrored room 12x12") (wish I had a 12'x12' to shoot nudes)... weird to say the least ... one item is reflected every where because the mirrors are just a bit un-parallel. Fun.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I'm not arguing against personal preference--I'm only saying that one wants that personal preference to be consistent across platforms. I assume you want your color choice to be represented accurately across the presentational gamut--what you worked hard to perfect to your tastes on your monitor should look the same on mine, or in a print, as near as can be managed.

This is the argument for hardware colorimeters. They are an external reference. Software is a poor substitute.

Of course there is no guarantee that my monitor is anywhere near a standard calibration, but the point is that an agreed-upon reference exists. I sometimes do prints for exhibition at professional labs. It is very nice to know that what appears on my monitor is a close match for what they see on theirs, and that the prints are already in the ballpark on first proofing.

If you are standalone calibration is not important, if you are not it is indispensable.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I think we are all agreeing that some form of calibration is necessary, but we are just debating when there is a need or if it extremal mechanical type or internal software fits preference. So, if I wanted my monitor to be Plunk-N then indeed I would, out of need,or out of cause-I-wanna use an external calibration. Otherwise I can do well with software/image type of calibration.

Software calibration... for example the black-white scale... can you see the difference between two blocks of blacks (left) and two far right white blocks, then brightness is close to ideal.

For color there are similar charts (take a look and let us know if it agrees well with hardware calibration.) : http://www.lunnfabrics.com/monitor.htm

If a casual use monitor is calibrated to match the chart then the calibration is quite good. My calibration is (by luck surly) quite good.

This debate has forced me to research and think deeper than I ever had before about calibration.

Thank You lxu532 for building the fire of contemplation.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Software calibration got me nowhere near what my external colorimeter plus associated s/w does. The latter sets RGB values across a number of luminance values, and can be adjusted for desired color temperature.

This is extremely valuable for printing, you might want to have a color temp of 9300K for viewing on some monitors, but definitely 6500K for print proofing.

It is important to define your target. One size does not fit all, unfortunately. Even Macs and PCs have different standard monitor gammas...

JohninRockville Loc: Rockville, Indiana

I checked out the chart you mentioned - all areas are distinguishable - and this is on a 2 year old MacBook Pro that has never been calibrated. Suits me!

lxu532 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Thank you, everyone, for all the responses! I truly appreciate all the feedback.