I calibrate mine, but more for printing.
--Bob
OZMON wrote:
How many hoggers calibrate their monitor, this is very important if you want to get the best results when processing and posting your photographs.
I find it extremely helpful because the monitor always matches then color I get from from lab.
Just started using it and it definitely works well for files that you are printing. It is not worth it for files you are just sharing over the internet since most other monitors are not calibrated, and, therfore, would not yield the same results.
JeffDavidson wrote:
Just started using it and it definitely works well for files that you are printing. It is not worth it for files you are just sharing over the internet since most other monitors are not calibrated, and, therfore, would not yield the same results.
The flaw in this logic is that those of us with calibrated monitors will not see the file as you intended — as it looked when you adjusted it.
I see a pot load of images on UHH with crappy color. Some of those photographers own very high end cameras and lenses. Adjusting their images on a cheap, uncalibrated monitor is like putting a steady fast food diet in a 10-million dollar contract pro athlete, or putting regular gas in a high compression race car engine. You don’t get what you paid for.
So I am intending to send out some images of my many trips to Thailand to have printed and put on the wall of my home. Sounds like it would be advisable for me to calibrate my monitor? I have a macbook pro touchbar with retina display but nearly all of my post processing is done while using an external monitor. 27" 4k OLED (LG 27UD69P). So something like color munki or i1displayPro would be advisable?
If the value 117,117,117 doesn't look gray on the monitor then the monitor is not good. Each RGB values correspond exactly one color, the monitor or printer may not be able to reproduce it but it should be as close as possible.
I calibrate my SAMSUNG 4K 32" MONITOR, and my Toshiba 16" UHD display laptop monthly. It makes a big difference in the quality/color consistency of my prints.
I do all my editing on a 5K Mac which I was calibrating monthly. However I like to sync my favorites to my iPhone and iPad to carry around to share with people. I was frustrated because the phone and pad images never matched what I was seeing on the Mac post edit. Of course not because the Mac was calibrated while the phone and pad were not. So I went back to the "standard" iMac profile provided by Apple, and images on all 3 devices now match well. So for all imaged I want to sync with my iPhone and iPad, I do not edit with a "calibrated" Mac. I use the standard profile. However for those infrequent times I wish to print, I do edit those images with a monitor calibrated to the printers instructions.
redrocktom wrote:
I do all my editing on a 5K Mac which I was calibrating monthly. However I like to sync my favorites to my iPhone and iPad to carry around to share with people. I was frustrated because the phone and pad images never matched what I was seeing on the Mac post edit. Of course not because the Mac was calibrated while the phone and pad were not. So I went back to the "standard" iMac profile provided by Apple, and images on all 3 devices now match well. So for all imaged I want to sync with my iPhone and iPad, I do not edit with a "calibrated" Mac. I use the standard profile. However for those infrequent times I wish to print, I do edit those images with a monitor calibrated to the printers instructions.
I do all my editing on a 5K Mac which I was calibr... (
show quote)
Very interesting. I don't do Apple, but I guess I understand how this could happen.
rb61
Loc: Maple Grove, MN
burkphoto wrote:
Those aims are typically recommended by Datacolor for subdued home or office lighting.
In a pro photo lab, ambient lighting in the color correction area is very dim. We used 105 cd/m^2 as our white point. Back then, we were using low contrast portrait paper, so our monitor gamut was 2.1.
Coincidentally, 105 cd/m^2 monitor brightness matches the print viewing environment used by PPA judges (2000 lux, +/- 250 lux, or about EV 9.7 at ISO 100 on an incident meter held at the print surface.)
Those aims are typically recommended by Datacolor ... (
show quote)
Good information. I have talked to people who indicate that they have problems with calibration. When discussion progresses, I find that that they have a window in the room.
One thing I haven't read here , is not all monitors will calibrate to 100% sRGB or even close . That is why I bought two new monitors last year that were listed capable to 100% sRGB , 99% Adobe RGB after watching other professional photographers using them on youtube . My monitors also have a chip in them that controls that calibration , and not the graphic card in my computers . I have 3 laptops and a older 24" $700 glare free monitor that doesn't even come close to 100% sRGB accurate . I agree calibration will get your monitor as close as it can be , but remember if it wasn't made in the first place to reach 100% sRGB or close to 100% , calibrating will not make it do what it can't and your viewing of photos is still going to be wrong some what . I also use a white day light bulb in my computer room , regular bulbs will give your photos a different color look because they are a yellow light .
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.