Calibrated Monitor Vs Non-Calibrated Monitor

[ricktas]

Though this is not perfect, it serves a purpose to show how an uncalibrated monitor can affect how you see a photo.

The below are two photographs of monitors, the top one is my uncalibrated laptop monitor, and the bottom one is my calibrated desktop monitor

When we, photographers, talk about calibrating our screens/monitors, we are talking about setting our screens to a known standard, so that when we view someone else's photos we can be reasonably sure what we look at is VERY close to what the photographer intended. Uncalibrated monitors can result in something completely different.

I processed this photo with a warm black and white filter that gave it an almost sepia look, but the uncalibrated monitor shows none of that warmth, rather leaving the photo looking a cool blue.

As I said, the methods I used to capture these screen shots was not an exact science, but it serves the purpose of showing how dramatically differently the same photo can appear, when viewed between a calibrated and an un-calibrated monitor.

Do you calibrate your screen? Maybe it is something you should consider doing?

example.jpg

[Philih]

Great example to highlight the issue. Currently I have no idea how close either of my monitors are to being accurate. The tones and colours vary widely between the two. Yet more money to be spent I guess

[Kym]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...sh_photographs

[rodbam]

The price of IPS panel monitors are coming down, my friend just bought a 23" Dell IPS monitor for $230 from *removed* . I was surprised to see my older U2410 is still on *removed* which might seem a bit rich for some but there's no excuse not to get an IPS panel at around $230 I think.
I use the Colormunki Photo to calibrate my monitor & it also profiles my printers.

*please read the site rules, in particular rules 3-7*

[Kym]

MSY Have 23" IPS monitors from $187 and 27" from $277 -- there is no reasons photographers should not have an IPS monitor!

Repost:

So we all know that an IPS (In Plane Switching) monitor is supposed to be better than a TN (Twisted Nematic + Film) for colour reproduction?
read this http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/specs.htm for all the gory details

[William]

When this "ViewSonic" dies , IPS for sure , I'm I convert , My Tablet has an IPS screen , To bad it's only 7 inch

[mongo]

Mongo has used an IMac for the last year. Mongo uses the simple internal self calibrating tool. Have not bothered to get a spyder calibration tool. The internal tool seems to work well enough for now.

BTW - how can to tell if the monitor is an IPS monitor ??

[William]

William thinks it is just better viewing angles Mongo ? Correct me if I'm wrong somebody To get a more accurate colour presentation

Mongo , Just a quick Google , May explain something : http://www.slrlounge.com/what-is-an-...g-ips-displays

[ricktas]

Mongo has used an IMac for the last year. Mongo uses the simple internal self calibrating tool. Have not bothered to get a spyder calibration tool. The internal tool seems to work well enough for now.

BTW - how can to tell if the monitor is an IPS monitor ??

IPS details should be in the tech specs for the monitor : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...-photo-editing

[MissionMan]

Mongo has used an IMac for the last year. Mongo uses the simple internal self calibrating tool. Have not bothered to get a spyder calibration tool. The internal tool seems to work well enough for now.

BTW - how can to tell if the monitor is an IPS monitor ??

I'll do a video tonight of the comparison on my Mac between internal calibration and a Spyder calibration tool. The results will surprise you.

[MissionMan]

Here it is. Might take a little while for youtube to process it but hopefully it's clear. I started by doing a screencam but forgot like an idiot that the screencam doesn't pick up profiles so I had to record it with a point and shoot. I'm not sure how clear it is in the video but if you go to max resolution on the video it may help. Apologies if it's not that clear in the photo itself but you should see that the internally calibrated picture is a little warmer.

http://youtu.be/WiT7I71sIck

[DonUnder]

Unless your image is intended for print then calibration is virtually pointless.

As 99.9% of images these days end up on the web and therefor displayed on uncalibrated equipment then you have little control over the end result anyway.

If you are printing then calibration is vital.

[ricktas]

Unless your image is intended for print then calibration is virtually pointless.

As 99.9% of images these days end up on the web and therefor displayed on uncalibrated equipment then you have little control over the end result anyway.

If you are printing then calibration is vital.

Not true. If i critiqued my photo above on the uncalibrated view, i would comment about the cool tones etc, that do not exist in the original. calibration is important for a variety of reasons, not just printing.

[DonUnder]

If it looks correct on your monitor and then somebody else views it on an entirely different monitor for critique who's to say which one is "correct". At the end of the day, unless you have control over the final display medium (whether that is print or display) then you've no idea how your image is going to look anyway.

[ricktas]

If it looks correct on your monitor and then somebody else views it on an entirely different monitor for critique who's to say which one is "correct". At the end of the day, unless you have control over the final display medium (whether that is print or display) then you've no idea how your image is going to look anyway.

If it looks correct on my monitor and my monitor is calibrated then the image is set to a 'standard'. yes someone one an uncalibrated monitor is going to see it differently. But we have the tools to ensure we are meeting a world recognised standard, why not do so? Just dismissing something cause someone else might not be able to meet the standard is not good practice. We should all be striving for the best!

[DonUnder]

But calibration isn't just about the colour of the pixels your monitor is displaying but also about the ambient lighting conditions of where you are viewing the image. Two identically calibrated monitors in different lighting conditions displaying the same image could very well display quite different tones.

Even on the same calibrated display, as ambient light changes over time (as it tends to do unless you are working in a controlled environment) then what an image looks like can change.

There are just way to many factors involved to say "this is how it looks on my display so this is how it should look on all displays".

I'm not dismissing calibration at all. I am just pointing out that it is not a panacea which will result in a consistent colour quality to your images regardless of where and how it is being displayed. I have seen so many people fret for hours over getting that perfect calibration when all they do is upload their images to facebook/flick/500px etc. I can't help but facepalm at all the time and energy that went into it when the average viewer of any of these sites will have nowhere near a calibrated device.

[fess67]

I have to say that my experience after buying a Spyder is my processing seems better. By better I mean...errr...ummm...hmmm......well I cannot quite explain it properly other than to say I used to always process on the dark side and get very upset when people printed them put and they had lost all their life and vibrancy. I used to blame the printer - I know realise it was me.

Add into the mix that I am colour blind and therefore one might think calibration is even more useless but I find it useful because it gives me more confidence that the histogram is right, if that makes sense. Calibration tool is cheap given that you are going to keep it for years

[RJD]

Unless your image is intended for print then calibration is virtually pointless.

As 99.9% of images these days end up on the web and therefor displayed on uncalibrated equipment then you have little control over the end result anyway.

If you are printing then calibration is vital.

The message I get from this is not that calibration is pointless, it's that we need to be more conscious of getting our photos printed. All the effort we put into improving our photography, chasing shots, buying the equipment to do so.... what a waste if we don't print! I have a wall (well, 1 at this stage) that I am slowly filling with an assortmen of prints of photos I have taken I like for one reason or another. They may not be the best photos, but I love looking at them and being reminded of that particular moment.

I don't think it matters how good you are (or aren't), calibration will help get the best result from any effort put into processing but especially so when printing. Plus, looking at photos on sites dedicated to photography, there is a fair chance we will be subjected to a much higher than average number of photos processed on calibrated monitors. Yes, there will always be variables, but why not maximise your chances of seeing something the way it should be seen?