Comparison: Calibrated to Uncalibrated Monitor

[enduro]

I’ve just borrowed my friends Spyder2PRO and calibrated my 19” LG Flatron widescreen.

Here are two images the top one was processed prior to the calibration today and the bottom one following the calibration. The image was taken in the last light of the day, about 20min prior to sunset.

Comments, opinions on the colour change would be greatly appreciated.

3rd at 5400Kelvin

[I @ M]

1st has better tones through it, 2nd looks to have a yellowish cast on this monitor that I use for web stuff.
The 1st shot is the better one to me Wayne, and it is being viewed in Firefox that is supposedly colour aware.

Hope I got it right according to your setup.

[Allann]

I calibrate mine every month, and though the first looks better, I think it's because the image is a little over saturated. The second, I'll agree, does carry a yellow cast.

[enduro]

1st has better tones through it, 2nd looks to have a yellowish cast on this monitor that I use for web stuff.
The 1st shot is the better one to me Wayne, and it is being viewed in Firefox that is supposedly colour aware.

Hope I got it right according to your setup.

I'm using FF too.

I bumped the temp up to 6500K on the second one, maybe that is why it's so warm.

My whole monitor looks much redder than it was before, the grey windows border on FF for example is quite warm too.

[enduro]

I've just added a 3rd at 5400Kelvin

[bigdazzler]

#3 looks most natural for me, at that time of day, in that light. #2 is obviously warm and looks too yellow.

[arthurking83]

I'll add my two, uncalibrated, bobs worth if 'yall don't mind an uneducated voice.

I reckon #2 is the most natural looking even with it's yellow cast. Considering the conditions that Wayne explained, it; slooks to be the most natural looking colour balance for a 20mins prior to sunset shot... which will naturally have a yellow cfast due to the colour of light.

Accordiong to Nikon WB values cloudy is about 6000K, so I reckon 6500K is about right, and that's roughly what I use too.

If you wanted accurate colour display, as opposed to what the scene actually looked like then you'd guess that #1 would be closer to the mark, and maybe a little more blue too.

I suppose it depends on whether you're trying to display the scene as you saw it, or an accurate colour rendition in more neutral lighting.

I posted a WB comparative thread in the Transport section.

ps. my screen is still uncalibrated. really should get a Spyder myself, but having seen some of my images on Andrew's calibrated Eizo screen, they look as close to the same on my screen as I could tell, so I doubt I'm urgently in need of one ATM.
My screen is an old Sony multiscan thing.

[JM Tran]

I'm using FF too.

I bumped the temp up to 6500K on the second one, maybe that is why it's so warm.

My whole monitor looks much redder than it was before, the grey windows border on FF for example is quite warm too.

wouldnt it be a good idea to keep the 2nd photo the same temp as the first for better and more accurate comparison then?

[ricktas]

I looked at the legs (heheh).

For me (calibrated) the first one has a blue cast (coolness) to it. The second is warmer, and is a really nice version of this, though the legs look a little to vibrant. The third works for me (as a record shot showing accurately what this bird looks like) as the legs look the most natural in the third.

Having said that, I find the second one grabs my attention as the slight warmness and associated colour boost works well.

[Seesee]

#2 is definately the more natural colour range

[Analog6]

The 5400K one is by far the most realistic. While the first is great looking, it is over saturated (if considering it from a 'natural' viewpoint).