User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  6

View Poll Results: Do you calibrate?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 76.32%
  • No

    8 21.05%
  • Gravy

    1 2.63%
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Does monitor calibration (or not) affect CC?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    09 Mar 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Does monitor calibration (or not) affect CC?

    How many of us look at images on calibrated screens when offering CC?

    It came to me because when people CC my images they always say that they are over exposed and when I see their images they seem really dull to me, so it has me wondering.

    Yes I calibrate, but also find differences in browers whether colour managed or not!

    So how much does calibration (or not) affect a proper CC of an image?
    Cheers
    Emma

    Avoid shooting with a 12 gauge shotgun. Use a Canon instead.

    Canon 5D, Canon 7D, 50mm 1.4, 18-55mm, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, 580EX Speedlight. Facebook

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,299
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Definitely.

    The biggest issue of working on a non calibrated monitor would be white balance. If your monitor is set to blue for example, as you process your photos you are likely to warm them up, by adjusting white balance or introducing a slight orange/red saturation to remove the colder blue tones.

    Now I look at your result on a calibrated monitor and my CC suggests that you have oversaturated the photo.

    A non calibrated screen leaves you with no way of knowing if your photo is 'correct', until someone looks at the photo on a calibrated monitor and then when they CC your photos saying they need a white balance adjustment, or are over-saturated in the oranges, you are left looking at your photo on your uncalibrated monitor, thinking the person doing the CC has no idea what they are talking about.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I calibrate about monthly, and I have 2x Dell U3011's which both calibrate very well.

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular Tommo1965's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Oct 2010
    Location
    Perth Hills Mundaring
    Posts
    1,028
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good point..Ive just used the AP sites calibration help to get my monitor a little better..I had to adjust the blacks a tad..other than that it seems ok...

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    09 Mar 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Its an interesting thing because I know a guy who wont offer his training to you unless you're working on a calibrated monitor...I think its hugely important when working with images. and really its not a huge investment these days to get a calibration system. I mean if you are investing thousands in camera equipment, what a few more $$ on a Spyder or similar?

    Colour management has been on my mind lately after the prophoto incident of 2011 hahaha

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    how many different calibration 'standards' are there though......does calibration with one system necessarily give you the same results if you do it with another......the most improtant calibration really is so that what you see on the screen matches what you print with - be it your own printer or a commercial printer
    Pentax K-5iis, DA* 50-135 IF SDM | Sigma 18-125 3.5-5.6 | Sigma 70-210 4-5.6 |Sigma 28-80 3.5-5.6 Macro |Pentax-FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 |Pentax A 50 1.7 |Pentax DA 12-24 | Pentax DAL 55-300|Sigma 28-300 3.5-6.3 and other stuff

  7. #7
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,299
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by milesy View Post
    how many different calibration 'standards' are there though......does calibration with one system necessarily give you the same results if you do it with another......the most improtant calibration really is so that what you see on the screen matches what you print with - be it your own printer or a commercial printer

    Most of the devices stick to a standard, so if you calibrate using a color munki and process your photos, then I view them on my screen calibrated using a spyder, the colour shades and brightness levels should be the same on both. This is what calibration does, it profiles the screen and makes it conform to a standard.

    As for screen and print, they will always look different, purely because the screen is a transmitted light (the light source comes out of the screen) and print is a reflected medium, with the light coming from around you and you seeing the image using the ambient reflected light off the surface of the paper. Yes you can get them close but never exactly the same, cause the 'type' of light is different.

  8. #8
    Sunrise Chaser
    Join Date
    10 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You need to Calibrate, Thats it !! I use Spyder 3 Express, $120 delivered , Cheap compared to Cameras and lenses , You have the satisfaction that what you see on screen will be the same as the printed product . I guessing most of the major companies use the same Profiles for colour management , It's very comforting to know you are Calibrated , You can CC in Confidence on Colours and tones
    Canon : 30D, and sometimes the 5D mkIII , Sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8, Canon 24-105 f4 L , On loan Sigma 120-400 DG and Canon 17 - 40 f4 L , Cokin Filters




  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can tell you that I dont offer CC unless I am home and viewing it on my calibrated external monitor, on my calibrated laptop monitor its still not as good so therefore - I dont

  10. #10
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,878
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by milesy View Post
    ......the most improtant calibration really is so that what you see on the screen matches what you print with - be it your own printer or a commercial printer
    That sums it up neatly to me.

    A properly calibrated monitor shows you the correct colours to align with a printer whether it is a commercial lab or your printer at home. Light levels are another part of the equation again that need to addressed by viewing your monitor under the same or very similar conditions each and every time you use it to finalise an image to be printed.

    If you present an image on this site it might be viewed by several hundred different monitors, some calibrated and some not. If they aren't seeing your image the same way that you see it on your monitor and then in a final print it is them that are missing out.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    09 Nov 2009
    Location
    Kalgoorlie
    Posts
    1,153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I answered no to your poll as the actual question in the poll was 'Do you calibrate' although the thread is 'Does calibration affect....'

    I am sure calibration does affect post processing and CC however because I am slightly colour blind I really cannot tell the difference anyway. The end result would have to be way way off for me to notice it so I don't tend to give CC based around colours

    Would it make a difference to my processing if I calibrated? I doubt it so I don't bother.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Jan 2010
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by triptych View Post
    It came to me because when people CC my images they always say that they are over exposed and when I see their images they seem really dull to me, so it has me wondering.
    That suggests to me that your monitor is too bright, which is very common. A lot of the pictures I see here look like they come from systems where the monitor is set too bright. I set mine to 80cd/m2, which is very dim and which is hard to achieve on a lot of monitors because they're designed to run at 120cd or higher.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    09 Nov 2009
    Location
    Kalgoorlie
    Posts
    1,153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since I first responded to this I have bought and use a calibration tool. Yes it does make a difference for me. I used to have my screen bright and therefore processed my images quite darkly. I now process much better with the calibrated screen (or at least I think I do)

  14. #14
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fess67 View Post
    ...... I now process much better with the calibrated screen (or at least I think I do)
    The proof is in the pudding(they say).

    Go back to some of your later early shots processed pre calibrated screen and see how they look.
    I've done that and some of them looked quite awfully yuk, so I went through a process of rectifying as many as I dare too attempt to fix. One thing I really noticed was sharpening halos on earlier images.
    May have something to do with contrast rendition maybe .. but on the whole I had been pleased with most of those earlier images .. just that some looked a lot more yuk than I remembered them to be at the time of processing.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  15. #15
    Sir Rattus79 - The Proclaimant
    Join Date
    15 Jul 2010
    Location
    Forest Lake
    Posts
    1,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My work monitor is only calibrated by eye, so I only CC based on composition rather then technical aspects like exposure unless it's totally obvious that the sky is a pure white overexposure etc.

    My home monitor is calibrated, but it was done some months ago (several in fact) and would be due to be done again.
    Greg Bartle,
    I have a Pentax and I'm not afraid to use it.
    Pentax K5
    Sigma 10-20 | Tamron 17-50 F:2.8 | Sigma 50 F:1.4 | Sigma 70-200 F:2.8 Plus a bunch of Ye Olde lenses


    Would you like to see more?
    http://flickr.com/photosbygreg

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular wmphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I recently switched from Windows to an iMac and first thing I did was calibrate the monitor. However there are two issues I found with the iMac. 1) it is a backlit screen and even calibrated photos don't come out the same when printed. 2) I turned off the "automatically adjust brightness" setting as this was altering the way my shots looked depending on ambient lighting. I now run a second LCD monitor that is calibrated and do all my final adjustments on there before printing and getting more accurate results. I also trust my histogram a bit more than my eyes now.

  17. #17
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,456
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In case you're wondering, I voted "No". There's more to a picture than just colour and tonal considerations.
    When I give CC (which is well-meant, btw) I have also compared lots of other images for tone and colour.

    If some images are dull/flat/off-colour and others are not, then I can't just put it down to non-calibrated monitors.

    Going on some of the foregoing comments, I am surprised the poll bar is still mainly "Yes".

    Anyway, there it is.
    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  18. #18
    Ausphotography Regular Tommo1965's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Oct 2010
    Location
    Perth Hills Mundaring
    Posts
    1,028
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    after replying to the is thread in 2011 I wanted to reply now after gaining some more knowledge on my photography ....a calibrated screen is an absolute must and you should not give CC on a non calibrated monitor particularly about exposure and colors etc

    also be aware that most HTML browsers are not calibration aware straight out of the box...so its best to download the image and view it in the editing software that is ..so even a calibrated screen can look off when just using your browser ..

    see this thread about my observations


    http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ching-browsers

    for Google chrome

    http://blog.dreamstime.com/2012/03/2...hrome_art37325
    Last edited by Tommo1965; 16-10-2013 at 9:29am.
    Cheers and my name is Steve


    OMD Em1...Now with two lenses !

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/steve_tompsett/
    http://tommo.smugmug.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •