Do any of you calibrate your displays? How important is it?

>>2923774

i thought that was a coffee maker. i have a moka pot btw.

>>2923774
Yes, critical if you want to sell or print.

Everyone that doesn't have hardware calibration will disagree, because they're too poor to spend $150 on something so 'boring'. Or they will be under the false allusion that their apple retina screens are shipped with good calibration so it's not needed.

>>2923774
Depends on how important the rest of your workflow is. I have an expensive camera, printing gear and display, so having calibration for it all is a pretty no-brainer move. what's $150 when you've already spent like $20,000 at least.

>>2923851
>>2923854
would you agree that it's mostly necessary for printing? I mean for showing off shots at any online ressource such as flickr/instagram/etc. you have to consider that people usually do not have calibrated displays. Hence, it's not guaranteed that the shot from your calibrated display looks the same at every device pretty much rendering the calibration useless.

>>2923869
Nope. Every device is calibrated to a certain point. So if your monitor is calibrated than there wont be extreme color fuckups because there are less differences between extremes.

>>2923881
But you assume that the viewing device isn't fucked up then. If you say that every device is calibrated to a certain point, then why bother about calibrating your own if not for print?

>>2923869
If your screen is too blue and the persons viewing is too blue, it will look fine, if theirs is too yellow however it's gonna look all kinds of bad. If yours is calibrated and theirs is too yellow it will look "normal" to both of you.

So yeh, even more important than for printing.

>>2923899
but if theirs is too yellow, isn't theirs fucked up? I mean you pay and do that stuff for others and all that just because their device sucks.

>>2923907
Mostly, yes.

>>2923907
No, you do it for you.

If you want people to use your services, you want to be damn sure they don't open your portfolio and think "why are all their colours too X, what a shit photographer, next"

Also, any photographers that are worth their salt will instantly see these colour casts on their correctly calibrated monitor and take the piss out of you.

It's not hard to spot the kiddies on this forum without calibration, you will see comments on white balance, most of the time. I used to get comments on my white balance before I got the correct gear (90%+ argb ips screen & calibrator)

It's not even like it's an expensive purchase, i've just checked sold listings on ebay and a 27" ips screen and spyder 4 can be had for 200 quid. That combo will be more than acceptable for 4-5 years and get used every single day.

>>2923940
Don't get me wrong, but it sounds like bought the device and calibrated your monitor for your own peace of mind. Somebody with a fucked up display would still claim your colors are off, but now you think you can tell the to fuck off cause yours is calibrated. Interestingly many calibration tools also consider the ambient light and not just the monitor. So, if you calibrated during daylight, your colors are going to be off if you do you PP in the evening with only some desk lamp.

>>2923958
> Somebody with a fucked up display would still claim your colors are off

No, because everyone always sees their own screen and thinks "yup, that looks right". If yours was properly calibrated and your photos colour balance was accurate, then your photo would look just as correct as every big companies website and adverts.

If you're looking at a large companies website and think to yourself "huh, they all look very yellow", it's gonna be your screen, not the photos.

>placing your monitor where direct light can hit the screen

No anon. Find a dark corner and get cosy. Also, screen colour isn't based off light reflecting off it, it's backlit.

>>2923964
Absolutely, because large companies bother about all of the displays they use being calibrated including the displays of the mobiles their employees use.
I never said anything about direct light, this is just the bullshit you make up to make yourself feel you're winning a stupid argument on an anonymous internet board.
I said if you calibrated your display in daylight (during daytime, without artificial lightsources involved) and process a photo when it's dark outside with your room/table lighted by an artificial light source with a temperature lower than 5000K, your processed photos are going to have wrong colors.
again:
Sounds like bought the device and calibrated your monitor for your own peace of mind. Somebody with a fucked up display would still claim your colors are off, but now you think you can tell them to fuck off cause yours is calibrated.

You're the worst kind of plebmode digital gearfag.

>>2923964
>Also, screen colour isn't based off light reflecting off it, it's backlit.
and that's why CRTs are still preferred for work involving color.

Reminds me the faggot who claimed the clouds were white and all others told him they had a green cast.

>>2923775
>i have a moka pot btw.

Enjoy your heart attack.

Silva master race here.

Anyone uses displaycal here?

>>2923981
You can see this vividly at play in isi's recent thread where people think their monitors are better calibrated than her camera's backscreen for jpegs from the same camera
Cringe every tiem

>>2923987
Moopco? He's in this very thread!

>>2923981
>Absolutely, because large companies bother about all of the displays they use being calibrated

The fuck you chatting son, the point is big companies will use pro photographers with colour calibrated gear.

>Somebody with a fucked up display would still claim your colors are off

Are you on crack?
If someone's monitor was so fucked up that correctly coloured images look so bad that they feel the need to call it out, then every fucking image would look wrong to them, unless it was done on a monitor that was equally as fucked.

How is this so hard to comprehend?

>I said if you calibrated your display in daylight (during daytime, without artificial lightsources involved) and process a photo when it's dark outside with your room/table lighted by an artificial light source with a temperature lower than 5000K, your processed photos are going to have wrong colors

Again, the fuck you talking about, my advice was to find a dark corner and make sure no light hits the screen directly. The colour of the backlight will overpower any reflected light hitting the screen. Also, nearly all colour calibrators come with an always on sensor to change brightness on the fly, if you had a calibrated monitor you would know this.

>>2925295
Do you have the specs for fuji screens?
How much of the argb gamut do they cover?
Well, I've got an xe1 here and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt - the gamut ain't great and the accuracy is questionable at best, the glossy screen doesn't help matters. Put next to my a7ii the fuji is a clear loser for rear screen and evf.

>>2925339
That's a closed system, what if you want to print larger? The results from the print shop will be completely different to what you were expecting.

>>2925606
>the point is big companies will use pro photographers with colour calibrated gear
How will they know if their displays are not calibrated?

>The colour of the backlight will overpower any reflected light hitting the screen.
This means you're fully relying on what your computer tells you is white. Your eyes adapt to the surrounding light as well, no matter what monitor you're looking at. This is why these calibration tools also consider the ambient light in the room and not just color temperature of the monitor.

>Put next to my a7ii the fuji is a clear loser for rear screen and evf.
How do you know your Sony isn't off?

>The results from the print shop will be completely different to what you were expecting.
Of course it is, it also depends on the calibration of their printers.

>>2925640
a print service will provide you profiles of their printer systems so you can easily soft proof
if your monitor is calibrated, that is

>>2925645
True. At least good printing companies will. There's some drugstore with a printing device around the corner at which people can print their digital photos and all people who printed there told me the colors are way off with high red/magenta. So in terms of consumer printing it really depends on the machine and the company servicing it.

>>2925640
>How do you know your Sony isn't off?
Because it looks nigh on identical to my calibrated ips screen, the fuji doesn't

>Of course it is, it also depends on the calibration of their printers.

Which will be calibrated...
And they will have soft proofing profiles so you can preview the difference.

This isn't rocket science guys, if your screen is calibrated to display colour at industry standard, you will have a smooth and easy time with editing. Remember calibration isn't just for colour but also contrast, hence why you hear people say shit is blown all the time.

>>2925694
>the fuji doesn't
Let me guess...you have an xe1

>>2925694
>industry standard
So srgb you mean? Wait no, adobe rbg...

>>2925748
Both are industry standard, the point is they're standardised. If you send an image in argb to printers they will realise and print accordingly.

So many people in here desperately trying to not spend £50 and justify uncalibrated screens. Toptip, don't be so poor.

>>2926251
You don't actually print.
I can tell by your confidence in srgb and argb.
Rused and used little noob.

Yup

File: X-Rite-Colormunki-Display.jpg (126KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x600px

>>2923774
Calibration devices are cheap as fuck these days, especially compared to the cost of photography gear in general. Even if you are an amateur and your photos are only going on the web, it's money well spent to me.
Plus it's a technology that doesn't become obsolete quickly.

Anyway it's not only for the colors but for the gamma/contrast too.

>>2927205
As this thread demonstrates its mostly about peace of mind for prosumers.
Actual pros buy professional light-shielded monitors.

File: photo_big_15.jpg (476KB, 1500x804px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1500x804px

>>2927219
>Actual pros buy professional light-shielded monitors
That come with integrated calibration hardware, otherwise they still have to buy standalone calibration hardware.

>professional light-shielded
Do you realize the light shield is just a piece of plastic for minimize reflection of light sources?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sinar AG
Camera Model	Sinarback eVolution 75, Sinarcam 2 (Stand Alone)
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Photographer	Rondo Bell
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5324
Image Height	4352
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:02:09 12:03:57
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	804

>>2927277
>professional light-shielded monitors
>he posts the budget prosumer version of whats described
yeah we use CRT still not this trash
>ColorEdge
Edge is right

Finally calibrated my display.

My prints always looked a bit washed out and I always blamed the company.

Anyway my monitor was a bit oversaturated in colors, too much blue and green relative to red. Especially the blue. Now my prints match precisely.

The best bang for buck in calibrating a display would be a Colormunki Display with free DisplayCAL software. Do not go for Spyder.