# Overexposed - Underexposed - Monitor callibration



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

Ever since I started shooting, I had never calibrated my monitor until recently.  I always try to set my monitor close to my iphone and ipad.  That seems to do the trick.  I am not as concern about the color as much as the brightness/exposure.  It always drives me nuts when I cc someone work and I tell them it is overexposed and they come back to me and say.. do you calibrate your monitor?  Well guess what, do you rather have an image that looks correct on a "calibrated" screen, or do you rather have an image that looks correct on the most used mobile phone and tablet in the world?  

Now I have a brand new laptop with non glossy screen, I decided to buy spyder color pro and calibrate it.  IMO, my calibration vs iPhone and iPad (factory setting brightness level) is pretty dead on.  If you are new to photography, I highly suggest my method.  I even printed bunch of stuff at costco, they all look pretty close too.

Now that I have a calibrated monitor, which by the way look identical to my iphone and ipad, a few people just criticized my latest boudoir photos being overexposed.  This got me thinking.. is buying a calibration tool really that worth it?  So far I think it is a waste of money.  Setting my monitor close to iphone and ipad is good enough IMO.  Do I need to be THAT guy and reply back, "Do you have a calibrated monitor?".  I don't even know anymore.  All I know is this... my boudoir photos look good on MY monitor, MY iphone, My ipad and the album I printed  .   If you dont calibrate your monitor, I highly suggest comparing your monitor to factory setting apple devices.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Ever since I started shooting, I had never  calibrated my monitor until recently.  I always try to set my monitor  close to my iphone and ipad.  That seems to do the trick.  I am not as  concern about the color as much as the brightness/exposure.  It always  drives me nuts when I cc someone work and I tell them it is overexposed  and they come back to me and say.. do you calibrate your monitor?  Well  guess what, do you rather have an image that looks correct on a  "calibrated" screen, or do you rather have an image that looks correct  on the most used mobile phone and tablet in the world?
> 
> Now I have a brand new laptop with non glossy screen, I decided to buy  spyder color pro and calibrate it.  IMO, my calibration vs iPhone and  iPad (factory setting brightness level) is pretty dead on.  If you are  new to photography, I highly suggest my method.  I even printed bunch of  stuff at costco, they all look pretty close too.
> 
> ...



Guess what, Robin! Professional print labs CALIBRATE their equipment to a standard! (even NON-Professionals labs typically do this also!) Which is why calibrating your monitor will allow them to give you prints that look exactly like what you see on your calibrated monitor. It works together!

And if close enough is good enough for you... fine, but it may not be close enough for others. If another persons Ipad or Samsung galaxy is different from yours... and they match their monitor to those... wow, your shots will look like crap on their screens! 

Calibration helps to help everyone see something similar, gives us common ground, as much as possible... so everything looks good on all screens.

Maybe we should just tell the PRO print labs to start matching their output to a frigging PHONE? Yea.. right!  lol! (That would be like using Facebook as the definition of Professional Quality, in other words?)

Your idea might be better than no calibration at all.. but not better than true calibration!

(And I apologize if it sounds like I am being a smartA$$... it is not intentional! Too frigging much caffiene! BBBRRrrrrrrrrr!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Oops.. I am being logical again...

curious as to what others think on this topic too!


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> It always drives me nuts when I cc someone work and I tell them it is overexposed and they come back to me and say.. do you calibrate your monitor?  Well guess what, do you rather have an image that looks correct on a "calibrated" screen, or do you rather have an image that looks correct on the most used mobile phone and tablet in the world?


Sorry bud, but I would rather my **** be right, period.  I don't care who makes your tablet - if it's off, it's off.

Just today, someone here said that the WB in a photo of mine was off.  It wasn't.  No offense to that guy (he didn't realize his calibration was off), but you can't really comment on colors unless you are sure you're seeing the same thing the photographer is seeing.  It's either right, or it's not.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

Fair enough Josh.  So I have calibrated my monitor and printed the photos I shared and I still have comment about overexposed.  

Not everyone is willing to spend $ just to calibrate their monitor.  What I said about comparing it to an iphone and ipad is still a good idea though.  Do you rather have no adjustment at all?  Or do you rather compare it with an iphone?  Some people have the brightness of their monitor turned soo high or so low.

These websites work too.
5 Online Tools to Help Calibrate Your Monitor


----------



## Tee (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> All I know is this... my boudoir photos look good on MY monitor, MY iphone, My ipad and the album I printed  .



Your exposure was fine.  It just wasn't in alignment with what viewers want.  Remember Rub?  She used to post lots of bright boudoir.  People expect boudoir to be soft and moody.  Brighten that sheet up, I say.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Fair enough Josh.  So I have calibrated my monitor and printed the photos I shared and I still have comment about overexposed.
> 
> Not everyone is willing to spend $ just to calibrate their monitor.  What I said about comparing it to an iphone and ipad is still a good idea though.  Do you rather have no adjustment at all?  Or do you rather compare it with an iphone?  Some people have the brightness of their monitor turned soo high or so low.
> 
> ...



Since the brightness can be adjusted on Ipads and Iphones... where do you suggest everyone set that too... before using it to adjust their monitor? Still would need to be the same for everyone... or it won't work.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin, check this out:
dispcalGUI?Open Source Display Calibration and Characterization powered by Argyll CMS

You will need to install this first though:
Argyll Color Management System Home Page

Calibration doesn't have to be expensive.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

I said, factory setting.




cgipson1 said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough Josh.  So I have calibrated my monitor and printed the photos I shared and I still have comment about overexposed.
> ...


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> Guess what, Robin! Professional print labs...


That's nice* if you print your photos*.

What if you shoot photos intended mainly to be displayed on the internet, though? Desktop backgrounds, stock scenes for online articles, blah blah.

If so, then it may in fact BETTER not to calibrate your monitor, because all the people viewing your image will be using whatever their factory-standard calibrations are.  You'd be better off buying whatever the most common monitor type is, or two or three of the most common devices, and adjusting your colors to look best on that/those, even if it looks bad on a calibrated monitor.



> Sorry bud, but I would rather my **** be right, period. I don't care who makes your tablet - if it's off, it's off.


The people who care are people who look at your work on their tablets, obviously.

Again, _if your main audience uses tablets_, and you calibrate your equipment away from what they have and toward a more "correct" monitor (according to printing standards), you are effectively breaking it and guaranteeing that you're going to get wrong, inaccurate images.





Bottom line: There is no such thing as a "correct" (universally) calibration. The correct calibration is whatever best matches the situation in which your work will be viewed most.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

^^^ thats what I meant.. I am not a good writer.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Guess what, Robin! Professional print labs...
> 
> 
> That's nice* if you print your photos*.
> ...


Better not to calibrate?  Are you insane?

If you're only posting to the web, calibration is arguably even more important.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> If you're only posting to the web, calibration is arguably even more important.


If calibration were designed to bring your monitor to the median color space of all popular manufactured viewing devices in the modern era, yes.

But that's not what typical calibration does. It pushes you toward a standard that was arbitrarily decided somewhere and is used in professional circles like printers, which *may or may not *equate to what the typical internet viewer sees.

So if your work is mainly intended for the internet, you should either:
A) Calibrate to the central tendency of the consumer electronics market (mobile and laptops and desktops), rather than to printing standards, or if you can't find any official body that maintains that information,
B) Own or borrow a handful of the most widely bought viewing screens (e.g., Mac, Dell, and Lenovo computer monitors, and iphone, ipad) and attempt this yourself.  Or
C) With limited funds, just calibrate toward whatever *the *most most one or two popular devices are (probably the iphone, but I'm not entirely sure. Easy enough to research)


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I said, factory setting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is the factory setting for Brightness? No one can ever change it or they would be off, right?

 On a bright sunny outside day... they need to increase brightness... when reading or surfing in a dark room, they usually dim it some. 

The Ipad has a pretty wide range of brightness too....



Both shot at the same manual camera settings... no change except to the brightness on the IPAD....


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

So, let's just dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator, that's how corporate America works, why should anything else be different?


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator


Your word choices of "dumb" and "lowest" imply that there's something less CORRECT about the calibration of typical consumer electronic devices, and something more CORRECT about printers' standards.

That would be an error, though. There's not.  Nothing is more right or wrong about either of them.  The right choice for calibration as an artist is the one that matches your intended work's viewing conditions.  Purely relative.



In other words, it is equally "dumb" to calibrate to printers' standards if you never print your work as it would be to calibrate to iphones if you always print your work.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > If you're only posting to the web, calibration is arguably even more important.
> 
> 
> If calibration were designed to bring your monitor to the median color space of all popular manufactured viewing devices in the modern era, yes.
> ...



A - *sRGB IS a Standard*... why not just use that for calibration (for those Internet photographers! lol!) sRGB - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
B and C - Too many variable... brightness, color, screen protectors, ambient light... etc... etc...etc.....


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

You put it next to your usual lighting condition in front of your monitor while editing of course!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 12, 2013)

Well...there have been threads here and on other forums...there is a HUGE variation in monitors...there is always somebody, somewhere, who is viewing photos and web pages on a simply pathetic computer monitor, or a sub-standard screen on some mind of device.

I was watching one of the Creativelive.com webinars, and the presenter (Doug Gordon) said that basically, spending time color-correcting images was a waste of time because people view them on-line on their crappy work computer, or their _ridonculusly-outdated_ piece-o-junk Windoze laptop, or the basement computer the kids left for them when they moved out, and so on...


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator
> 
> 
> Your word choices of "dumb" and "lowest" imply that there's something less CORRECT about the calibration of typical consumer electronic devices, and something more CORRECT about printers' standards.
> ...


There is a good reason for that.  That reason is that most consumer devices ship with something other than the correct color profile.  Maybe you've never calibrated a monitor before - I really don't know or care all that much.

Whenever you do finally make that jump, you might be surprised how differently the "right" colors look compared to the ones you've grown used to seeing every day.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> You put it next to your usual lighting condition in front of your monitor while editing of course!



Again, what brightness? Do you have to do a factory reset every time you need to calibrate it? Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change). Can you gaurantee every screen protector is going to allow the same amount of light through, and at the same color? Can you gaurantee that everyone will have the same ambient light when they do the comparison, because that will affect it greatly!

That is where REAL calibration has the advantage... it reduces as many variables as possible, and will even compensate for screen protector differences, ambient light differences, screen differences, etc....


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> B and C - Too many variable... brightness, color, screen protectors, ambient light... etc... etc...etc.....


What's that supposed to mean? "Too many" variables? You don't get a choice to have any fewer.

If you display your work on the internet, then you display your work on the internet. However many variables the internet users have is the number *you have to deal with!* Whether you like it or not. Holding your fingers in your ears and going "nanananana" and ignoring it isn't going to make the internet any less variable.

So once we've accepted that it's an extremely variable place, what's the BEST effort you can put forth to give your images the best chance of being viewed as you intended?  Well, regardless of how variable the internet is, your best chance will always be putting yourself near the central mean tendency of internet viewing devices.  NOT the central tendency of printers who have nothing to do with you or your clients.

If you fail to do that, then your work will suffer from both the variability (which will still be there) AND being away from the mean central tendency, which will add up to even more overall inaccuracy than if you had calibrated to Dell factory settings and iphones, etc.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

You can't control what everyone else sees.  You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though.  After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do.  Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change)


No, you can't guarantee that.  You have to, in fact, periodically recalibrate to whatever the current modern central tendency is for consumer electronics, if you want the most accuracy.

Pain in the **?  Yes.  But necessary for maximum accuracy.  If you just use the printers' standards and then sit on your laurels forever, then all you're doing is giving up and GUARANTEEING that you'll NEVER have maximum accuracy.  Seems to me it is better to at least try.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> You can't control what everyone else sees. You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though. After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do. Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?



This is absolutely true.  You can't control them, but you have to do the best that you can do.

And the best you can do is to calibrate your own editing system to match the mean of what most clients are going to be viewing on, which if your business is on the internet means things like Dell factory monitors and factory calibrated iphones.  After that, it's out of your hands.

But if you calibrate to an unrelated industry's standards that don't match, then there IS still power remaining in your hands (the power to recalibrate to a more accurate on average and relevant standard), which you are not taking maximum advantage of.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Can you gaurantee that the devices won't change from version to version (The calibration standards DONT change)
> 
> 
> No, you can't guarantee that.  You have to, in fact, periodically recalibrate to whatever the current modern central tendency is for consumer electronics, if you want the most accuracy.
> ...



Tell you what.. you calibrate to your IPHONE or whatever! I will stick to professional tools... problem solved!


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

Problem solved in terms of ending an argument on the internet, perhaps.  Problem not solved for having clients (who are usually not image professionals!) most likely to actually see the images you want them to see.

The reason many professionals use those standards you are talking about is only because most professionals rely heavily on prints. People tend to pay less for digital desktop backgrounds than they do for wedding albums. But if you exclusively sell desktop backgrounds anyway, then what do you care about what most other people make their money off of?


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > You can't control what everyone else sees. You do have to do your part to make sure it's right though. After that, it's out of your hands - there isn't anything you can do. Yes, it may be off on some monitors, but what are you going to do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right.  Thank you for providing that example.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Problem solved in terms of ending an argument on the internet, perhaps.  Problem not solved for having clients (who are usually not image professionals!) most likely to actually see the images you want them to see.
> 
> The reason many professionals use those standards you are talking about is only because most professionals rely heavily on prints.



Remember above where I mentioned a STANDARD sRGB? Guess what... that is the INTERNET standard... so most of the silly toys you mention will work with it!


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right. Thank you for providing that example.


You have still yet to explain the gap between "The printing industry happens to standardize it this way" versus "This is the cosmically and philsophically RIGHT way to do things."

I fully agree on the first part.  The second part you are pulling out of thin air.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

> Remember above where I mentioned a STANDARD sRGB? Guess what... that is the INTERNET standard... so most of the silly toys you mention will work with it!



What are you talking about?  Yes, sRGB is the internet standard for data format.  That has nothing to do with this conversation. Robin and I are both already (probably, I know I am) using sRGB.  So what?  Using sRGB is an important first step, but it itself *is not calibration*.  You have to also go further and adjust the white balance and gamma, etc. of your monitor to match that of the intended display device/format to be fully calibrated, in addition to having compatible data formats.

This thread is about the white balance and gamma, etc., not the sRGB, which should generally be assumed unless stated otherwise since it is the default setting on pretty much everything.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right. Thank you for providing that example.
> 
> 
> You have still yet to explain the gap between "The printing industry happens to standardize it this way" versus "This is the cosmically and philsophically RIGHT way to do things."
> ...


The second part, as in my thanking you?  You are correct - I did pull that out of my ass.

Look, there IS a standard.  If you choose to ignore that fact, it's on you.

I may not reply in a timely manner from this point on, wifey wants me to watch a movie, and I have beer to drink.


----------



## Gavjenks (Oct 12, 2013)

A. Standard. For. The. *Printing*. Industry.

And so far nobody has bothered to even attempted to explain why that would be remotely relevant to people viewing things on internet devices, NOT in printed form.

You are aware that there can be more than one standard for something in the universe, yes? Apple almost certainly has a different standard for their displays than the printing industry does for prints (because, you, they're totally different things.  Apple is going to be more concerned about eye strain, splashy marketing claims, etc. which is likely to push them in different directions than big pro-quality printers who work with companies not with flighty end users)


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > > And this is exactly what I mean by dumbing it down to please the masses instead of doing what is right. Thank you for providing that example.
> ...



I agree... I feel like I got stuck in some hipster, slacker "Dumb and Dumber" episode... I am out of here!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 12, 2013)

Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor.  And charlie calibrated his monitor.  He said my photo was overexposed.  Holy crap.. what's going on here?

Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered.  It was a gift for the wedding day.  All the prints look good just like my monitor.  Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see.  I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter.  So what is the problem here?  Both of the monitors are calibrated.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor.  And charlie calibrated his monitor.  He said my photo was overexposed.  Holy crap.. what's going on here?
> 
> Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered.  It was a gift for the wedding day.  All the prints look good just like my monitor.  Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see.  I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter.  So what is the problem here?  Both of the monitors are calibrated.



Robin, calibration doesn't work that way... lol! Brightness is one of the things it tries to equalize as much as possible. And I was not the only one that said they were too bright...  was I?


----------



## mmaria (Oct 13, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Just today, someone here said that the WB in a photo of mine was off.  It wasn't.  No offense to that guy (he didn't realize his calibration was off), but you can't really comment on colors unless you are sure you're seeing the same thing the photographer is seeing.  It's either right, or it's not.




oh yeah...that would be me...

I've never commented on wb before because I worked on non calibrated monitor. So few days ago I calibrated my monitor with ColorMunki Display, it's not professional level, but enough I would say. better some then none. 
And after my monitor was calibrated, to my eyes, something was just not right but I wont believe my eyes cause they will fool me I' ll believe calibration. So there I go and post my first "wb is off" comment... and I got response that wb is dead on! Confused!!!? and we established that my monitor is off.
I calibrated it for a few times and under different ambient lights and in different rooms even, it's still too warm... it was too cold before the calibration
So my calibration gave me more problems then I had before...

and just to know... I'm not that guy....I am "she" as she didn't realize her calibration was off


----------



## Overread (Oct 13, 2013)

Calibration and printing is one of those dark arts. It's possibly one of the more complex and tricky areas of digital photography, especially as the difference between "Just plug the calibrator in and let it do its work" and actually taking control over the calibration process is a very big jump (and not one all the companies make easy - my Spyder manual basically operated on the line of - if you don't know what's going on just don't press any of the shiny buttons). 

I would say that its worth doing - it lets you get consistent results without the natural drift of monitor calibration affecting your workflow. It also means that you can end up with a setup which can go to print without the worry that you'll have to send off for re-prints to adjust minor over or under exposure problems.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 13, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > Guess what, Robin! Professional print labs...
> 
> 
> That's nice* if you print your photos*.
> ...



This is a *great* point, but it still doesn't matter. 

Think of it this way, Robin and Gav.

If you don't correct your images, then they are going to look wrong or weird on a lot of people's monitors.
If you DO correct your images, then they are going to look wrong and weird on a lot of people's monitors, but they'll print correctly.

That's sort of glib and oversimplified, but the point is that with correction you have a chance of them looking right on viewing and printing sources that are correct. As you said, the apple devices tend to be pretty damned close to correct (go apple!), so calibrating at least ensures THOSE folks will see what you see. AND you'll get a smattering of people who have displays like this DELL IPS display I have that is pretty near dead-on from the factory... so those people will get a good view as well. Everyone looking at these cheap Samsung displays are screwed, but what are you going to do? They were screwed anyway. (I love Samsung btw, but their color accuracy on these cheap displays is atrocious)

BTW, you doing it by eye isn't really all that bad... I've seen people who are really good do a DAMNED good job at getting a display color accurate by eye. It's never perfect, but it's close. I can do a reasonable job with it myself.

Also... the images people are talking about... I think there was a good bit of personal preference in those comments. I thought they were a little hot, too, but I took that as a personal choice- not a mistake.

ymmv.


----------



## KmH (Oct 13, 2013)

Factory-standard calibration only lasts for a short time, because electronic display calibration drifts as a display ages.

Which is why even professional grade computer displays used by professional image editors get re-calibrated about once a month.
Many of the images those pros edit are used online.

The electronic display universe is a jumble of color management practices.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 13, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Ok.. so I calibrated my monitor.  And charlie calibrated his monitor.  He said my photo was overexposed.  Holy crap.. what's going on here?
> 
> Anyway, the boudoir album has already been delivered.  It was a gift for the wedding day.  All the prints look good just like my monitor.  Charlie, I have a feeling what you see is way more bright then what I see.  I bet if we look at our monitors side by side, yours is brighter.  So what is the problem here?  Both of the monitors are calibrated.



Robin.. I should have also asked.. are you on a IPS monitor? they are much more accurate than Non IPS displays. (And if you are on a laptop... forget it! Most can not even be accurately calibrated!)


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 13, 2013)

This seems like two different arguments going on here that are almost orthogonal to each other.

I thought that the pictures looked too bright, Robin likes the way they look at that brightness and they way they print - that didn't seem to be a color balance issue but a brightness issue.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 13, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> This seems like two different arguments going on here that are almost orthogonal to each other.
> 
> I thought that the pictures looked too bright, Robin likes the way they look at that brightness and they way they print - that didn't seem to be a color balance issue but a brightness issue.



Agreed, color was not off... they were in that modern "bright, hazy" look that seems so popular with a certain segment of photographers right now... Not blown, just brighter than I personally liked. More of a personal like / dislike than anything.

Since brightness is also something that is taken into consideration when calibrating... how are these arguments not meaningful? Since the vast majority of us who do calibrate seem to have a "common ground" in agreeing what good exposure is, calibration must be working for us... agreed?


----------



## The_Traveler (Oct 13, 2013)

I calibrate and what I print matches very close to what I see on the screen and my images look pretty good when I've seen them at random other places.

Since Robin has calibrated and he likes his images that way, there's no argument about that.
The argument is whether to calibrate or not.

Since we, collectively, have no idea what the modal group of internet screens are seeing, we might as well hope that random variation goes towards a mean and that the standards are close to that mean - and set our screens for that.

It's no loose to calibrate.


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 13, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> The argument is whether to calibrate or not.


I agree.
I don't think I ever saw the photos everyone is talking about - but that's not really what this thread is about anyway.

If Robin likes the "overexposed, washed out" look, that's fine.  He should still calibrate though, to make sure his photos look the way he thinks they look.

The only reason I can really see NOT to calibrate is if you just don't have the hardware - and that is a very simple problem to solve.  You don't have to break the bank on it either.  Most of the differences in the "better" calibration units are only in the software.  You can get very good calibration software for free (ArgyllCMS and DispcalGUI) - so if you're on a budget just get whatever you can.  Even a cheap calibration unit will be better than nothing.

I can't think of a single scenario where calibration would be a bad thing...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Oct 13, 2013)

OK.. so now you guys have mentioned cheaper alternatives of calibration.  I have told someone in the past that I did an online calibration.  He giggled a little and said that is really NOT a calibration.  This is a forum full of people with all kinds of skill level.  You cant expect most of members to spend $170 to buy spyder datacolor just to calibrate their monitor.  I never argued that I was against calibrating.  I was just saying that I feel my monitor was calibrated pretty well just by using oniline calibration and comparing it to my apple devices.  Now that I have a spyder datacolor, of course I will calibrate it frequently.


----------

