[iriverdude]

Quote:

How to calibrate your monitor?

You buy a screen calibrator meter and software. Controlcal is one. You also have to calibrate your printer, due to ink differences.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif You buy a screen calibrator meter and software. Controlcal is one. You also have to calibrate your printer, due to ink differences.

Thanks for the info, will look into those

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would you say that the post processing from Aperture is better than the hardware post processing of your camera then? That's kind of what I am basically wondering...

Yes, since Aperture give me a lot more of post-processing options than what the camera perform when saving to JPEG.

 

[Mr. B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the info, will look into those

In the mean time, this can't hurt... LCD monitor test images

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, since Aperture give me a lot more of post-processing options than what the camera perform when saving to JPEG.

I'll start taking pictures in both RAW and JPG next time I get the chance to get a real shooting session then!

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. B /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the mean time, this can't hurt... LCD monitor test images

Thanks

Immediately noticed that I had problems with the red and blue right away.. heh

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks Immediately noticed that I had problems with the red and blue right away.. heh

You should not correct by eye, the reason why you use a calibrated meter is because it's far more accurate than the human eye. On a TV stand point, I think only the brightness setting can be done by eye. But if you have a LCD with lousy black level, that setting is meaningless. To properly edit photos you need a display capable of true black...ideally a CRT.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should not correct by eye, the reason why you use a calibrated meter is because it's far more accurate than the human eye. On a TV stand point, I think only the brightness setting can be done by eye. But if you have a LCD with lousy black level, that setting is meaningless. To properly edit photos you need a display capable of true black...ideally a CRT.

I'll have to check on this. From the ControlCal link you gave, I was able to verify that my LG LCD TV does have a RS232 service input, so that's a good thing. I have control over a lot of other options than just brightness already in the Picture menu of the TV too!

Guess I'll have to dust off my old Viewsonic 19" CRT

 

[WittyzTH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should not correct by eye, the reason why you use a calibrated meter is because it's far more accurate than the human eye. On a TV stand point, I think only the brightness setting can be done by eye. But if you have a LCD with lousy black level, that setting is meaningless. To properly edit photos you need a display capable of true black...ideally a CRT.

x2

or a high end LCD like EIZO.

However, if you are not kind of serious, the common one should be fine.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I shoot raw when I care about the photos and I'm not just taking snapshots. The whole "if you learn to shoot you won't need to post-process" argument has been around since people were pushing film and dodging & burning at the enlarger. Now we just do it with software instead of chemicals and light. Digital sensors are much better now, but I still think they do not have the exposure latitude and contrast of film. When the light is not perfect, I appreciate having a little more wiggle room that raw will give. In fact, one trick for harsh light is to shoot raw, then process one shot a little over-exposed to keep the shadow details and another a bit under to keep the sky from being blown out, and then blend them in post-processing.

The other aspect to consider is that many cameras apply way too much in-camera processing when shooting jpg. Too much saturation and too much sharpening may make pictures pop - but at the expense of unnatural skin tones, halos and other sharpening artifacts. I would rather make those choices myself, using my own tools.

 

[pospressure]

I believe the OP stated that he doesn't edit his photos and is very happy with the results of the JPG's out of his camera. That tells me that he is fine shooting with JPG. RAW's benefits are in the leeway you get when doing major post processing (dramatic color changes and pixel manipulation). If your just going to crop and re-size then you don't need RAW and shooting in it is only filling up your card and hard drive with extra files you need to sort. Trust me your not missing out on visual quality from RAW to JPG the same as lossless and 128k. Most if not all RAW photos are compressed to JPG for use after editing anyway unless your shooting for a professional magazine or something and need to covert to TIFF.

Also screen calibration isn't necessarily something that you would do because you are shooting in RAW. The major benefit of screen calibration is when you are printing an image. With a calibrated screen your more likely to get a printed image that more closely resembles what you saw on your monitor. Screen calibration, printing, and color profiles are another can of worms that can take huge amounts of time to master and are usually done by people who do more post processing than you do (as a hobbyist photographer who post processes my images I wouldn't even bother to print one of my images I would send it out to make sure it came out how I wanted it). You already stated that you are very happy with how your prints turned out so I wouldn't bother with spending $100 on a calibration kit that you might not really need.

One more thing worth mentioning about screen calibration. If you are posting images online for others to see. The chances of them seeing the exact same colors and contrast as you saw on your screen when you edited the photo are slim to none as almost no-one spends the money and time to calibrate their screens. Technically screens need to be re calibrated as much as once every couple months.

 

[fuseboxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting. I guess because you can "cheat" and make the picture look "better" or completely different from what you were aiming for, thus compensating for poor picture taking skills?

I think the concept of post-processing being "cheating" and promoting poor photography skills is wrong. Photography - like any form of art - is a means of expression, and post-processing merely gives you a wider skill set to use in order to make the photograph look like how you envisioned it.

If you shoot in RAW and have a good knowledge of how to post-process the RAW image, then you have so many options as to how you want the photograph to look. RAW is mostly useful for people that know what to do with it, imho.

Technically speaking though, RAW images have much more information that a JPG image, so you can do more fine-tuning with your photos and the changes are more smoothly and elegantly handled.

Oh, and I more or less have the same "lossless vs lossy" analogy when I think about it, btw

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll start taking pictures in both RAW and JPG next time I get the chance to get a real shooting session then!

Definitely worth a try.
WHo know. You may end up enjoying the flexibility it gives you..

 

[arcer63]

Depends on the importance of the pictures and the importance that you place on them. At a family BBQ, jpg, it will give good contrast and nice greens. At a wedding, raw, because it will allow for maximum flexibility in post, a necessary element of editing images with a lot of whites (wedding dress) and blacks (tuxes) (with jpg you can end up with solid black masses if a setting is off). Then there is the art side of things, I always go with raw for these too. Its not really imperative that you pick a format and stick with it, either. Do what feels right for the situation.

 

[gotchaforce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you edit it after shooting, re-crop and save as a new image no recompression going on. As to the OP saying "not enough contrast" probably need to learn how to take a shot. The best image shouldn't need any post-processing at all.

pretty heavy statement that the best images dont need any post processing... dSLRs have very limited dynamic range compared to film, so blown out highlights or crushed shadows are impossible to avoid when properly metering a scene. the only way to recover such things is editing the RAW in lightroom/photoshop.