Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
your the lazy person even asking ,go do the hard yards like everyone else. then you might be able to enter a debate with background knowledge.
@IliahBorg has written:thought you were using Auto WB. Turns out, not exactly. You had a permanent WB shift dialed in. What prompted you to dial it, can you tell?
Just an adjustment i have made over the last 6 months after processing thousands of images i was consistently adjusting WB in my processing so made a small adjustment to get a bit more consistency.
Even in theory you can't get more consistency this way. Either develop an eye for neutrality, or use numbers. Better do both.
@DonaldB has written:you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
thats gold, if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool 😂😆
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
thats gold, if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool 😂😆
I see you resorted to talking nonsense...
Does it bring you comfort? Is there a reason why I should tolerate it? - just curious. If there is, please let me know.
@DonaldB has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
thats gold, if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool 😂😆
I see you resorted to talking nonsense...
Does it bring you comfort? Is there a reason why I should tolerate it? - just curious. If there is, please let me know.
you knew exactly what i was talking about ips monitors ,but decided to be argumentative. Im not a punching ball for everyone to kick around.
you knew exactly what i was talking about ips monitors ,but decided to be argumentative.
you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool
You can either explain the above or let it go.
I see this thread has wandered off topic (again?).
You do realise that this bickering is putting people off from joining us. Are you doing it deliberately?
Alan
@DannoLeftForums has written:The Auto WB is very accurate on most modern digital cameras when photographing a scene in good light with a simple single light source.
I have not found that to be the case at all. What's "very accurate"? Within 2 Delta Cab?
My opinion is based on anecdotal evidence based on my phone photos and other people's sooc jpegs.
It's not based on any scientific tests or measurements. With photos taken on bright sunny days the WB on most sooc jpegs look pretty good according to my eyes.
@chd has written: @JimKasson has written:I don't like external calibration as well as the internal calibration that my Eizo monitor has. It calibrates the monitor when the system is idle and I don't have to remember to manually do calibration.
How does it work? More specifically, how can it tell that its results are accurate if it's not measuring what the monitor actually emits? (Or is it?)
the spider and other cheap calibration tools are just toys. you need to use expensive gear to get a consistent reading and they also can scan prints and
make custom printing profiles. but to expensive for my small studio business so i just make my own profiles from studio lighting to print and then check on all media devices just to make sure im in the ball park.
So all that waffle in the past about you supposedly selling 10,000 photos was actually nonsense as I said :-)
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
thats gold, if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool 😂😆
Your logic is if the monitor could be calibrated then it wouldn't need a calibration tool? How does that make any sense?
@JimKasson has written: @DannoLeftForums has written:The Auto WB is very accurate on most modern digital cameras when photographing a scene in good light with a simple single light source.
I have not found that to be the case at all. What's "very accurate"? Within 2 Delta Cab?
My opinion is based on anecdotal evidence based on my phone photos and other people's sooc jpegs.
It's not based on any scientific tests or measurements. With photos taken on bright sunny days the WB on most sooc jpegs look pretty good according to my eyes.
So you don't know how accurate it is. My experience with auto WB is that it is inconsistent and far less accurate than using a gray card.
@chd has written: @DonaldB has written:Google the subject.
That's lazy, and besides I want your opinion.
your the lazy person even asking ,go do the hard yards like everyone else. then you might be able to enter a debate with background knowledge.
Well, as it happens I did google it anyway, I just wanted to see if you actually had any information to share.
Searching for "ips monitor calibration difficulty" doesn't give me anything about how you can't do it. It just returns page after page after page of directions for how to do it. Somewhat unexpected for something that can't be done, wouldn't you say? So - now do you have any details to share?
Your logic is if the monitor could be calibrated then it wouldn't need a calibration tool?
I'm afraid that's what he is suggesting.
@DannoLeftForums has written: @JimKasson has written: @DannoLeftForums has written:The Auto WB is very accurate on most modern digital cameras when photographing a scene in good light with a simple single light source.
I have not found that to be the case at all. What's "very accurate"? Within 2 Delta Cab?
My opinion is based on anecdotal evidence based on my phone photos and other people's sooc jpegs.
It's not based on any scientific tests or measurements. With photos taken on bright sunny days the WB on most sooc jpegs look pretty good according to my eyes.
So you don't know how accurate it is. My experience with auto WB is that it is inconsistent and far less accurate than using a gray card.
For many people their sooc jpegs from their phones or "real" cameras look good and realistic to them.
For many sooc jpeg photographers, phone or otherwise, the WB doesn't need to be absolutely spot on to meet their needs.
So - now do you have any details to share?
Keep searching
@IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:you cant properly ever calibrate an IPS monitor
Are you saying that EIZO ColorEdge CS2740 hardware calibration monitor can't be properly calibrated??
thats gold, if you could they wouldn't have a built in calibration tool 😂😆
I have managed to fit that into your top 8 stupidest posts here.
Do you think it might be possible that monitor manufacturers might include calibration tools into their monitors so that users might not have to purchase additional hardware?
@JimKasson has written: @DannoLeftForums has written: @JimKasson has written: @DannoLeftForums has written:The Auto WB is very accurate on most modern digital cameras when photographing a scene in good light with a simple single light source.
I have not found that to be the case at all. What's "very accurate"? Within 2 Delta Cab?
My opinion is based on anecdotal evidence based on my phone photos and other people's sooc jpegs.
It's not based on any scientific tests or measurements. With photos taken on bright sunny days the WB on most sooc jpegs look pretty good according to my eyes.
So you don't know how accurate it is. My experience with auto WB is that it is inconsistent and far less accurate than using a gray card.
For many people their sooc jpegs from their phones or "real" cameras look good and realistic to them.
For many sooc jpeg photographers, phone or otherwise, the WB doesn't need to be absolutely spot on to meet their needs.
Gotcha. That's different that saying it's "very accurate."