I'm sure that's true. But I wouldn't want to change my monitor even if
it wasn't perfectly accurate since it matches my printer's output. But
I doubt that it's off by a visibly detectable amount. I can look at the
skin tones of other images that are accurate and see that they match my
skin tones. I've also examined car photos that were matched to color
chips by retouchers working on calibrated monitors. The pics match the
chips on my monitor as well. As I said, if there's any error it's
undetectable to the eye.
Paul
On Sep 11, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The only thing resembling calibration that i've performed with my
monitor is to run the Apple System Preferences display calibration. I
convert all my digital images to Generic RGB and print on an Epson
2200 using Epson paper profiles and Apple Colorsynch. My prints are
an exact match of my monitor display, aside from the inherent
difference of backlit and reflected light viewing.
I worked for a while with the team that designed the System
Preferences software calibration utility. They spent quite a bit of
time with that, using hardware colorimeters as reference check, to
make it possible to get very good calibration by eye. It's not
surprising that you're getting good results with it. (And my
understanding is that ex-Apple Bill Atchinson
But I'll warrant that not a one of the engineers that designed and
implemented the software calibration utility would ever suggest that
it is a replacement for a quality hardware colorimeter. The latter is
always going to be more accurate and consistent (at least to those of
us born without Bill Robb's color sense :-).
Godfrey
