Paul Roberts wrote: > There is the nub, if the monitor profile does not have the > same characteristics as the printer profile, the two will > never look the same.
The monitor profile and printer profile don't have the 'same characteristics' but, rather, ensure that each device displays the image data 'correctly'. > For a lot of the time, I just take my > images from the D100, adjust levels, sharpen and print. Easy! > However when I need to warm up that sunrise a tad, things change. Downa nd dirty and if they look good(enough) then you got lucky with your uncalibrated settings. As you say, the problem arises when you want to make adjustments to the image and expect the print to match what you see on screen. > I have found that because we have the tools to get the > monitor displaying the image the same as it will print, that > is what I demand. And, within certain limits, that is what you will get with a calibrated system. The age old argument is that the screen and print will never match 'exactly' cos they are different viewing media. Also, its very difficult to compare print to screen without viewing booth etc > And, as Richard said, if the conditions surrounding the > monitor are not constant, then calibrating the monitor is > virtually pointless (unless a profile for every 'condition' is made!). I'm sure Richard will agree with me that a well calibrated monitor will be a lot better than an uncalibrated one, even with variable viewing environment<BG> TonyR =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
