[Dartmoor Dave]

In the past I've calibrated with my Syder 2 and its supplied software, but I've always suspected that the calibration tended slightly to the warm side. As a result of this thread I've given DisplayCal a try over the weekend, and the results are obviously better from the very first glance at the screen. The hint of a warm cast has gone, and the overall effect is of a wider palette of colours with small differences between tones more distinctively rendered. And surprisingly, presumably because of the contrast characteristics of the new calibration, everything looks sharper.

It feels like I'm finally getting to see my photos the way they actually look. Problem is, I now want to re-edit half of them.

---

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 02-10-2020 at 02:13 AM. Reason: typo

[BigMackCam]

So just to clarify, I have had my monitor calibrated, I just haven't done the regular recalibrations and have also changed the office/ambient lighting of where the computer sits quite a few times since the 18 months ago time it was calibrated. But I should say that the calibration once performed didn't seem to wildly change anything from the uncalibrated, brightness seemed to take the biggest hit in terms of obvious change. I'm just curious as to how important it is, how regularly we must do it,

Yes, brightness is a huge factor. Many folks have their displays set way too bright for photo editing. As a result, when they edit their photos, what appears to them as well-exposed is really under-exposed. In fact, a number of friendly critical comments I received on these very forums were the reason I bought my Colormunki Display colorimeter a few years ago... Folks were mentioning that my photos looked dark. The reason was, my screen brightness was set way too high.

Regarding re-profiling, displays can change with use over time... gradually and imperceptibly, such that we don't notice. But a display that was profiled a year ago may no longer be accurately producing the correct colour tones and luminosity. For amateur use, I suspect the differences may be relatively minor, but a professional will want to ensure a good level of accuracy - if not for him or herself, then at least for clients. I re-profile my displays perhaps every six months or so, which I'd say is ample for my purposes - perhaps even overkill. If I was a pro, I'd probably do it monthly or every couple of months.

I'm just curious as to how important it is, how regularly we must do it, and even we now have people saying that they bought x product, used the supplied software and didn't like what they were seeings so used y software instead... How is this calibration... I mean that's the user actually deciding the look they like vs what is recommended... what if they have bad judgement and x was the better software than y? How is this any different from someone buying a decent monitor right out of the box and just working on it, even if it is not absolutely perfect?

My own reasons for using DisplayCAL are two-fold. Firstly, I didn't like Colormunki's startup and background tasks for profile monitoring (they would tell me my display hadn't been profiled when it had) and selection (sometimes, the correct profile wouldn't be loaded at startup). Secondly, as I run both Windows 10 and Linux Mint 18.3 it suited me better to use a cross-platform profiling tool (Colormunki Display software doesn't - or didn't - run natively under Linux). Additionally, DisplayCAL is much more flexible and feature-rich. Personally, I've never compared the profile differences between Colormunki-software-produced profiles and those from DisplayCAL. But I trust DisplayCAL to get me close to optimum profiles for my displays - for better or worse... and, as I mentioned previously, the HP software and built-in colorimeter in my HP laptop produces profiles that are incredibly close to those from my Colormunki Display tool and DisplayCAL, so that gives me some confidence that both the devices and software are equally accurate (or equally inaccurate ).

I'm just curious as to how important it is, how regularly we must do it, I'm just curious as to how important it is, how regularly we must do it, In the 18 months since I had my monitor calibrated has anyone ever said to be "you know bruce... that skin tone looks a bit aff!"? Nope.. not once. I should probably have recalibrated half a dozen times but didn't.

Minor inaccuracies probably won't matter in your real-world use cases. If you were doing fashion or product photography, though, they'd matter more. Arguably, colour inaccuracies matter even less to a pure amateur like me. I simply like to know that my starting point for colour and luminosity when editing is as accurate as possible, since it's the anchor for everything that follows. That's just me.

The difference is my workflow was not studio work for a lipstick company where colour accuracy is paramount. I'm questioning;

How important is external calibration of a newly purchased photography geared monitor for the purpose of photography work that sits outside the realm of studio absolute colour accuracy?

I say new because that's where I'm currently at, researching for a new monitor and I'm debating whether I feel the need to factor in (at least at this time) an external colour calibration device into that equation (vs borrowing my mates once every 18 months... and which I stated at the beginning seemed to be somewhat broken).

Only you can decide how important it is. Right now, it seems like you're looking for reasons (or confirmation) as to why you don't need to bother about accurate colour management. Instead, I'd respectfully suggest you might look for reasons why you should want it for you and your clients, whether or not it's critical to any or all of your immediate applications. One reason I think you should want it is that it's the starting point in a fully colour-managed workflow leading to prints that more-closely match what you see on your display when editing...

Right now I'm using two 'old' monitors, a monitor for gaming and an old Asus 27 inch 1080p. It's actually been years since I have connected these displays up and I can see a huge difference in colours from the previous monitor (which has now died) which was the Philips 43 inch 4k monitor. I can understand more the necessity of colour calibration for older monitors, natively they seem very yucky indeed, however with modern monitors geared towards industry professionals?

So we've established that at least some degree of inaccuracy is a problem for you (as well it should be). Part of that inaccuracy is probably due to the limited range of colours and tones ("gamut") these displays are capable of reproducing, and part of it is due to the profiles your operating system and image editing / viewing software are using for those displays.

Given that you don't like gross inaccuracy, you might ask yourself "how accurate is accurate enough"? For me, the answer is "as accurate as is reasonably possible". If it's different for you, that's a personal decision. But, as per our discussions in your UV filter thread, be sure that you're fully aware of the shortcomings in your choice, and that you're comfortable with them. Might there be a time in the future where one of your clients isn't satisfied because her beautiful, bright red dress looks somewhat crimson in your photos? Or that her baby blue sports car looks almost turquoise? Or her beautiful golden-brown eyes look more like hazel? OK, these are perhaps extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point. Either you care about colour accuracy and colour management, or you don't.

Am i really going to need to do colour calibration frequently on a display like this for example? BenQ 32" Designer Monitor, 2560x1440 2K QHD, 100% Rec.709, sRGB, Hotkey Puck, Dual View, HDMI, DP, Black, 32/inch, PD3200Q: Monitors: amazon.com.au?tag=pentaxforums-20&

I bet out of the box it would be doing better than the 18 month old calibrated (and dying) 43 inch 4k monitor? (my work can be seen here; Eddy Summers and here; Eddy Summers | Flickr fyi. If you see some colours looking weird too you and not true to life... that would more likely be my presets, plugins and 3Dluts at play than bad colour accuracy caused from a badly calibrated screen.

Refer to my earlier comment. You're going to need to decide how important colour and tonal accuracy is to you (and your clients) at present, and how important it may be going forward. If it's entirely unimportant, stick with the old monitors you have - or, don't over-invest in a good monitor that covers as wide a gamut as possible. If it's important, then yes - a factory calibrated monitor is certainly a big step forward. But why leave the job half-finished? Compared to your investment in the K-1, KP, lenses, accessories, filters, new display - a colorimeter device is a negligible investment. If you can't afford one right now, that's one thing... but if instead you're querying whether a couple of hundred bucks is simply too much to pay for colour accuracy in your photos, that pretty much tells you how (un)important it is to you.

Only you can decide

[BruceBanner]

In the past I've calibrated with my Syder 2 and its supplied software, but I've always suspected that the calibration tended slightly to the warm side. As a result of this thread I've given DisplayCal a try over the weekend, and the results are obviously better from the very first glance at the screen. The hint of a warm cast has gone, and the overall effect is of a wider palette of colours with small differences between tones more distinctively rendered. And surprisingly, presumably because of the contrast characteristics of the new calibration, everything looks sharper.

It feels like I'm finally getting to see my photos the way they actually look. Problem is, I now want to re-edit half of them.

See this is the issue I have. I just don't understand calibration. How can calibration with the supplied software be incorrect, how is that any different than just using your own eyes and going "yeh nah... i dont like that look... I'm going to change it".

If calibration method x makes something look like 1 and calibration method y makes something look like 2... then which is giving the correct colour accuracy?! Accurate to what?! Is one doing a bad job? If so how do we know? Is it doing a bad job for all computers its being used with or just that particular monitor or computer specs?

How can you trust it or what you see? Not meaning to single you out Dave, but if the Spyder 2 supplied software rendered things to being 'slightly warm' and you edited in that environment, then perhaps it wasn't warm... it was just your eyes that saw it that way? If my calibration monitor seemed 'normal' (not overly cool or warm to me) and I'm looking at your images then perhaps they are perfectly fine, and if I compared the image on my screen and your screen they may look the same and you just see 'warm' on both monitors because that's the way you are? Are we trusting our eyes or a computer here? So how does calibration software help anyone at all if they are all doing something different? How is it any better than a human coming along who is perhaps just a bit better with colours than average joe blogg and reaches over and fiddles with the monitor and goes "there... that looks better."

I say this because I got my monitor calibrated and it didn't radically change. And was it Bigmac or someone else here say that some new monitor out of the box was 99% close to what the calibration tool gave once calibrated? Like... to me it seems a lot of money to spend for a potential 1% difference (that also seems to be subjective to personal preference?)

I totally get it... if you're employment is to do with super high end colour accuracy to do with design or advertising... you might need to take this stuff very seriously AND more importantly everyone you work with have exactly the same screens and calibration so that collab work is consistent... but for everyone else... is this stuff really necessary? Is it a left over tool suited to a time when monitor technology was not as good as it is now?

[BigMackCam]

In the past I've calibrated with my Syder 2 and its supplied software, but I've always suspected that the calibration tended slightly to the warm side. As a result of this thread I've given DisplayCal a try over the weekend, and the results are obviously better from the very first glance at the screen. The hint of a warm cast has gone, and the overall effect is of a wider palette of colours with small differences between tones more distinctively rendered. And surprisingly, presumably because of the contrast characteristics of the new calibration, everything looks sharper.

It feels like I'm finally getting to see my photos the way they actually look. Problem is, I now want to re-edit half of them.

And this is another reason why I think the OP should want accurate monitor profiling capability. Sooner or later, I'm sure he's going to wind up using it... and the sooner he does, the fewer photos will need re-editing...

[BigMackCam]

I totally get it... if you're employment is to do with super high end colour accuracy to do with design or advertising... you might need to take this stuff very seriously AND more importantly everyone you work with have exactly the same screens and calibration so that collab work is consistent... but for everyone else... is this stuff really necessary? Is it a left over tool suited to a time when monitor technology was not as good as it is now?

No more or less necessary than other aspects of your image quality, IMHO. You've invested a lot of money in a K-1 and KP, and good lenses. I assume part of the reason is to obtain very good image quality - better than you could achieve with, say, a 16MP K-5, a 10MP K10D, or a 6MP *ist DL. Is accurate colour, contrast and luminosity not worth a couple of hundred bucks by comparison? If it isn't to you, that's absolutely fine. Just be sure your decision takes into account the benefits and shortcomings. I'm sure you will...

[TonyW]

May be worth stating that it is quite possible to get perfectly satisfactory prints without even having heard the words colour management. Just shoot and enjoy sending your files to any old lab for printing. Use half a dozen labs and you are likely to get half a dozen result that do not actually match for colour or density one to another and pretty certain that none will actually match what you see on screen looking at an edited image in soft proofing with your print near to screen and properly illuminated.

IF you and your work demands a WYSIWYG with finished prints or others viewing your images within a colour managed environment then calbration and profiling are essential parts of the workflow

....
I'm just curious as to how important it is, how regularly we must do it, and even we now have people saying that they bought x product, used the supplied software and didn't like what they were seeings so used y software instead... How is this calibration... I mean that's the user actually deciding the look they like vs what is recommended... what if they have bad judgement and x was the better software than y? How is this any different from someone buying a decent monitor right out of the box and just working on it, even if it is not absolutely perfect?

It is important that profiles are updated regularly to account for imperceptible changes of the monitor over its life. Regularly means really what you want it to mean. Every 2 weeks is fairly common, once a month OK,some calibrate every time they start to edit or at least when they have critical work.

Using the supplied software vs seeing better in another product is a bit of a 'Red Herring' as in many cases it is likely to be attributed to operator finger trouble, assuming there is nothing wrong with the equipment or editing environment (ambient light, screen reflections). To try and judge by eye alone if a screen is too warm or too cold is folly. The reason I say this is because a white point of D65 or D50 is an exact temperature and not subject to variation. As an aside 6500k and 5000k are not exact and can be variation.

The problem most experience with software calibration is that once the White Point etc have been specified the user is then faced with trying to manually adjust the monitors colour to match as closely as possible what the software asks for. This may be either by adjusting the monitor controls manually or via the graphic card driver.

A much better, more accurate method and one that I would not be without is the ability of a monitor to be hardware calibrated, directly adjusting the monitor LUT's (originally limited to Eizo and NEC pro monitors now seen on quite a few consumer units)

Hardware calibration is the method of adjusting color directly by adjusting the settings inside the monitor. With hardware calibration, the target color is not reproduced through the graphic card output where all or a certain combination of white point, gamma, and brightness are reduced.

In the 18 months since I had my monitor calibrated has anyone ever said to be "you know bruce... that skin tone looks a bit aff!"? Nope.. not once. I should probably have recalibrated half a dozen times but didn't.

How could they tell that any tone was off? They would need to be sitting next to your monitor with the print illuminated correctly to see exactly what you were seeing.

The difference is my workflow was not studio work for a lipstick company where colour accuracy is paramount. I'm questioning;

How important is external calibration of a newly purchased photography geared monitor for the purpose of photography work that sits outside the realm of studio absolute colour accuracy?

Only important if you require a WYSIWYG system

I say new because that's where I'm currently at, researching for a new monitor and I'm debating whether I feel the need to factor in (at least at this time) an external colour calibration device into that equation (vs borrowing my mates once every 18 months... and which I stated at the beginning seemed to be somewhat broken).

A quick aside if you are looking for a new monitor and photo editing is the criteria and colour accuracy of any kind is importance then I strongly suggest that you look for a monitor capable of hardware calibration is a very wise choice. Additionally I would be looking at an X -Rite device ideally the slightly more expensive i1 Display Pro to go along with it. If looking to purchase used then steer clear of the Spyder 2's and 3's in particular, first due to the inablility to correctly profile a wide gamut monitor and due to their variability between units.
....

Am i really going to need to do colour calibration frequently on a display like this for example? BenQ 32" Designer Monitor, 2560x1440 2K QHD, 100% Rec.709, sRGB, Hotkey Puck, Dual View, HDMI, DP, Black, 32/inch, PD3200Q: Monitors: amazon.com.au?tag=pentaxforums-20&

Absolutely if you require WYSIWYG

I guess I'm still a little confused over 'calibration'. Calibrating what exactly? If red is R =255 G=0 and B=0 then it has a certain 'look' to it. If I'm in PS with one calibrated monitor and I select that red and paint it in PS, then on another monitor (which is crappier and uncalibrated) and using the same value (255, 0, 0) and it looks different, then how does calibration work on the bad monitor to help it look more like the calibrated red. Isn't it just a physical limitation of the screen? Does calibration skew things? Would I be using a different value (172, 0, 0) to get the same kind of red on the now corrected calibrated naff monitor to get something that looks like the red on the better monitor? Does that then mean working on images on a monitor that is calibrated but not up to things tech wise actually get you in more trouble?

Well R255 G0 B0 is a different beast in each of your potential editing spaces, sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB (these are all synthetic spaces not based on any real world device) so why is a colour managed workflow using specifics any different? Because White Point of D65 or D50 is exact and affects the whole screen colour regardless of your editing colour space. This is something that gets reported to your colour savvy application to make a display of R255 G0 B0 look as it should within the colour space

It's something I've mentioned to clients in the past as well. When I have finished some first drafts and share them, they might look wildly different on their phones or screens. Should I perhaps be calibrating my monitor to their device output so if I know my client is using iphone 7 to judge my work, then if I also use iphone 7 calibration settings and get my home monitor to show colours the same, then at least I know when I edit and share my work with them we are on the same page? That kinda makes more sense to me...

Absolutely NOT! It is up to your clients to view or not view your images as intended using a colour calibrated device. Best you can do is try and educate them on the differences they may observe on their output device. Some websites acutally provide a step ramp and advises what to look for in shadows and highlight and how you may need to adjust - this only of course deals with the luminence issue of screens to bright or dark. Colour of course somewhat different although if you have a neutral known value in the image may help.

[Dartmoor Dave]

See this is the issue I have. I just don't understand calibration. How can calibration with the supplied software be incorrect, how is that any different than just using your own eyes and going "yeh nah... i dont like that look... I'm going to change it".

I think the slightly warm cast I was getting using the Spyder software was probably a driver issue. I remember that when I originally installed the software on Windows 7 there was an obvious magenta cast, so I downloaded updated drivers and got much more acceptable results from them. Since then I've been working on the basis of the calibration being good enough for my amateur needs but probably not strictly accurate. DisplayCal runs a much more thorough range of tests, and takes a heck of a lot longer than the Spyder software did. The only visual test of accuracy I can do is to compare a shot of a colorcheck card on the calibrated screen against the card itself, and on that basis it looks to me as if DisplayCal is more accurate.

I'm absolutely certain that calibration is necessary in my case. Looking at a shot of a colorcheck card on my own humble Acer monitor with no calibration makes it completely obvious that the monitor's default colours are way off, and the monitor's limited range of built-in adjustments aren't enough to get it looking even close to right.

I know that you're shooting for pay nowadays, and on that basis I'd say that monitor calibration is a non-optional necessity, especially if you're doing any wedding work. Trust me, you do NOT want to face the wrath of a bridezilla on the warpath because you've made the all-important dress look very slightly the wrong shade.

[kaseki]

Bruce:

Let me try this analogy as an answer to your question about self calibrating to make the image look right. You might be able to selectively adjust RGB to make an image look like you think it should, or even an electronic version of an x-rite color checker Passport look the same as one in the hand illuminated at the correct color temperature, but when you were done it is unlikely that a directed RGB = {255, 255, 255} input would have the correct luminosity *(e.g., 80 nits), and it is unlikely that the "gamma" would be the desired 2.2 over the brightness range of dimmer-than-maximum images or image parts. For these corrections to be made, a matrix of values has to be constructed from a matrix of measurements such that RGB is properly tweaked over the gray-scale range of your monitor. This is a fairly recursive process to do manually, and even an automated system has to solve a set of simultaneous equations to obtain a proper result. (I assume that the algorithm used is akin to the one used in Excel's Solve program, but perhaps other approaches have been adopted.) Thus, manually "improving" a factory calibrated monitor that has aged a bit may well be counterproductive.

I should add that the calibration programs attempt to also minimize the error in display of intermediate colors because display generated red, green and blue are unlikely to exactly match the eye's photosensitivity curves designated by those colors.

kas

[BruceBanner]

Hey everyone,

Sorry, got side tracked and meant to reply.

I think I either need to admit a few things;

1) I need greater education on calibration, what it means and if it's absolutely necessary for the kind of professional work I do.

2) Whether it's an additional $300AUD worth of finances spent to take me to an additional 1-2% accuracy over stock monitor calibration (and my own experience/intuition), which is pretty much meaningless once I take my images through the various presets and LUTs.

Please visit the following pages that were all edited on monitors that had zero calibration, had calibration, had calibration that was well and truly due to being calibrated again, and the entire office moved to a new room/ambient light;

Eddy Summers - #wilsonyoumarryme2019

These wedding pictures, the grooms and brides, these tones of blue and red are not the exact shade that was worn on the day, you could say they were 'enhanced', bride and groom loved the shots.

Eddy Summers - product

Eddy Summers - live

Ok, that'll do.

When I have wanted to re-edit older images it's had nothing to do with colours. My editing skills have become more advanced and I know I can derive a better edit than 2yrs ago (also because I own and paid for more editing software and tools).


Anyway, I bought a new monitor this morning, my potato pc can't even go past 8bit right now anyway so I just settled on what I consider to being the 'budget' solution for the time being;

BenQ 32" Designer Monitor, 2560x1440 2K QHD, 100% Rec.709, sRGB, Hotkey Puck, Dual View, HDMI, DP, Black, 32/inch, PD3200Q: Monitors: amazon.com.au?tag=pentaxforums-20&

It'll be interesting to see how its sRGB mode is straight out of the box. I'll think about colour calibration at a later date, or when I see a special on...

[BigMackCam]

Hey everyone,

Sorry, got side tracked and meant to reply.

I think I either need to admit a few things;

1) I need greater education on calibration, what it means and if it's absolutely necessary for the kind of professional work I do.

As I indicated previously, the mere fact that you're working professionally is enough for me to believe you should be using colour management and device profiling (devices being camera, display, printer, etc.). Only then can you be sure what you start out with is an image that accurately represents the scene, what you see on your display while working (in colour managed editing software) is an accurate representation of what you're creating, and what's spat out at the printer is as close to that as possible. With that foundation, if your clients should ever have an issue with how light, dark or colour-(in)accurate your photos are, you can be confident it's not your system at fault but either (a) your processing / editing tastes, or (b) the client.

2) Whether it's an additional $300AUD worth of finances spent to take me to an additional 1-2% accuracy over stock monitor calibration (and my own experience/intuition), which is pretty much meaningless once I take my images through the various presets and LUTs.

A couple of points here:

(1) That 1-2% inaccuracy from a good quality, factory-calibrated monitor could turn into 5-10% over time without you realising it. This is why professionals frequently re-profile their displays and why, even for my own amateur use, I do so every few months.

(2) Colour accuracy is never meaningless. Per my earlier comment, it ensures that what you've created is what you thought you created, rather than something different. If you were painting a canvas with oils and a brush - or even painting your home - you wouldn't wear tinted sun-glasses that caused inaccuracies in your colour and luminance perception. You'd want to accurately perceive what you were painting and know that what you created is an accurate representation of what you intended.

(3) Following on from point 2, what you do to your images with presets etc. is immaterial. It's not necessarily that your images need to be colour accurate when completed (although if you were, say, a product photographer, that would be the case) - it's that you ought to know what you see on your display is an accurate representation of your images. Otherwise, what you believe looks "right" may not be right when viewed or printed on a colour managed and profiled device.

Please visit the following pages that were all edited on monitors that had zero calibration, had calibration, had calibration that was well and truly due to being calibrated again, and the entire office moved to a new room/ambient light;

...

These wedding pictures, the grooms and brides, these tones of blue and red are not the exact shade that was worn on the day, you could say they were 'enhanced', bride and groom loved the shots.

...

Aye, but there's the rub. Whilst those photos look fantastic to me, I don't know if what I'm seeing on my profiled display is what you intended (i.e. what you see on your unprofiled display). I'm potentially - probably, in fact - seeing a slightly (or considerably) different version of what you think you created. Imagine, instead, that you've sent me these files so I can print the photos for your client, and they come out looking quite different to how you intended. Wouldn't that concern you, and how would you know whether it's your system or mine at fault?

Ok, that'll do.

When I have wanted to re-edit older images it's had nothing to do with colours. My editing skills have become more advanced and I know I can derive a better edit than 2yrs ago (also because I own and paid for more editing software and tools).

On that note, you've paid for editing software presumably because it helps you to create your art as you intended. Yet your hemming and hawing over a $300AUD spend (less if you buy used) that would ensure what you've created is precisely what you think you've created. That's what I don't get.

Regarding software... having previously been a Lightroom guy, I now mostly use Darktable and/or RawTherapee and GIMP (all free) for processing and editing, and DisplayCAL (also free) for display profiling. They all work very well indeed.

Anyway, I bought a new monitor this morning, my potato pc can't even go past 8bit right now anyway so I just settled on what I consider to being the 'budget' solution for the time being;

BenQ 32" Designer Monitor, 2560x1440 2K QHD, 100% Rec.709, sRGB, Hotkey Puck, Dual View, HDMI, DP, Black, 32/inch, PD3200Q: Monitors: amazon.com.au?tag=pentaxforums-20&

It'll be interesting to see how its sRGB mode is straight out of the box. I'll think about colour calibration at a later date, or when I see a special on...

Congratulations on your fine new monitor. My own BenQ BL2420PT - also one of the "Designer" series - is excellent, so I think you'll be very pleased with yours. Just make sure you set it to straight "sRGB" mode (selected in the monitor menus), and set your OS to drive it with a plain, unadulterated sRGB profile. Oh, and set your brightness appropriately, so your white luminance level is at no more than, say, 120 cd/m2. I'm not sure how you'll do that without a calibration device and profiling software, but use whatever method works for you until then

[BarryE]

A much better, more accurate method and one that I would not be without is the ability of a monitor to be hardware calibrated, directly adjusting the monitor LUT's (originally limited to Eizo and NEC pro monitors now seen on quite a few consumer units)

Hardware calibration is the method of adjusting color directly by adjusting the settings inside the monitor. With hardware calibration, the target color is not reproduced through the graphic card output where all or a certain combination of white point, gamma, and brightness are reduced.

I think I said this at the start, only Tony's done it better. Good to here someone else chip in with what I think is an essential point that is 'missed' from the generic, software based approaches that are pushed by third party suppliers.

[Dartmoor Dave]

These wedding pictures, the grooms and brides, these tones of blue and red are not the exact shade that was worn on the day, you could say they were 'enhanced', bride and groom loved the shots.

In the end, the only thing that matters with wedding photos is that the bride has to like them.

But. . . looking through the set, in the shot of the couple with the dogs the dress looks white but in the rest of the photos it has got a very slight rose coloured cast(*). So the question is: what colour was the dress really, and why does it change from shot to shot? If it really was slightly pink then it should look consistently that way. The photos are beautiful, and I've got no intention of criticising your skills because you're one of the most talented photographers on this forum. But sooner or later, if you're taking money to photograph weddings, getting the colour of the dress correct and consistent is going to become an issue.

(*)There's a very slight rose coloured tint to the dress on my monitor, which I've recently calibrated using DisplayCAL. I'd be very grateful if others could say what shade of white they are seeing in the dress on their screens, because it would help me to know if my recent recalibration is accurate.

[3by2]

In the end, the only thing that matters with wedding photos is that the bride has to like them.

But. . . looking through the set, in the shot of the couple with the dogs the dress looks white but in the rest of the photos it has got a very slight rose coloured cast(*). So the question is: what colour was the dress really, and why does it change from shot to shot? If it really was slightly pink then it should look consistently that way. The photos are beautiful, and I've got no intention of criticising your skills because you're one of the most talented photographers on this forum. But sooner or later, if you're taking money to photograph weddings, getting the colour of the dress correct and consistent is going to become an issue.

(*)There's a very slight rose coloured tint to the dress on my monitor, which I've recently calibrated using DisplayCAL. I'd be very grateful if others could say what shade of white they are seeing in the dress on their screens, because it would help me to know if my recent recalibration is accurate.

I see the same rose tint on the first shot using a Benq sRGB monitor with displaycal and an old Spyder3.

That said, it's a perfectly acceptable tint, the trouble with white wedding dresses is they tend to pick up unexpected tints and that's before we get to printing them out.

Excellent wedding shots though, natural, well posed and a lovely feel to them all. Plus you got everyones head and feet in, always a bonus!

[rawr]

Bruce, when you are doing a important shoot do you incorporate a colour target, like a ColorChecker Passport, at any point in the shoot? Would probably be useful.

[BigMackCam]

(*)There's a very slight rose coloured tint to the dress on my monitor, which I've recently calibrated using DisplayCAL. I'd be very grateful if others could say what shade of white they are seeing in the dress on their screens, because it would help me to know if my recent recalibration is accurate.

Yes, I see it too, Dave. It is very slight, very minor, but it's there - and not consistent across multiple shots. Of course, that may be what @BruceBanner sees on his monitor too. If so, then it was a valid creative decision... If not, it's a limitation resulting from post-processing with display and/or profile inaccuracy.

I will say once more, though - fantastic photography, both in terms of composition and processing. My comments around colour management and profiling take nothing away from that...