[rm2]

I am not asking if you think that calibrating your monitor has any benefits. I just want to know if, for your particular needs, you find Monitor calibration dispensable or indispensable?

[Kerrowdown]

For me it's gotta be done, can't get it right without.

[Venturi]

With my somewhat "skewed" color perception I fear what my prints might look like without a calibrated monitor.

[Wheatfield]

Absolutely indispensable. I don't see how a person can make good prints without calibrating their monitor.

[blackcloudbrew]

Yep. Got to do it. I will say that even with calibration your run of the mill monitor may not be totally satisfactory. However, since I've been calibrating my monitor(s) this year, I do have a known consistency in my monitor that I can work with. It's important not only for my photos but for my web design biz.

I use the Spyder2 system, which is modest cost and does the job.

[indytax]

Indispensable; you're just shooting in the dark if you want anyone else to see your images correctly, whether in print or on screen.

Where's the poll?

[Marc Sabatella]

If you care that others see what you are seeing when processing your images, then of course you need to calibrate. It will only look right on other calibrated monitors, but that's better odds than you'd get if you processing on an uncalibrated monitor.

If you don't share your images with others or don't process them or don't care if they look difference on everyone else's system, then no need for calibration.

Since I do share images, I do process them, and I do care what they look like to others, I calibrate.

[bobrapp]

I realised that years ago when I calibrated my monitor with the original Spyder.

[rm2]

Well, the reason I ask is because I do not have any of my monitors calibrated and yet I see no problem with my images after I process them. My print results look great too, and everyone I share them with agree. So, maybe I just don't have a critical enough eye, but what I find is that, for my needs, I am perfectly fine without calibration.

I guess I am the only one.

[davemdsn]

I am all about the print. Gotta have the print. I love getting nice big prints back from a pro lab. I like showing prints. The portfolio I really like to show is my print portfolio. Get the idea I like prints? That being said, monitor calibration is a must have. It just doesn't matter how good they look on screen if they look like crap when the print comes in.

However, nothing in this world is for everyone. Do what works for you.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well, the reason I ask is because I do not have any of my monitors calibrated and yet I see no problem with my images after I process them.

Well, no, of course - because you are processing the images to look good on your uncalibrated monitor. The problem only comes in if soemone else views the images on their monitor. Unless your monitor just *happens* to already be in perfect calibration (which I gather basically never happens), the images *will* look different on someone else's monitor. the issue is whether you are bothered by this or not. If you're happy making the image look its best to *you*, and don't care if they look different to someone else, then as I said, calibration will provide you with no benefit.

My print results look great too

Again, the issue isn't how "great" they look, it's how closely they match what you see on your monitor. If you hold a print up next to your monitor and don't see any differences that bother you, then great - hold on to that monitor and that printer because they appear to happen to work well together. I'd still expect a different monitor or a different printer to produce different results. Not necessarily worse - just different. If that matters to you, then calibrate. If it doesn't, then don't.

[rm2]

I guess I just haven't seen enough of a difference for me to be bothered by it when I print my images or when I look at them from different machines. But what you are saying makes sense. Thanks everyone for your comments.

[innershell]

I guess I just haven't seen enough of a difference for me to be bothered by it when I print my images or when I look at them from different machines. But what you are saying makes sense. Thanks everyone for your comments.

Same boat. I post-process my images to be somewhat neutral so that no matter how badly calibrated somebody's monitor is, the images will look fine. 99% of people just plug their monitors in and then don't even give a hoot. I tweak my photos for those 99%.

[davemdsn]

If you are only concerned with how your images look on monitors then you don't really need to calibrate because the images will look different on everyone's computer anyway. That is not what calibrating and profiling is all about. It is about throughput from camera to print. If you don't print there is no real need.

I don't really care how my images look on other people's monitors. I can't control that. I calibrate my monitor so that when I get prints back the shadows show the exact same detail and have the same tint as they did on screen. I want the gradations I spent a lot of time on to come out correct so I didn't waste my time making them perfect. It's not just about looking good, it's about looking correct.

Again, if these things are not an issue to you then you don't need to bother. If your prints look good to you then great. If you don't really print much at all, even easier still. It's all about meeting your needs and we each have different needs.