Tell me I need a desktop again? Ugh...

[BeenHereB4]

So I'm noticing that my laptop (which is all we use now) doesn't really show true color. I guess it's kinda pointless for me to attempt any post-processing like this.

Do I need to get another desktop? If so, what kind of monitor am I looking at? I'm attempting to get more serious about my photography (not to make $$ at it, but I really want to improve and practice - and well, just be perfect ). Is this the route I need to take?

Thanks all - so much - as always with my newbie questions!

 

[JoeDif]

If there is nothing wrong with the laptop and you don't want to put out the $$ for a desktop you can always get an external monitor and hook the laptop up to that for photo processing.

 

[BeenHereB4]

If there is nothing wrong with the laptop and you don't want to put out the $$ for a desktop you can always get an external monitor and hook the laptop up to that for photo processing.

Duh, yup, I could do that! I'm assuming the best quality monitor I could find would be best?

 

[boBQuincy]

If you are really serious NEC's 90 series are probably some of the best monitors for photo work. They use an IPS panel and have very even backlighting, a real sore spot for almost all less expensive monitors. Look for the response times, any that are really fast (less than 5 mS g-g) are probably not the best for photo work (but great for games).

 

[BeenHereB4]

Thanks Joe and Bob. Guess I'll warm up my credit card today.

 

[mabas9395]

Your first step should be to get one of the many devices that calibrates your monitor.

One of two things will happen.

#1 - You will calibrate your laptop and get good enough results that you are happy with it.

#2 - A calibrated laptop will not meet your color accuracy needs so you end up getting a desktop monitor, which will have to be calibrated anyway to get the most accurate results.

 

[WDWFigment]

I know a lot of people make a big fuss about calibration and/or having the best possible display for editing images (and I've read similar things about print calibration), but it all seems a bit overzealous to me. I mean, if that's really what you want to worry about, more power to you, but if you're messing with it because you think you have to, I wouldn't.

Of course, this is coming from someone using a clanky old laptop (that has never been calibrated) who never prints images, so you might want to take my advice with a grain of salt. I'm just saying my personal philosopy is to ignore that type of thing...

 

[BeenHereB4]

I wish I could say that I knew what "calibrate your laptop" even meant. But, that is what google is for, right?!

WDW, thanks for the opinion. I always admire your photos so I'll take it with more than a grain of salt, thank you. Of course I hope to just take fabulous photos right OOC, but my fear is that if I'm looking at them on my laptop thinking they look dull, I may OVER-fuss with them and make them look fake. Make sense? In the meantime I think a mid-range desktop monitor hooked up to my laptop will make life just a bit easier.

 

[mabas9395]

I pretty much agree with what has been said. Most people don't need "true color", they just need "close enough color".

So if the OP is concerned because her RGB values for chartreuse is 126-254-1 instead of 127-255-0, then I wouldn't worry about a calibrator either. But if all the photos on her screen look a little too green on screen, then maybe a calibrator might be a cheaper way to go before she replaces the whole monitor or even gets a new computer.

 

[boBQuincy]

Calibration is not a big deal?


Nope, uncalibrated ain't gonna' get us there, no how, no way!
I have two monitors at work and they are as different as can be, even after I manually set them up to be as close as possible. *And* both of them are far from what my (calibrated) monitor at home shows me.

If we want to print at home and have it look anything like what we want, it is going to take calibration or a lot of ink and paper. If we want to print anywhere else it will turn out a lot more like what we want when it is soft-proofed from a calibrated monitor. Now, if we don't care about accurate color then *any* place can give us nice, pleasing colors but that is not going to match what I recall as the scene I photographed so I want a little more control, and calibration provides it.

Btw, "Out of the Camera" doesn't really exist since the camera takes the RAW file and processes it (a lot) to make a JPG. It is much better for us to use the RAW file and process it the way we like.

 

[boBQuincy]

I know a lot of people make a big fuss about calibration and/or having the best possible display for editing images (and I've read similar things about print calibration), but it all seems a bit overzealous to me. I mean, if that's really what you want to worry about, more power to you, but if you're messing with it because you think you have to, I wouldn't.

Of course, this is coming from someone using a clanky old laptop (that has never been calibrated) who never prints images, so you might want to take my advice with a grain of salt. I'm just saying my personal philosopy is to ignore that type of thing...

If we both have calibrated monitors then I will be looking at your photographs the way you intended them to look. If one of us has an uncalibrated monitor then I am not looking at what you created as it should appear!
If *both* of us have uncalibrated monitors then we may just get lucky and both images will appear the same but it is highly unlikely. Kind of like how a broken clock is correct twice a day...

 

[Shutterbug]

I had to get a spyder 3 Pro and Color Eyes to get my Imac properly calibrated for prints. Prints were coming out way dark even though they were really nice and bright on the monitor. Prob was without calibration I couldnt get my Imac dark enough.

 

[bostran1]

They use an IPS panel and have very even backlighting, a real sore spot for almost all less expensive monitors.

As for the backlighting issue, I suggest getting an LED-backlit monitor for the most even light across the screen.

 

[WDWFigment]

If we both have calibrated monitors then I will be looking at your photographs the way you intended them to look. If one of us has an uncalibrated monitor then I am not looking at what you created as it should appear!
If *both* of us have uncalibrated monitors then we may just get lucky and both images will appear the same but it is highly unlikely. Kind of like how a broken clock is correct twice a day...

I understand what you're saying, but it's still one of those things that doesn't matter to me. If I were a pro, and had clients, I would absolutely do it as I would feel obliged to do it for their sake. However, as a hobbyist, I don't care. People seem satisfied with how my shots look, and more importantly, I am satisfied with how they look. I'd rather spend that money on other items.

...still, I probably shouldn't give advice on this type of thing as my view is probably not the norm...