My monitor is pretty cheap and its colours are horribly dependent on the viewing angle, the moon and whatnot. I could edit my pictures on my old CRT, but its contrast and sharpness are quite bad.
On the other hand, I never print my images anyway but only publish them on the web. Thus, the important thing is actually what they look like on other people's (non-photographer's) monitors.
In this case, is there any point in spending money on a better monitor or even a calibration set?
Answer
Yes, there is a point. It will let you see your own photos more accurately. Since you do not print them, I assume you look at them on your own monitor.
Even if it is only for others, non-calibrated monitors differ widely but they are improving at least in the mid-range with the advent of LEDs (and eventually OLEDs), so over time people will see your images more accurately. Having a good monitor will let you know better how you images will appear to others too then.
Calibration goes a step further and is highly recommended if you manipulate your images since it will let you see the effect of your changes. Otherwise you can introduce very unnatural looking colors.
If you have to choose one though, I'd go for a better monitor. You can always add calibration later. Finally, if you do not require a huge display size, great color-calibratable monitors are no longer than expensive. I always recommend the NEC P221W even though I don't work for NEC ;) but I spent years evaluating LCD displays professionally. I bought two of those refurbished for $237 each while they go for $450 new. There is also a 24" version, the P241W.
No comments:
Post a Comment