Best $70 I have spent on digital photography

[dxqcanada1]

Yeah, there were other things I adjusted when I re-edited after the calibration ... but it did adjust things other than simple colour.

 

[kojack]

It makes a huge difference. Now I have to get the Mac softwRe for the spider we have.

 

[dxqcanada1]

It is a small investment, but it is vital if you are using your computer for editing.

I should have done this long ago ... when I used to work in a Photo Lab, calibration (monitors and chemistry) to an accurate reference was the most important thing that was performed daily.
If you use a single Printing Lab you should also obtain their reference to match their printers.
example: How To - Download Output Profile

 

[marcy]

interesting!i've never used that before but i'm gonna try that...

 

[Crollo]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

I'm looking to get a DSLR so this may be a pain in the ass to deal with.

 

[o hey tyler]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

Instead, you're throwing money away at film. What's the difference?

 

[Sonja]

Instead, you're throwing money away at film. What's the difference?

Agree with tyler. Best money spend. I suggest investing in a very good lens.

 

[Dominantly]

Yeah, the spyder made a HUGE difference for me on my laptop. When my computer comes off hibernate, I get the OEM color profile for a second (very blue), then it switches to the calibrated profile, which makes everything nice and natural.

 

[unpopular]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

I'm looking to get a DSLR so this may be a pain in the ass to deal with.

You haven't read "The Negative" by Ansel Adams, have you?

 

[Crollo]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

Instead, you're throwing money away at film. What's the difference?

The difference is film isn't a 'problem' that I'm throwing money at?

 

[o hey tyler]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

Instead, you're throwing money away at film. What's the difference?

The difference is film isn't a 'problem' that I'm throwing money at?

Ah, I get it now. It's an (outdated) medium you're throwing money at. Just like with digital, but the cost is spent in different ways. Larger upfront cost with digital, longer (more expensive) small-term costs with film.

Film is, for most people without a darkroom, a burden. But I suppose if you're a hipster, everything is gauged by how vintage/thrift store-esque the item is. So film would be at the top of the list.

I would reckon that if you shot $70 worth of film, you'd have shot ~14 rolls @ $5 per roll (not including fuel costs to get it developed). Whereas I can take double that amount in RAW format (see: Digital Negative) on an 8gb memory card, and I can do it as many times as I want.

But hey, if buying film regularly and going to get it developed isn't a "problem", keep it up. :thumbup:

 

[Destin]

Meanwhile I'm the little guy in the corner with a film camera, not having to throw money at these problems. :/

Instead, you're throwing money away at film. What's the difference?

The difference is film isn't a 'problem' that I'm throwing money at?

Neither is a calibrator. It's the equivalent to dark room chemicals... just a neccesary part of post processing.

 

[Crollo]

Larger upfront cost with digital, longer (more expensive) small-term costs with film.

Yes, now you get it.

There is nothing wrong with digital, other then the amount of money you have to have at one given point.
I don't have a job and any money I get is in small amounts and isn't really worth saving up, so for me, film works perfectly fine. In total I've payed less then 100$ on equipment, film, developing costs... And I've payed less then 100$ because I don't need or want to take 300 pictures that I'm going to delete immediately after, I'm taking pictures I genuinely would like to keep.
For others want to experiment, are just learning or whatnot, digital is perfect. I just don't need it and can't afford it, so it's not for me right now. It's just all about what your financial situation is and what you want.

 

[unpopular]

Larger upfront cost with digital, longer (more expensive) small-term costs with film.

Yes, now you get it.
Maybe it was slightly out of line for me to state that I don't have to throw money on calibration, but I never said digital sucks, I never said that film was in any way better, I was simply bring up the cost differences. No need to be a douchebag about it.

sh*t. Do I have to pay for the hot water heater when it goes out too?

 

[Garbz]

I just don't need it and can't afford it, so it's not for me right now. It's just all about what your financial situation is and what you want.

And for everyone else who has already gone down that road you now feel superior because you don't need to buy a colour calibrator?

For what it's worth I'm happy that you're happy with what you have, but your original comment made you look like an incredible pompous git, which is probably why the negative comments are directed towards you.