Is using a screen color calibrating software worth it?

[Gerardo_G]

Hi guys. Can I satisfactorily calibrate the colors of my computer screen with programs, like Calibrize and QuickGamma, or is calibrating hardware the only real solution?

Here are the links to the programs I mentioned:
Calibrize
QuickGamma

 

[480sparky]

It depends on what your goals are for the images you take. If you're printing them, sending them to a lab, selling them, then yes, you may want to get into calibration.

 

[SCraig]

Better than nothing but not by much and probably not worth the effort. To get any kind of decent calibration you will need a hardware calibration device.

 

[Destin]

Definitely go with a device if you want your prints to match what you see on screen. Well worth the money.

 

[Gerardo_G]

Thank you guys!

Actually, I edit pictures for websites not for printing. Does that make a difference?

 

[john.margetts]

Thank you guys!

Actually, I edit pictures for websites not for printing. Does that make a difference?

If the web sites are viewed on non-calibrated screens, your calibration will have no effect. For web based viewing, I would just avoid colour critical images.

 

[Destin]

Thank you guys!

Actually, I edit pictures for websites not for printing. Does that make a difference?

It depends who your audience is and how serious you take your work. Is this a site for friends/family/strangers to view your work? If so then calibration probably isn’t critical: just know that they will all see a slightly different image (regardless of whether you calibrate or not.)

If the site is to try and get noticed by art directors, commercial clients, etc then yes, you’ll still want to make sure you calibrate.

Personally I keep my displays calibrated and 85% of my images are viewed electronically only. You never know the future for an image; and it’s easier to get the colors right now than to have to re edit it in the future when you or a client want to print it.

 

[KmH]

Thank you guys!

Actually, I edit pictures for websites not for printing. Does that make a difference?

So you're editing images for web sites that aren't your's? You're doing the editing to make some income?

What type of display do you have - Twisted Nematic (TN), In-Plane Switching (IPS), Patterned Vertical Alignment (PVA)?
What color bit depth is the display capable of?
If your display is only a 6-bit display calibrating it isn't going to help much because the range of colors it can show is so lmited.

As john.margetts points out most personal computer users and non-photography web site owners never calibrate their display(s), let alone calibrate their display on a regular basis, which is what image editing pros do.
But image editing pros generally have higher end displays that are at least 10 bit displays costing from a thousand to several thousand dollars. some image editing pros use 16-bit displays that are in the $10,000(s) price range.

 

[john.margetts]

Thank you guys!

Actually, I edit pictures for websites not for printing. Does that make a difference?

So you're editing images for web sites that aren't your's? You're doing the editing to make some income?

What type of display do you have - Twisted Nematic (TN), In-Plane Switching (IPS), Patterned Vertical Alignment (PVA)?
What color bit depth is the display capable of?
If your display is only a 6-bit display calibrating it isn't going to help much because the range of colors it can show is so lmited.

As john.margetts points out most personal computer users and non-photography web site owners never calibrate their display(s), let alone calibrate their display on a regular basis, which is what image editing pros do.
But image editing pros generally have higher end displays that are at least 10 bit displays costing from a thousand to several thousand dollars. some image editing pros use 16-bit displays that are in the $10,000(s) price range.

He doesn't say they are not his and there is no reason to assume they are not. Of course, if he is employed to create/manage websites for others they might not be his images but that goes with the territory. The type of display that he has is not really relevant as he is not viewing the images. He cannot know what display Joe Public has.

 

[KmH]

The OP is viewing the image(s) to edit them.
That in and of itself makes the type of display relevant.
Also relevant is the color bit depth and contrast ratio of whatever display the OP is using.

Of course he can't know what someone else is using to view images.
Using an el cheapo, 6-bit, 300:1 contrast ratio TN display to edit images is a worst case situation making calibration (of any kind) & color management an almost useless exercise.

 

[crimbfighter]

I would say make the one time investment for a calibration device and you'll never have to worry about it. The other calibration component that is important is screen brightness, which you need calibration hardware to set properly. A dim monitor will cause you to push your shadows and darks way too high and when someone views your image on a brighter monitor it will be washed out. Transversly, if yours is too bright your images may appear very dark to other viewers. My opinion is that regardless of whether you're only editing for websites, you should always put your best work out there. You never know when an image you create will come back to you.

 

[Gerardo_G]

Thanks for all your help guys .