What does Jow Forums use to calibrate their monitors?

i had some meme xrite i1 one but it fails miserably on newer LED backlit panels. haven't bother to actually look for new ones.

I use a color checker for all my pictures. Monitors these days are pretty well calibrated by default and I don't do any commercial photo stuff so I don't care.

You mean besides the maxed out brightness, horrible gamma, unstable contrast, high black point, and shit-tier colors?

But who's calibrating the calibrators?

DELET

this guy fucks

My eyes

who's programming the programming language?

Mine came from factory calibrated :^)

>What does Jow Forums use to calibrate their monitors?
grandad

Attached: 1532102979819.png (500x700, 201K)

Eh, photo editing is a subjective artistic activity anyways, so if the color or contrast is off by 1% it doesn't matter, it's all within the threshold of your artistic vision etc.

Unless you do prints (lol prints in 2018) then all the monitors your pictures will be viewed on will be uncalibrated too and thus the end result will also vary between monitors.

Attached: 1534693869232.jpg (600x1147, 118K)

For photo editing I would be worried with the black point, brightness, gamma, white point, and colors over contrast. Hard to edit a photo accurately if shit is all fucked up and not remotely how it looked when it was taken.

An old Spyder 2 Pro that still works good enough.

Your eyes will fail pic related.

Attached: derp.jpg (648x360, 33K)

Black and white point is usually pretty close to the ground truth and if they are fucked you can see it with the naked eye and correct it. Brightness is a personal preference, your eye don't notice the change in gamut relative to the brightness anyways. Colors, well you can see if there is a tint with the naked eye, and any accuracy above that is fairly pointless when as I said, all monitors that the final result is gonna be viewed on will be uncalibrated too.

If you assume that a color corrected monitor will be smack in the middle of a distribution of monitors in terms of color delta then you are wrong. It could very well be that 80% of the monitors your imagewill eventually be viewed on are closer to a cheap ass uncalibrated monitor you buy on black Friday than a color calibrated pro one. Or it could be the other way around. But the delta is same between a calibrated monitor and the sea of random monitors that the final image will be viewed on and a random monitors and that same sea of random monitors.

Also, the initial raw processing (Bayer filter) is pretty much guesswork, so is the secondary raw processing (in software), so unless you use a color checker and ajust the images to the ground truth prior to editing you might as well just shove the monitor up your own ass, sideways.

Attached: 1533412674324.jpg (466x422, 16K)

I only buy precalibrated monitors.

Got the Spyder4 and calibrated my monitors, they all ended up with a green tint to them.
Returned the fucker and got a new one.
Same thing happened again.
First and last time I use color calibrators. After that I just eyeballed my other monitors to resemble the factory color profile of my Cintiq.
It seemed like the Spyder got some things right during the calibration, but somehow ended up completely raping rest of the colors in the process.
Apparently you need to buy the pro version if you want to really fine tune the result. Absolute kike product.

Why not just take a picture of a color checker, then adjust the white balance of the picture to the ground truth, then hold up the real color checker and compare it to the color corrected picture? Then manipulate the monitor settings until the picture on the screen is visually indistinguishable from the real color checker?

Eizo CG integrated with ColorNavigator
Colormunki with DisplayCAL for my regular screens

(Colormunki photo, which is a spectrophotometer).

spyder5 and displaycal

Attached: icc.png (1920x1040, 115K)