Which calibration tool should I buy?
Which one do you use?
Can I buy refurbished/used?

>>4431964 (OP)
I make the photo on my pc then look at it on my phone and if it's the same then it's callibrated

>>4431964 (OP)
i used spyder/datacolor for years, but ended up buying the calibrite display pro hl to replace my aging spyder that was no longer supposed on newer os's.

>>4431966
I do this. I thought that's what posting photos here was 1/2 for.

>>4431966
>>4431971
shit bait

Used is fine, improvements are marginal so ending software support is how they get you to spend money on their new shit. Just use something DisplayCal/ArgyllCMS supports (just about anything) and that won't matter.

https://displaycal.net/#requirements

>>4431964 (OP)
If you have to edit colors it means your camera is bad

I edit my photos and if they look different to you that's not my problem

>>4431975
Correct. Emphasis on have to. A good camera starts with good colors and lets you accept it as is if you liked the lighting or cope and edit.

>>4431974
Displaycal was a POS that kept fucking up my HDR display so I just used the i1profiler license that came with my calibrator.

>>4431972
? How is that bait? Have you never calibrated a printer where like it prints out a bunch of test images w/ varying tones/color and you select the one that looks most like your monitor? It's the same shit. It's based on what people will actually see not jerking off to some fancy gizmo.

>>4432022
if you monitor isn't calibrated, (You) don't know how your image looks. simple as

Could eyeballing it still work?

>>4431974
don't some calibration tools use organic compounds in the filters?

This seems like some real ""I have too much money and don't know what to do with it "" type shit

>>4432128
a retard such as yourself would think that, yes

>>4431964 (OP)
spiderpro X
it works
its 50 bucks or so on sale
it'll do presumably for ever
Might be some better stuff now though

>>4432128
true if you don't do anything digital

>>4432029
what are you, a machine?

I have the one that came with my monitor

The software/drivers that make it work no longer run on my version of macos

>>4432502
No, he has a snoy and needs to be able to see what he’s doing while fixing the Skill Issue(tm) skin tones.

Also some monitors come out of the box with really ugly errors like making everything orange and saturated.

just use a monitor designed for accurate color reproduction
also you can just buy pantone swatches or whatever and manually calibrate

>>4431964 (OP)
their software is trash and their hardware is questionably designed
also, fuck them for still using keys and having activation limits in 2025
I changed to calibrite and it's been better in every regard

>>4432515
that's why he should compare it to screens on other devices. This helps account for the wide range of variability in screen quality/calibration in user devices.
>>4432524
>manually calibrate
Best idea ITT

>>4432502
what are you, a retard?

>>4432591
>I don't trust organic eyes, much less my own!
>I must be validated by arbitrary readings off a questionably calibrated machine sensor
PS: If I wanted my comeback I'd wipe it off your mom's face

>>4432598
(You) will do anything to avoid accurate color lmao

I calibrated my monitor but every time I've had prints made the prints look more like when I turn calibration off than with it on.

>>4432606
Your printer needs to be calibrated too.

>>4432608
I send them to mpix or adorama with the "don't fuck with it" checkbox, they're supposed to have calibrated printers. Probably I am setting it up wrong or something. Main thing is the calibration lifts the shadows, then it comes out too dark in the prints.

>>4432615
monitors are backlit, prints are frontlit. the blacks are meant to come out darker when you print, depending on the paper and ink you used. photo 101.

calibration is for when you buy a consumer screen that isn't pre-calibrated and it's overly warm/cool/green/etc and when you print everyones skin looks like shit

>>4432615
monitor too bright.

>>4432617
If it don't make the monitor look like the print why even bother?
>>4432622
It's set to 42% brightness already.
Is gamma curve supposed to look like this? idk what most of this shit means. My "delta E00" are all 0 which sounds like bs to me.

>>4432642
2.2 gamma is ideal for sRGB. Basically what you want at all times when doing anything photo related.
Look up ICC profiles and see if anyone has made a calibrated one already for this purpose. RTINGS is good for that. I still needed to do a minor tweak to Windows colour calibration for gamma, but having to do a few small tweaks is normal due to panel-to-panel differences.

The thing about printing photos that's a bit fucky, is that you need to calibrate the printer as well, and the ink and photo paper will always alter things as well. Unless every element in the process is consistently calibrated there will always be a difference between prints and monitor-viewing.

>pic rel, I edited this ages and ages ago before calibrating my monitor and this was supposed to look like midday daylight white.

>>4432642
set it to 35%