Fastfwd13
26th of August 2009 (Wed), 12:43
I understand that aRGB is "better" for the human eye than sRGB. But are there limitations?
- Is it possible that some places won't be able to print correctly pictures that are in aRGB?
- Will this format stand the test of time since it is not the default?
If not. Why is it that my 50D comes with sRGB by default is it is inferior?
The way I understand calibration is that it depends also on consistent lighting outside of the monitor. So it's useless for me as I use a laptop at home and light from the windows at work is ever changing.
Should I just then leave all my pictures as-is or still try to correct for colors that don't seem right to me? What I currently do is try to find the right white balance and leave the rest as is. I only play with contract,shadows,highlights and the white balance.
Also seems to me that not everyone sees colors the same way so how do I know even with a correctly calibrated monitor that what I do is an improvement? Or is this one of those artistic decision that is in the eye of the beholder?
- Is it possible that some places won't be able to print correctly pictures that are in aRGB?
- Will this format stand the test of time since it is not the default?
If not. Why is it that my 50D comes with sRGB by default is it is inferior?
The way I understand calibration is that it depends also on consistent lighting outside of the monitor. So it's useless for me as I use a laptop at home and light from the windows at work is ever changing.
Should I just then leave all my pictures as-is or still try to correct for colors that don't seem right to me? What I currently do is try to find the right white balance and leave the rest as is. I only play with contract,shadows,highlights and the white balance.
Also seems to me that not everyone sees colors the same way so how do I know even with a correctly calibrated monitor that what I do is an improvement? Or is this one of those artistic decision that is in the eye of the beholder?