Monitor re-calibration; how's the change work?

Something whacked out my monitor calibration, as I found when I recently had this image printed. I'd like some thoughts from others on the before/after and how well my tweaks worked. Thanks!

Before:

The 2nd looks better, just looks more vibrant, warmer and higher contrast.

In terms of white balance the first seems to have the edge since the saturated colors in the 2nd one have warmed up the overall image. Certainly more color and pizazz in the 2nd one makes it more appealing.

I agree that the white balance on the first one looks more "normal" upon first inspection. However, the length of the shadows hints that this was taken either very early or very late, so the second is probably more accurate. They both look good.

Neither are bad, but #2 is definitely more vibrant. I think I would something in between the two, some of the colors in the second one feel a little over saturated.

re-edit seems, as discussed, to have more warmth; and the shadows and darker mid-tones in it are also pushed. I think both work. I also would probably prefer something in between these renditions.

Thanks All. How about detail in the shadowed areas, especially the larger rock in the center, left? That's where the real issues were in the printed version, as you couldn't see hardly any of the texture in the face of that rock or the others that are similarly shaded.

Yes, the warmer tones are pushed a bit higher, for my own tastes; something right between would be the most strictly accurate.

Very nice. What system are you using to calibrate?

fklimek04 wrote in post #11633887
Very nice. What system are you using to calibrate?

Used the Xrite i1Display2; seems to work reasonably well, but the software interface is not intuitive, to me. Took some time to figure out just how to use it.