hmmmmmm I see..
Thanks lsisaxon.. It's with such thoughts running through my heads when I see these $100-$200 things that alot of different manufacturers are rushing out, that quite alot of fellow photographers are rushing out. It often makes me wonder if i'm missing something out, if there's really some point that I don't understand...
Any other kind souls out there would clarify any bit of things I've mentioned? It's like almost too simple to be true..
I guess you only need it if colour accuracy is extremely important. Maybe more for product shots, cars etc. These things are expensive coz they are calibrated and certified. It's like paying a certified engineer to come down to sign a piece of paper to say that a transformer works fine and pay him $3k for it.
It's an individual thing, some people have to make sure everything is in proper order and some just don't care. Some in fact prefers it out of whack as that becomes artistic in a way.Originally Posted by lsisaxon
I had my screen calibrated and using printer and papers which I had ICC Profiles, still the WB reference is a preference thing. I like to see what is it without proper WB and what it is with. I agree that most of the time one of the in-camera WB should work well.
But, come to think of it, is it really that hard to take an extra shot or two and in PS with several clicks you can see what the differences are? well... to each his own, I won't comment on what others think as what is important in what I want to get out of it and I want to be able to see how accurate my judgement on WB is and to do that I need a proper WB reference to make the comparisons.
No right or wrong answers here just that different people have different agenda and targets/wants/etc.. etc..
Last edited by lsisaxon; 14th November 2006 at 09:43 AM.