The advantage of RAW files is that somewhat like a film negative, there is leeway for adjustment and interpretation. With a RAW file, one can adjust the overall exposure over a range of 5 or 6 stops, separately adjust highlights and shadows (not to be confused with contrast), individually adjust colors, clarity, sharpness and overall color temperature and much more, depending on the program. Not the kind of adjustments that you will find in Apple Photos or Preview which probably convert your RAW image to something else in order to edit. Most programs that deal with RAW files are non-destructive, they keep the original and the adjustments can be changed at any time. I may be mistaken, but RAW files need to be exported or converted in order to print them or use them in page layout programs such as InDesign. And by posting an image and asking, how does this look for you does no good unless we know how it looks to you and if that is what is seen on your screen and what your expectations might be. Besides, anything posted on a site is no longer a RAW file, but something the internet has mangled so it can handle it.
Wow…
For fun, I copied your image, then re-sized it for uploading, and am now posting it again in the thread.
Whether or not it looks similar is almost a matter of chance.
It is the same with every image displayed here or any other place on the internet - there are so many intermediaries that can affect the results, it is like throwing the dice.
Anyways:
View attachment 382585
If all you are doing is viewing your own photos on your own computer, and if you like what you see, then forget about calibrating your monitor.
If you have been getting prints made, or are printing at home with an inkjet printer, and if you are happy with your prints, then forget about calibrating your monitor. (hey, it could happen. ;-)
If you are sharing your photos online, you may or may not want to calibrate your monitor, depending on how fussy you (and your viewing audience) are. The idea of color management is that both you and your viewer should see about the same thing. For example, when I view your photo (post #22) on my calibrated monitor, it looks a little bit dark (lacking in shadow detail), and a little bit "warm" (too yellow). But for all I know, that was your intention when you edited it, so I would never have said so unless you asked. I'm guessing most people on social media do not think much about color casts and shadow detail.
If you feel like you need to calibrate your monitor, there is software calibration, and hardware calibration. Hardware calibration requires buying a device that objectively reads the colors and tones as they are reproduced by your screen. Software calibration depends on the ability of your eyes to read what your monitor is doing -- so it's free, but more subjective (less accurate).
I believe your iMac came with software for calibrating your monitor. There are instructions for how to use that software here:
https://www.lifewire.com/use-mac-display-calibrator-assistant-for-accurate-color-2260919
I think I got pretty good results using Apple's software calibration back when using CRT monitors, but after iMacs switched to LED monitors, I think the process got harder, and my results were not as good. Now I calibrate my iMac monitor with a hardware device -- which cost me about $150(US) when I bought mine back in 2020.
Interestingly, it looks a bit muddy and not like the screen shot you posted earlier.
Did you made adjustments to the photo after you calibrated your monitor? Are you happy with the result? If so, you need not do anything else. Just keep shooting, that's the point.After calibration…
Interestingly, it looks a bit muddy and not like the screen shot you posted earlier.
Did you made adjustments to the photo after you calibrated your monitor? Are you happy with the result? If so, you need not do anything else. Just keep shooting, that's the point.
The image looks more colorful, with more contrast and color shading…
You can't view a RAW file. It contains unprocessed (raw) data captured by your camera. You will need to demosaic the data and apply other transforms to turn it into an image.
The resolution is irrelevant since a decent digital camera has more pixels than the best monitor. As others suggested you need a calibrated monitor made for graphics design to edit your photos. They are more expensive but you are not likely to replace it in many years. The resolution on these monitors is enough to comfortably work with your images.
The best way to view your images is to print them and hang on a wall in a good gallery.
I need to buy a gallery first…
High resolution screen is desirable but not as important as good color rendition. You can view only part of the image at a time.
The color got much better after the calibration…
A bit of free space on a wall works fine!
Lots of good examples in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-photographs-on-the-wall.188716/#post-2498694
After the calibration, all the colors became more saturated…You do need to calibrate but a screen with wide gamut and doesn't change the color and brightness with viewing angle is better. I found screen with hardware calibration are better than those can only support software calibration.
That merely affects how they appear to you on your computer. It is like seasoning to taste a recipe that only you will eat from.After the calibration, all the colors became more saturated…
That merely affects how they appear to you on your computer. It is like seasoning to taste a recipe that only you will eat from.
Do you have a trusted friend who you share image files with? If so, how do the results edited to your taste and then shared with them appear to them?
Don't forget that it would be useless to share RAW files. They need to be saved in a format like tiff, jpeg or other display format before sharing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?