Report comment

As a "perfectionist" I'm surprised I am not more of an advocate of calibrating monitors. Twenty five years ago I thought it was very important. Today's LCDs are more consistent than CRTs of ancient days.

While I love the idea of calibrating, I haven't been able to bring myself to spend any money on a calibration device. As you point out, we have no control over the settings of viewer's screens. Viewer variance (often on a tiny cell phone after Facebook has mutilated the image with compression) is going to have far greater impact, in my opinion, than calibrating a good monitor.

For printing an image, this seems like it would be more valuable (so you don't get a print back and have extreme disappointment it isn't like what you saw on the screen).

Naturally a full time pro photographer would have more motivation to spend money on calibration but at this point I'm not sure I see enough value in it.

If I could buy the Spyder5 at the $140 upgrade price I'd do it, but since I don't have an old device I'm not willing to spend $300 on a new device, I'd rather save that money toward buying a better monitor in the future.