A simple acknowledgement you made a small mistake and that you have subsequently edited all your posts to rewrite what you lambasted me for would have been sufficient.
Tit for tat. Two way roads. We both made mistakes. I apologize.
We both have good input to make to a thread about colour management, you are very theoretical based, I am more practical and pragmatic. Having printed commercially for other photographers I have a slightly unusual, for this forum, perspective, but it closely aligns with industry experts. I would never argue pure technicalities with you (apart from perspective and compression ), indeed I often enhance my understanding of "why" because of posters like you. Of course consistency should be a given in an advanced thread like this, my input was merely to clarify a small point (which you vehemently denied but then edited) and to caution against obsessiveness and diminishing returns in a section of the workflow from capture to output viewing. Of course screen calibration and profiling are important, as are camera and printer profiles, as are final output viewing condition considerations. Obsessing over one or two and ignoring the rest are as invaluable for ultimate accuracy as not bothering.
I completely agreed with you in the end about perspective and compression. ;P I was trying to extend the meaning beyond what you and Neuro were insisting it was limited to...I failed.
I am happy to accept the more limited description.
I edited the post to eliminate future confusion, nothing else. And I still wish you had read everything...there were multiple posts between my first, and the point at which you decided to ignore everything I said about ColorMunki Design and claim I was talking about the ColorMunki Display (and I DID use the word Design in my subsequent posts, many times, before you made an issue about it. I only edited the first post, to avoid further confusion of anyone else who came along and read it.)
As for output scenarios, as you said, as an industry printer, you have a rather unique perspective. For the average photographer, what matters is their own workflow. We can even eliminate the print context, and just deal with the web context. Most photographers publish their work on the web. I do myself, more than I print (although I do print quite a lot.) The thing that is most irksome about DataColor's system is the inconsistencies between calibration and subsequent recalibrations (which the software wants you to do pretty frequently, no longer than two months at the most, and more frequently than that most of the time.) When I did recalibrate often, the biggest issue was the tonal range in the shadows. It swings widely...sometimes blacks seem completely crushed, and at other times they are wide open and rich.
That becomes a serious problem for publishing to the web. A calibrated screen is also usually readjusted so that it's backlight is dimmer. A brightness of 120mcd is pretty standard, and in some cases as low as 80mcd is even better for workflows that involve print. When you edit images with crushed blacks and shadows, especially if you don't know they are crushed, inevitably results in you editing the shadows to be brighter. It was a while before I noticed this inconsistency, however when I would view my work on other peoples computers, I'd easily notice that some looked pretty good, while others were clearly too bright in the shadows, often too noisy in the shadows, and tonal gradients were really poor. I've actually kept an old Sony Vaio laptop around that has this huge 18.4" screen that is one of the worst screens I've ever used. It's sole value to me is to check my post-processing, and make sure that I edited the shadows properly.
This was the heart of what I was trying to write about. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system are a problem. Less so, really, for print...and you make some great points there. The inconsistencies in the DataColor system that frustrate me so much are actually most important for my web publishing workflow. I've actually avoided recalibrating for...months, at this point, maybe over five months...because I kept recalibrating last time until I managed to get perfect shadow tonality, along with the best green and red reproduction I could manage. I'm truly afraid to recalibrate with the Spyder system, as it could result in hours of fiddling and tweaking and fiddling more to avoid the crushed blacks problem.
I also believe I am not the only one who has noted such issues with DataColor's products. In my research about what screen to replace my current one with (the backlight on this one is going to go in the not too distant future, as I've had this screen for at least seven years now), many reviewers of products like NEC's PA301 and PA302 screens noted that they experienced much more consistent and accurate results with either any of the i1 products from X-Rite, or the bundled SpectraView II device. I've read about similar issues with people who use Dell's UltraSharp screens. Even if "perfect" calibration isn't and maybe shouldn't be "the goal", I do believe "consistent" calibration IS and SHOULD be a goal.