Post processing - reading ther histogram vs calibrated eyes

[Liney]

So here more a question on post-processing than monitors, but I wanted the opions of the group.

I have a laptop which I use for post-processing and the images I get are pretty good, but a couple of days ago I connected a second monitor to try something out but looked at some of my images. The difference in the colour was noticeable, and after a bit of tweaking the monitor settings I managed to get rid of most of the differences.

Which got me thinking. When i do my post processing I take note of the histogram to make the course adjustments (spreading the colour across the full histogram, toning down the washed out colours etc) and then fine tune the changes by looking at the image itself.

So here's the question, if you didn't have a monitor that had been calibrated could you achieve a reasonable image using the histrogram alone? How critical is the calibration of your monitor, and how important is that visual check of the colours in the grand scheme of things?

Looking forward to your thoughts

[Kym]

You can manually calibrate

See http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Learning_to_print_or_web_publish_photographs
and http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

[ricktas]

The histogram show you the range of brightness from pure white to black, and contrast. If you choose a particular channel you can just show the Reds.. or Greens.. or Blues. What it will not show you is saturation unless you do choose each channel. So whilst a histogram is invaluable for exposure 'correctness' and contrast, it cannot be a replacement for a calibrated monitor.

Your can get a calibrator for a few hundred $ these days, and if photography is something you take seriously, I would always recommend one. I understand some cannot afford them and the link above from Kym, is a good alternative, manual calibration site, that uses your sight, to set it up.