>>3746784>The concept of an image that improves linearly with how well the monitor it's viewed on is calibrated.To achieve such a thing would actually be fascinating!
But no, you're just trying to setup a strawman based off an impossible scenario.
Everyone *thinks* the colour on their display is fine, and it will look normal to them. But let's say bobs screen is too red, and Jeff uses a screen that's too green, if Jeff edits an image so his greys look neutral, they are going to be anything but neutral on bobs screen. But, if you edit your photos on a calibrated screen, it will look "right" on everyone else's screen to the owner of those screens.
>>3746790>Strawman that technically competent images come at the expense of composition\subject\etcWhat bullshit drivel.
Does Gordon Ramsey not care about what dishes he makes because he's too focused on the technical aspects of cooking? Or does the insistence on technical knowledge come off the back of doing a lot of cooking and becoming good at it and realising the importance of technical knowledge.
>Being technically sound isn't the end game, but it is expected from good photographers.Ah, so you see why I so readily dismiss anyone that doesn't calibrate - they aren't experienced enough to appreciate the importance of it.
>>3746792>Still setting up the strawman that interesting and technically proficient images are mutually exclusive, rather than experienced photographers appreciating the necessity for technical proficiency.Lmao, this is how I know you're a poor cuck that takes shit photos.
