Is screen calibration still important for photographers now?

Both camps’ arguments have been presented to me. The issue is whether screen calibration is still important nowadays. In my more than 14 years in this industry, I’ve seen the answer shift a lot. There are two solutions—a technical solution and a usable, real-world solution—just as with reviews. There are those who, no matter what, won’t alter their opinions. There are other photographers who have never given it a thought. The response is a little complex in 2022. And we believe that the truth could make you rethink your position.

In a technical sense, calibration is important. However, depending on the displays you’re using, it matters more. That problem becomes really complex. Consider our website as an example. It could seem differently on an iMac than it does on the Samsung curved monitor I’m using to create this blog article. But when Dan, Ellyn, Mark, Feroz, Brittany, and Hillary read my posts, they’ll see something similar to what I see on my 2019 iMac. We all use Apple gadgets, which is the cause of it. The majority of Apple products have identical color calibrations.

Let’s continue that in terms of practice. Uncalibrated iOS devices all have the same general appearance. The images I view on my computer and on my iPhone will resemble one another, but not exactly. This was revealed to me a few months back when Reviews Editor Hillary Grigonis pressed the issue with the team. She aimed to get us to distinguish between photographs and determine which camera took the picture. I had one idea in my phone. On my iMac, though, I had a completely different notion. I can only speculate as to what someone may have thought if they had been using an HP Z Book, for example.

We also take in mind the following:

Sixty-six percent of our users used mobile devices in the month of January.
Android smartphones are where the majority of our consumers are coming from.
The majority of our consumers also exclusively use iPhones, while Android phones are widely used.
This indicates that most visitors aren’t seeing our website on desktop computers. They adhere to our idea of disregarding pixel peeping as a result. The vast majority of our readers are not pixel peepers. Despite that particularity, they are all still experiencing watching in a mostly consistent manner.

And what’s this? We don’t calibrate our screens, either. I gave up long ago because it was too boring. I must provide you my ICC profile in order for you to have the same viewing experience as I do. But why bother if we can use essentially the same profile that the device’s manufacturer provided?

Printing is when things become interesting (and more difficult). But over the last several years, ICC profile sharing across PCs and photo printers has improved. That is, at least, the situation with Canon printers and Apple gadgets. The printers from Epson are a little unique. (Skip the discussion on printing from your phone to an Instax camera.)

In actuality, I think screen calibration is no longer important. Do you believe that every photographer for the New York Times calibrates their display? What about the Reuters staff photographers? They don’t, in actuality. These days, the differences across screen interfaces are so frequent that there is no point. It won’t matter much unless you’re using the most affordable display you can find. However, if you’re utilizing the least expensive display feasible, you also most likely don’t give photography any thought.

Certainly, you might spend hours studying various intricacies. Some numbers may be made to seem radically different from one another. But in the end, take into account the usefulness.