Color checkers. Worth it? Or gear whore shit. Does Dan Winters use one?
>>2732965
Depends on what you're doing.
>>2732970
portraits and street. of course, i don't expect to toss the card at passerbys. although, that might be interesting.
>>2732972
it's only useful if your image will be printed, by a real lab, with a printer profile they can send you, processed on a carefully calibrated screen, taken on a camera profiled perfectly.
For daily shit posted online, or printed at walgreens, you're wasting your time and money.
>>2732974
i guess that makes sense. maybe i can dial my photos in for iPhone screens.
![SW18-CDM12+4-900-opt[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xfQfJn2.jpg "SW18-CDM12+4-900-opt[1].jpg")
Colorchecker fully maps inside the sRGB colorspace and inside the gamuts of common color printers. That means the colors are reproducible and you can actually capture them with a camera.
However the bad thing is the colors have no actual consistency neither to their content nor placement, aside from the grayscale. This only makes it worthwhile to check for white balance or for issues involving color tinting during printing. It's not really designed for specific real world color reproduction. However you can use one to match/compare different cameras or profiles.
The high-end charts built for accuracy are mostly found in the broadcast world. Pic related. However you need corresponding software or hardware to tune the camera correctly.
