Originally Posted by Cmike2780

I think we're trying to say the same thing. That's why I use the RAW file as my base image. It's usually already a neutral starting point. I've used the curves method plenty of times and it can be very helpful. All I'm saying is that color correction or any other type of correction doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to fall into an acceptable range for the final displayed type. I've had the same images up on my iPhone, monitor and printer and all three display color very differently. Heck, the ambient room lighting you're viewing the device/print in changes how your eye sees color. It's really frustrating actually, but that's physics for ya.

It can also vary depending on what photo sharing site you're using and the final image file you save it as. Facebook for example, won't do your images any justice. The way they compress images makes them muddy. It's a wash trying to critique an image's color calibration if you're not seeing it on the exact same monitor in the exact same room. I create architectural renderings for clients and I kid you not, many can't comprehend that shade, shadows and brightness changes what color your eyes see. I show them one without shadows and they wonder why it doesn't look realistic

I totally agree that putting the work in to make it "perfect" will give you a stunning picture. I know it might not even be what you're sating, but I just think people can go overboard real fast trying to post process what should already be a great shot. Today's DSLR's do a pretty impressive job at calculating the correct exposure and color balance, why not take advantage?