And another thing...what's this fascination with matching one's prints to how they looked on the monitor? As if the monitor is the final judge? What were all those poor printing people doing during the days of film, when there weren't any monitors to match? Oh! Wait! They made test prints and adjusted things until they got a print they liked. Note that last word - "liked". Make some tests, evaluate them, then pick the settings that produced the most pleasing print. How hard is that?

Obviously, making "test prints" on a monitor is a lot cheaper than wasting paper, but, really...does anyone think really that the monitor matches the reality of the scene photographed? Why should it match what the printer puts out? The monitor might help you get close to what you want, but, after that, you're on your own. Get used to it.

We used to get knuckleheads like that all the time at the photo-finishing counter. "That's not the colour that the purdy pink flower was!" Really? Golly, that's a surprise. The purdy pink flower contained one set of light-absorbing pigments, the paper upon which its photograph was printed contained another. And, of course, the light sources hitting each were very, very different. Do ya think they're gonna look different? Not to mention the extreme unreliability of memory.

Gees, am I being cranky enough?