Colour management web image problem

[Marko]

"This brings up another question. How do those little baby point-and-shoots produce acceptable(ish) colour right off the camera? Clearly most people don't post-process even a little bit. Do the cameras just boost the white balance so the images are nearer to looking good on the uncalibrated monitor?"

Those baby point and shoots have grown up big time in the last 10 years...

I just purchased the canon G11 not long ago as a 'carry everywhere camera'. 11 megs an image in RAW! very nice colour! and INDEED I have done PP on images from that camera (though you are right - 99% of people won't but a respectable amount of serious amateur and pro photogs will).

Of course it has limitations..but in regular light, for a stationary subject you would find it VERY difficult to tell the difference between a shot that came from it and your DSLR that may have cost 1000. more than the G11... at small enlargements or on the web.

[markis]

AcadieLibre, I'm processing RAW files and producing JPEGS (quite high-quality ones, but small -- just like the ones I'm putting on the web), and full-res TIFFs for good measure. And yes, many pics -- not just one! Remember, I'm just after something decently good -- doesn't have to be perfect.

Marko, I totally agree. They're pretty slick. Actually, the camera I switched to (after years with some of the best Canon lenses) is a little Panasonic GF1! I was taking things too seriously, and needed something fun ... and it really is. The image quality (below ISO 400 or so) is actually surprisingly good. Not as high-res as the film scans I was getting, but I could almost make prints of the same size -- it seems like every pixel is perfect.

Not to mention, the police and public take little notice of that little camera. I hated big lenses for getting attention.

But the question is still open -- photographers who post-process for pre-press with a calibrated monitor, do you tweak your photos before putting them on the web? What kind of shift do you see?