As soon as saw your name as the last poster I knew it was a response to my post to put me down. It's been two years since I proved you utterly wrong on the AF question, and you still can't get over it. Sad...
I see a contradiction in this statement.
Yes well, we already know you tend to see what you want to see.
[rambling dribble of an attack clipped]
First, the point of an accurate WB is color accuracy. Some people aren't producing art...there are product, documentary, scientific, etc. photographers and color accuracy is very important to them. Second, as the xrite color challenge proves, some people have trouble differentiating colors.http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77&Lang=en
Third, the problem with your "pleasing" as a solution is that what's pleasing one moment isn't pleasing the next when people are trying to set WB sliders by eye. That's because the eye's white balance is changing as you're trying to set these colors. In other forums when someone posts an image where they can't seem to get the white balance right, a white balance set from the whites of the eyes will invariably be praised as the best looking. When the color of the light isn't an element of the scene, an accurate white balance gives pleasing colors. Of course, an artist can manipulate an image and create a different set of pleasing colors. But that doesn't diminish what you get from an accurate white balance.
BTW we use monitor hardware to balance out the colour that the manufacturers haven't done properly in the first place?
Goody for you. And Jeremy Payne calibrates to get prints to match his screen. Whoopee! I never tied calibration to the task of white balance or anything else. My comment was about the eyes, not calibration. I said that we use hardware to calibrate because our eyes can't do it. I said nothing about calibration itself. You simply read what you wanted to read and attacked what you wanted to attack...like you usually do.
Obviously, I'm tired of your attacks on my posts. Get yourself a new hobby.