2008/11/28 Mogens Jæger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Leonardo Canducci skrev: >> I don't plan to buy a device for monitor calibration. They're not cheap nor >> supported on linux, and they look like overkill for my purpose: getting >> acceptable color consistency across different pcs, web galleries and lab >> prints. >> I just thought that loading the specific icm profile for my lcd >> monitor (obtained >> from the manufacturer) was better than nothing. Of course I also changed lcd >> osd settings - with almost no ambient light - according to some test charts >> and >> images found on the internet. Since pictures looked really different before >> and >> after loading the icm profile I don't get what's better for my workflow. >> Anyway I don't get why it shouldn't make sense using this profile. Shouldn't >> I >> get an better result with that? >> >> Thanks! > > I've got a Spyder2 colorimeter, and I have it working under Linux - in > my case Suse 10.3 and 11. - have a look at Argyll. > > Second - A manufacturer profile can be better than just using the > monitor as-is, but you get a false feeling of correctness. It can still > be far apart from 'reality'. I'm sure that's the way to go if you're serious about color consistency, but again my question was: what's best for the casual photographer whose workflow is: camera -> gimp editing -> printing in a shop or publish in a web gallery I'd better get and use an icm/icc profile or not?
Thanks -- Leonardo Canducci _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
