Stephen Greenfield wrote: > Using Adobe Gamma, I've changed several client monitors. They were amazed > at the difference. Even those who you would think would know better, > (people who view images for a living), were astonished at the results. > > Even cheap monitors showed improvement, though shadows are still a problem. > > Well worth the little time and effort involved to make my work look better > and give the client a more "accurate" rendition. Most anything would be an > improvement over the setting they were using. > > It may work for some of your clients as well and you'll have their > gratitude.
They will be even more gratified if you use an instrument and get the colours right. The big issue with calibrating monitors visually is how do you K N O W that the monitor is an exact representation of the art? Yes it may look pleasing on your images, but is it CORRECT? A hint could be that Adobe no longer ships Adobe Gamma with applications on Mac's (go figure why they still do for PC's). Anyway I didn't mean to start a platform war, I'm just enforcing that if you do visual calibration you need a visual target to match (Profile Verification Kit or possibly a Macbeth colour checker if you are comfortable comparing colour patches). Best Regards Thomas Holm / Pixl ApS - Photographer & Colour Management Consultant - Adobe Certified Training Provider in Photoshop� - Apple Solutions Expert - Colour Management - Imacon Authorized Scanner Training Facility - Remote Profiling Service (Output ICC profiles) - Seminars speaker and tutor on CM and Digital Imaging etc. - Home Page: www.pixl.dk � Email: th[AT]pixl.dk -- =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
