I recently did a recalibration of my desktop monitor: can't remember nor
find the program I used to do it, and now the results are not acceptable (in
fact, I'm getting on-screen displays that look OK in Photoshop CS, but are
quite different in other viewers, and in print).
I've spent some time s
John
Don't know if this will help but I find both the foillowing links useful,
particularly the gamma charts in the first link.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western
On 12/01/07, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently did a recalibration of my desktop monitor: can't remember nor
> find the program I used to do it, and now the results are not acceptable (in
> fact, I'm getting on-screen displays that look OK in Photoshop CS, but are
> quite different
Brian Walters wrote:
> John
>
> Don't know if this will help but I find both the foillowing links
> useful, particularly the gamma charts in the first link.
>
> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
but pls. remeber to use gamma 2.2 , as this is the standard. Gamma 1.8
is used only by old Ma
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> Brian Walters wrote:
>> John
>>
>> Don't know if this will help but I find both the foillowing links
>> useful, particularly the gamma charts in the first link.
>>
>> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
>
> but pls. remeber to use gamma 2
Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> Brian Walters wrote:
>> John
>>
>> Don't know if this will help but I find both the foillowing links
>> useful, particularly the gamma charts in the first link.
>>
>> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
> but pls. remeber to use gamma 2.2 , as this is the standard.
On 13/01/07, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> > Brian Walters wrote:
> >> John
> >>
> >> Don't know if this will help but I find both the foillowing links
> >> useful, particularly the gamma charts in the first link.
> >>
> >> http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
>
>
keith_w wrote:
>> but pls. remeber to use gamma 2.2 , as this is the standard.
>
> For whom? For what?
good question. You will find answer in "Color Management" by Bruce
Fraser, Chris Murphy, Fred Bunting. In my (2nd) edition it is in
chapter 6 . Needless to say, gamma 2.2 is recommended (ther
I run Gamma 2.2 on my Mac with Apple cinema display. The monitor is
calibrated with a Spyder 2. My new Epson R2400 duplicates the screen
image flawlessly as did my previous Epson 2200. I don't see that
there's anything to be gained using G 1.8.
Paul
On Jan 12, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Bronek Kozicki
Thanks to all who responded, and I'll have some fun next week checking out
all the suggestions (got to go to a christening tomorrow...).
Brian, I downloaded one of the recommended test prints from digitaldog,
thanks for the link, and it looks perfect on my monitor in Vueprint and in
Photoshop: h
On 13/01/07, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob, thanks for suggesting the Registry - I'm comfortable using RegEdit, so
> I'll have a wander through there too. There is nothing in my startup
> settings that would appear to affect only Adobe's colour rendering.
Fair enough, the LUT updat
Thanks Rob - I'll look at that too.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Monitor Calibration - help wan
12 matches
Mail list logo
