Datacolor User to User Support Group.

What is the ideal gamma setting?  From what i've read before, PC
standard is 2.2 while Mac is 1.8.  Is this correct to follow?  Or,
should I use a specific gamma value all the time?  If i should
customize gamma value, what value should it be?

The rationale for the 1.8 mac gamma was that some early Macs that our
grandparents worked on supposedly had a gamma that was natively close
to 1.8.

The way I understand it, the ideal gamma settings are 2.2 because they
are very close to what you normally see on  contemporary display
hardware, no matter if it's a PC or a Mac (their "native" gamma). 

If you set a gamma target that is far from what most hardware natively
has then normally the software needs to use videocard's LUTs to
correct the gamma on all 3 channels. And, umm, corrections on 8 bit
LUTs is not a good idea... So you want do do it as little as possible.

Hopefully posts from experts like David Tobie will put an end to that
1.8 Mac Gamma urban myth.

And what Colorvision does not tell you is that other calibration
software companies have introduced "Native" and L* gamma settings that
they consider a better option...

I was under the impression that LCD screens (I have a Toshiba laptop)
would not give an accurate preview within Photoshop of the finished
print, until I purchased the Printfix Pro Suite and used the Spyder2
pro to calibrate the screen. Now I feel that that screen is better
suited to Photoshop than my older NEC CRT monitor. This may be my
imagination, but the finished prints are the proof of the pudding; so
to speak. 

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades

> 
> There are a few issues with this system. First, it will leave all 
> uncolormanaged elements (like images in Windows web browsers, for
example, or even the 
> Windows desktop, for that matter) uncorrected (and on an LCD this
means REALLY 
> uncorrected). Second, this scheme depends on the application to
apply a more 
> complex form of gamma corrections, one that some applications do not
process. I 
> can even recall a version of Adobe Acrobat that didn't process this
type of 
> profile gamma definitions correctly. Thirdly, this is not the
standard method, 
> proven and accepted by most experts.
> 
> So yes, these are possible methods, that others currently support,
and that 
> ColorVision will consider supporting when we can verify that they
actually 
> offer advantages, not just marketing spin. In the meantime, I wonder
why LowLife 

> bothers to belong to this list, when most of his posts are this type of 
> ColorVision criticism?
> 
> C David Tobie 
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Inc.
> CDTobie@...
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@...> wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that LCD screens (I have a Toshiba laptop)
> would not give an accurate preview within Photoshop of the finished
> print, until I purchased the Printfix Pro Suite and used the Spyder2
> pro to calibrate the screen. Now I feel that that screen is better
> suited to Photoshop than my older NEC CRT monitor. This may be my
> imagination, but the finished prints are the proof of the pudding; so
> to speak. 
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny Eades
> 

My NEC LCD monitor does a better job than the Sony Trinitron.  More pudding for the course 
:-)

Tom

> In the meantime, I wonder why LowLife 
> bothers to belong to this list, when most of his posts are this type of 
> ColorVision criticism?

I am a happy Colorvision (Spyder2) customer. I often recommend
Colorvision products on other boards. My posts may sound
confrontational - I apologize for that. I really respect your opinion
and the time you spend replying to my posts. 

And, umm..., I wasn't serious about grandtparents, but I really think
1.8 gamma is a myth that needs some clear correction from the experts
in the field.