re: Monitor calibration
re: Monitor calibration
- Subject: re: Monitor calibration
- From: Dan Reid <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:31:17 -0700
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:47:51 -0500, Rick McCleary <email@hidden> wrote:
>
To follow on the whitepoint/gamma thread -
>
>
I have been working with a calibration of 6500k/1.8. I see that the
>
discussion has been aiming towards a setting of 6500k/2.2. In general, my
>
results with 1.8 have been good. Could someone give a basic primer on the
>
advantages of 2.2 over 1.8, if in fact it is a better setting? Thanks.
My approach to selecting a target gamma setting revolves around two points.
First I would decide what my PS 6 editing spaces gamma will be. You will see
a noticeable difference if you calibrate your monitor to G1.8 and use a G2.2
editing space. PS will need to compensate for the gamma difference. It was
easy to see in PS 5.x by toggling the DUMC option but in PS6 it is always on
(which isn't necessarily bad) The second point I look toward is what the
monitor's *native* gamma is. When using Optical you can easily determine in
the curves window if a correction curve is being applied to meet the target
gamma. My thought is keeping the monitor close to its native gamma setting
will allow the widest dynamice range across the complete tonal scale. FYI:
Most monitors (even on Mac) are closer to G2.2 than G1.8. Obviously your
mileage will vary.
--
Dan B. Reid
RENAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGING
Color Imaging Solutions Provider
http://www.rpimaging.com | email@hidden
Toll Free: (866) RGB-CMYK [ 866-742-2695 ]