2008/11/27 Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 15:01 +0100, Leonardo Canducci wrote:
>> In attempt to get better color fidelity when watching, editing and
>> printing (not myself) photos from my slr camera, I downloaded from
>> manufacturer support site an .icm file for my monitor and I loaded it
>> as "monitor profile" in preferences|color management. 'Mode of
>> operation' is set to 'color managed display' and 'rgb profile' is set
>> to 'none'.
>> I'm quite concerned because now jpegs from my camera look brighter and
>> less colored (in a wolrd: worse) than before. Since I'm going to edit
>> a lot of them, and the result is going to be different whether I'm
>> loading or not icm monitor profile, what is the right way to go for
>> better color accuracy? Should I load icm profile or not?
> The display of colors on a monitor depends a lot on the settings
> (brightness, contrast, color temperature) of your monitor and also on
> ambient lighting. Thus it does not make much sense to use a monitor
> profile from the manufacturer. If you are serious about this, you need
> to calibrate your monitor in your viewing conditions. You need a
> colorimeter to do this.
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
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?
PS sorry for the double post sven, I didn't cc the ml
Gimp-user mailing list