2008/11/28 Mogens Jæger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Leonardo Canducci skrev:
>> 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
>> monitor (obtained
>> 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?
>> Thanks!
> I've got a Spyder2 colorimeter, and I have it working under Linux - in
> my case Suse 10.3 and 11. - have a look at Argyll.
> Second - A manufacturer profile can be better than just using the
> monitor as-is, but you get a false feeling of correctness. It can still
> be far apart from 'reality'.
I'm sure that's the way to go if you're serious about color
consistency,  but again
 my question was: what's best for the casual photographer whose workflow is:
camera -> gimp editing -> printing in a shop or publish in a web gallery
I'd better get and use an icm/icc profile or not?

Leonardo Canducci
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to