You're beginning to get it now, Dave ;-)) I'm sure some of the better informed list members will jump in and correct any of my misconceptions, but I ~think~ I've got the concept pretty much correct.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ah Ha. > And there in lies one of my problems. > As i mentioned in a reply,i have used the Adobe Gama adjustments on the monitor,and > sometimes i > use non Canon paper.Mostly Ilford Classic Gloss or Pearl. I notice a big difference > in the > prints between > Canon and Ilford.I have to adjust curves up so the image on the screen looks a bit > over > exposed to get > something close to the Canon results.Its still a good picture,i think the Ilford > gives a > warmer tone,so > maybe thats coming in to play here. > Personally i like the Ilford results my self. > Dave > > > But that's totally backwards. You want the print > to look > like > > what you see on the monitor. The moment you make a print > > with a different profile - perhaps as a result of changing labs, > > using a different paper, getting a different printer - you're back > > to square one. > > > > Len Paris wrote: > > > > > Yes, that's one way. You get a print, and the digital image it was made > > > from, and adjust the monitor until the digital image looks as much like > > > the print as it can. Better to save up a few bucks and get a Spyder, > > > though. > > > >
