Glad to help. I have a timer set to remind me to run the monitor calibration every month on my desktop system. I find the differences month-to-month pretty small, at least with the Cinema Display 23", but comparing the profiles over a six month time there is enough drift to be noticeable.
Regards monitor gamma, I have calibration and profiles set up for both gamma 1.8 and gamma 2.2. Calibrated and profiled correctly, the on-screen appearance of image files seems almost identical in color managed applications, but I stick with the L=140, gamm=1.8, WP=5500K configuration because it seems to give me the closest match between screen and print output. I've not yet gotten involved in stock photo sales, although I probably should get some going. Godfrey On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Yep, my monitor calibration was off. I hadn't run it in about six > months, and the luminance level was down quite a bit. I do have to run > gamma 2.2, so that makes a difference as well. (Gamma 2.2 is pretty > much mandatory when dealing with stock houses, retouchers and other > visual arts professionals.) But this was a wakeup call. I thought I > could get away with six month calibrations. Not true. > > In regard to your rendering, it looks quite good now. The midrange > contrast is a big improvement. When I first viewed it there was no > detail to speak of in the blacks, which are converted from dark blue, > by the way. I'm going to go back and rework the original RAW and do a > new conversion. A correct monitor should help a lot. > > Thanks for taking the time on this. > Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
