What gamma setting do you use?

[The Photo Tuell]

I had my gamma setting (GeForce3 advanced settings, color correction) set to 1.0 because that was approximately calibrated to the printer at my local Costco. Well this week they got a new machine and now it seems I need to adjust my settings.

I've read that 2.2 gamma is a 'standard' but it seems so dang bright, heh. I'm at 1.5 right now, going to get some prints done tomorrow, hopefully they look normal. Didn't pay for the screwed up ones of course, they always treat me right.

One reason I ask is because the gamma setting changes the look of pictures in online galleries quite a bit. A picture that looked fine to me at 1.0 gamma had ugly artifacts at 1.5 (fixed it, so no example for you). I wonder how many people use high gamma like 2.2 and think the pictures I've adjusted to 1.0 gamma look weird?

[Jesper]

I suspect that the gamma that you set in your display settings is "on top" of the standard gamma of the monitor. You should multiply the figures: so if your monitor has a gamma of 2.2, and you set the display settings to 1.0, the "total" gamma will be 2.2 x 1.0 = 2.2.

Just leave the display settings on 1.0.

On monitors for Windows PCs, 2.2 is the standard gamma; for Macintosh it's 1.8.

Have a look here: http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#Gammabox

for an explanation of gamma and a chart that allows you to estimate the gamma of your screen.

[marcel wouters]

The Photo Tuell wrote:
I had my gamma setting (GeForce3 advanced settings, color correction) set to 1.0 because that was approximately calibrated to the printer at my local Costco. Well this week they got a new machine and now it seems I need to adjust my settings.

I've read that 2.2 gamma is a 'standard' but it seems so dang bright, heh. I'm at 1.5 right now, going to get some prints done tomorrow, hopefully they look normal. Didn't pay for the screwed up ones of course, they always treat me right.

One reason I ask is because the gamma setting changes the look of pictures in online galleries quite a bit. A picture that looked fine to me at 1.0 gamma had ugly artifacts at 1.5 (fixed it, so no example for you). I wonder how many people use high gamma like 2.2 and think the pictures I've adjusted to 1.0 gamma look weird?

This is the hardware display adjustement!
Let these adjustements neutral, gamma (1) and no RGB compensation!
Windows normally use the adobe gamma software adjustement to compensate the monitor gamma, this is the prefered method to calibrate your display. In a not ICC aware application like a browser, the gallery pics must be converted to a gamma 2.2 to 2.5 space (to compensate for the monitor) before posting (sRGB is a 2.2 gamma space), so the pic is already gamma 2.2 corrected. In an ICC aware application like PS7 the embedded profile (for exemple sRGB) is used against the monitor profile (set by adobe gamma) to adjust the display.

Now for your prints, if you post edit your pics!
Ask if they made adjustements? If yes ask to print without adjustement (so you could see your adjustements), if they can't choose another lab!

[The Photo Tuell]

Well I've moved to 1.7 gamma (compensation?) via GeForce 3 advanced properties because that's what gets the best looking gamma tests on my monitor. For example:

http://www.pbase.com/image/22102284.jpg

I can make out the difference between each of the squares.

Another reason I turned up my gamma more was on this page: http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/gamma/gamma.html

The 'Pitfalls' section (halfway down) has a big black square with the letter T in it. At first I couldn't see anything, then I turned up my gamma and it showed up.

A lot of my pictures look better now, too, heh. Here's an example where before I adjusted my gamma everything was dark so I did some contrast/curves adjustment to the picture. Now the non-adjusted picture looks OK and the adjusted one is too bright.

http://www.pbase.com/image/22041909/medium.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/image/22041910/medium.jpgj

I also used the (free) Nokia monitor test ( http://freepctech.com/rode/004.shtml ) and my newly adjusted 1.7 gamma is much better.

Now the tough part is to match what prints look like compared to my monitor, heh. I used to have it matching (when my gamma was at 1.0 heh) but I think they changed something.