What color temp is you're monitor at?

All the photography info I've read says to set my monitor to 6500 instead of 9300 but 6500 just seems to poor and bad.. I'm just wondering what everyone else is using here.

6500K for the home computer where I do image editing; 9300K for the bright office environment.

In image editing and color management circles, this has been argued for years - and the 6500K camp has won pretty decisively, with a few hold outs for 5500K or 9300K.

Let your vision be your guide.

Yes, what Woody said.

If you've been using 9300 and then switch to 6500, it will seems really orangy and bad at first because your eyes aren't used to it. Leave it that way and after a while, switching back to 9300 will make it seem too bluish.

6500K just seems odd in the beginning because you aren't used to it. I hesitated too because everything looked so yellow. But that's just because at 9300K white is really blue(ish). The brain makes some error correction and then when it's hit with white light that's really white, it looks yellow.

Turn all lamps off and leave the computer on. Then go outide and look at the light that falls out from your window. It's blue, like from a TV. Obviously this works best at night... :P

<EDIT>
GAAAH! PacAce posted while I typed. Now I look like a fool again. :p

how about the refresh rate. what's best 60hz 75hz 85hz ..does it really matter

As high as you can get out of your stuff. Your eyes will thank you. The more flicker the more tiring for eyes and brain.

6500K for you monitor eh? I appologize for my inexperience but, how does one adjust a monitors Kelvin value?

Thanks,

Ivan

I just press the menu button on the front of my monitor and it gives me the option of 9300 or 6500 or user controlled.

My monitor is at 6500K. Like the others said, if you're used to having it at 9300K, it looks yellow, but after a while it looks normal, and 9300K will look much too blue. Your eyes adapt...

The refresh rate: Set it as high as possible. The higher the refresh rate, the less you'll notice the screen flicker. If the refresh rate is too low, your eyes will get tired quickly, even if you don't notice the flicker consciously.

why is 6500 better to use than 9300?

I've read many discussions and arguments on this. Here's my take on the subject.

White light has color, the quality of which is designated by the Kelvin temperature, with 5000 K being warmish (towards yellow) and 9300 K cool (towards blue). Your visual system is highly adaptable and will accept (in time) any "color" of white as pure white.

Adobe RGB and sRGB color spaces - which dictate how color numbers should be translated into actual colors - specify that white (RGB=255/255/255) is 6500 K white (bright sunlight). That may seem to be a big point - but probably not. The color of white is specified, but the viewing condition is not. So just because you print to the spec doesn't mean that somebody looking at your print will agree that it is a good white. If their vision is adapted to 9300 K viewing, your print might look quite yellowish.

As best as I can figure, people who spend a lot of time in front of CRT monitors looking at images seem to prefer printed results (especially offset prints) when their monitors are adjusted to 6500 K white. That is, the white they see on their monitors looks like the white that is printed under typical viewing condition in offset print shops. OTOH - there are other printing workplaces (e.g. in graphics design) in which viewing conditions are traditionally such that 5000 K monitor white gives better looking prints. They actually do setup their monitors differently.

Obviously - there's subjectivity here related to preferred viewing conditions and other factors I canot honestly characterize. But this is one of those issue where it's easier to join the crowd than fight it. You want people to see your images they way you do. You could loan them your vision - or better - agree in advance to calibrate monitors to the same standard.

Corrections and additions welcomed.