Me too I struggled a lot with calibrating my Viewsonic PF815 22' monitor.
I used Adobe Gamma on the Gamma-space 2.2 monitor calibration chart made by
Timo Autiokari on www.aim-dtp.net. and
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/index.htm. He made also
many other gamma charts. I downloaded the 2.2 chart and placed it as the
desktop wall. Withy Adobe Gamma I managed to get a quiet good calibrated
monitor on all the grey values from deep black to high white. When looking
at the Yellow Rose from Lawrence W.Smith in PS6.01 I can see clearly the
subtle details in the leave and the beautifull colors in the rose. It
indicates me that my calibrtion is correct.
I suggest you try this too and see what it gives...
----- Original Message -----
From: "laurie" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem
> I did nto read the post thoroughly; but I would suggest that some of the
> difference may very well be that your monitor is set at a different color
> tempurature than those that you looked at which would effect the rendering
> of the gamma setting. Moreover, you may not have hour monitor's
> and contrast settings set at the same levels as was the case on the other
> monitors. Gamma settings is only one component in monitor calibration;
> monitor calibration is not the same thing as color management but merely
> first step in color management. For WYSIWYG to work across multiple
> systems, all the systems have to be calibrated to the same standard of
> temperature, gamma, white point and black point, brightness and contrast.
> Not to be funny; but how sure are you fo the acccurracy of your step
> Most commercial step wedges are created using precision measurement
> instruments and printed to precisely measurable standards. Is it possible
> that you personnally created step wedge may be out of gamut at the dark
> with respect to your monitor? Is it possible that your web sit files
> be tagged with profiles that have small or inapproriate working color
> so that those receiving the image get images that their systems correct to
> the embedded profile?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:50 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: filmscanners: Setting screen gamma problem
> I know this topic is revisited ad nauseum, but I have just discovered that
> what I thought was the Right Thing To Do does not appear to be right at
> all. On my system, Adobe Gamma setup seems to be worse than no setup at
> all. I have cross posted this to Epson7x7, filmscanners, scan and
> silver lists.
> This post has become very long, read it if you are interested, but the
> essence of my question is ...
> Please look at my simple greyscale step wedge at
> www.austarmetro.com.au/~julian/stepwedge.htm and tell me if setting this
> for equal visual steps is a valid way of setting screen gamma, and does
> *your* monitor show this wedge accurately?
> My problem was to make my recently web-published photos look reasonable on
> other people's monitors. I use PS5.5 and a Sony 400PS monitor.
> I thought I had this all sussed, because I had religiously used Adobe
> to give me what I assumed would be, maybe not perfect, but at least
> ball-park OK settings. I then looked at my pubescent website on someone
> else's computer to discover all my deep beautiful saturated colors were
> pale, insignificant and plain ugly. I checked a couple of other computers
> and while they vary, generally they give the same result.
> My conclusion therefore was that for some reason my screen gamma is set to
> make my screen look too dark. So I checked Adobe Gamma again but it gave
> me the same settings.
> I can't afford a proper calibrator at this time, but decided to go back to
> basics on the assumption that a step wedge greyscale from 0,0,0 to
> 255,255,255 should look balanced on my screen and the steps should all be
> visible and roughly the same "brightness difference" between adjacent
> across the scale. I constructed a simple step wedge of 17 steps (0,0,0;
> 16,16,16; 32,32,32 ...255,255,255) and it looked bad. The bottom 3 steps
> were all black, which seemed to confirm that my monitor was NOT adjusted
> So I tried then to adjust gamma so that my stepwedge looked ok. The
> problem is that to achieve this, the gamma has to be set so high as to be
> almost off the scale. This is the same whether I use the slider on Adobe
> Gamma Utility, or a different setting available in my Matrox card
> adjustment software. In both cases the gamma required to make the step
> wedge look OK is way up the top end of the adjustment. And of course all
> my wallpapers and in fact all my images now look pale and washed out.
> I have since looked at other photo sites to see how they look with my
> settings, and the situation is still confused. On some sites their images
> now look washed out, others look OK. The average would be roughly half
> between my Adobe Gamma setting and my Step Wedge setting.
> I am now completely confused, but aware that most of us are probably
> false assumptions about how other peoples' web photos are meant to
> look. For example, Lawrence Smith has a critique site whose address was
> posted on a list today - at http://www.lwsphoto.com/06_25_critique.htm. I
> looked at this rather beautiful photo but didn't like how dark the stem
> leaves were, which agreed with a few of the comments posted at the
> site. But now that I have adjusted to my "Step Wedge gamma" and looked
> again, the photo looks completely different, and the stem and leaves are
> fine. Which is right? There is a HUGE difference.
> Any answers to my questions welcomed...
> - is my assumption correct that such a stepwedge is a
> reasonable way to set up screen gamma?
> - why doesn't the setting that this implies agree with the setting
> suggested by
> Adobe Gamma? There is a HUGE difference.
> - why is the correct gamma setting according to my stepwedge so high,
> nearly off scale?
> - what kind of gamma are most monitors actually aligned to IN PRACTICE? I
> know about nominal 1.8 and 2.2 for Apple and PCs, but it doesn't seem that
> this bears much relationship to reality?
> Julian Robinson
> in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia