Quote - Oh boy. So you decide to bring up the complicated scenario, heheh.

Monitors are supposed to be set so that they display sRGB content directly, which is approximately a gamma of 2.2.

Any material that is constructed while staring at the results on such a monitor (such as hand-drawing a texture color map) is encoded with the gamma level of the monitor at the time of construction. I don't mean the data is impacted in some way, I mean that the human making color choices was impacted by the gamma of her monitor. So you need to respect the monitor response curve that the author was using, not you, when dealing with her material as incoming material that requires anti-GC.

Now if you want to design an output for your extra bright gamma 1.5 monitor, then you want your outgoing GC = 1.5, but you STILL need your incoming anti-GC to be 2.2, unless the incoming material was designed while LOOKING AT YOUR MONITOR. If you judged a color combination nice on your monitor, you must assume that the linear value is anti-GC(1.5). If the incoming material was judged nice on somebody else's workstation, then you must assume they were using 2.2.

Gotcha :)
That sounds a lot like what I've been doing...  When I make an image, I make it for a particular 'output' device... It varies from a printer to a printer, and what monitor...  So, if I want something to look as intended on the average monitor, I need to make it look a bit washed out on my main monitor (I have an older one here I can always look at)...  For the most part, after you've done it enough time, it can be done just visually, sort of winging it.

I was doing a quick little informal poll, as an extension of a thread here: http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?p=1778953&flatnum=1 regarding how many people see the image as relatively dark, and whom sees it as acceptable. I was curious, because over time I fot the impression that in Poserdom there may be a larger then usual percentage of people with higher quality, brighter monitors then on the average....

So, I wonder if that info, or an educated guess is of any use to me, whom should I target, your usual 2.2 gamma monitor, or graphics people whom have likely tweaked it (or your graphics hobbyist whom I've seen in the past making thise tweaks to their monitor settings to what just looks good, without being fully aware of wht they're doing exactly.

Of course, if I was doing a regular graphic, for a wide audience website, I'd probably calibrate the image so it looks right at gamma 2.2... or something in between 1.8 and 2.2... actually, probably stick to lighter colored images and color schemes... they tend to be a bit more 'web safe' when it comes to monitor Gamma.

In Rendo Gallery, I posted images that looked good on my bright monitor, with no adjustments, asking people if they look too dark.... and usually more answers are that it's not, rather then it is...  But then again, I know that is highly subjective.

Anyway, when I saw you post a reminder about gamma correction, I was scratching my head wondering, what Gamma value do we optimize them for... and was reluctant to ask for a while.  I think it's sinking in now, you want people to stick to optimizing for around 2.2.

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support