hawarren: "Let me know if the GC image still looks washed out on your monitor. " 

Yes, that's better - to MY eyes and on MY ancient Viewsonic CRT which may have the gamma of an IBM 3270 terminal for all I know :-)

"Pardon the stupid question, but is it a hard and fast rule that GC has to be set at 2.2"

Well apparently so, if you want it to be correct.  To me, it's a control like any other. If backing it off make the image look better to me then that's what I do. I think that I understand the physically correct philosophy. I've been fascinated with science and technology my whole life, but art and science, like religion and science address different questions or the same question from entirely different points of view. Each is valid in their own realm but when they overlap it can get messy. 

Let us agree that it [GC] is correct* .* Let us also agree that what is correct* *is not going to be universally perceived as the best - because of variations in monitors, eyesight and Lord knows what other physical and psychological factors any more than N mg/kg of a drug is going to work for everyone, or everyone is going to agree on which one of the Bush twins is hotter - it's Laura - don't argue with me.

So the GC proponents say 'well maybe', while channeling Galileo and muttering 'and yet it is correct.'  Fine, message received and noted for reference. The skeptics will look and say 'you're selling snake oil.' Fine, do what pleases you. We might aw well be arguing art vs porn at this point, though the examples would be a lot more entertaining.

Someone correct my aging memory. Was there this much kvetching over GI/IDL? If there was, I don't remember it. That was a new feature to many people and it way promoted by some of the same folks evangelizing GC, but it seemed to go down a lot smoother. If so, why? Discuss among yourselves.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken