Gamma Question For The Pros

This might sound a bit quirky for the pros, but with the festive season upon us I am sure a lot of photos will be taken and viewed on our Monitors and many new LCD Monitors. But how accurate are our LCD Monitors in reproducing the true colors. Most of us except the pros or nearly pros don't have Spiders and the like to calibrate the Monitor. Software calibration has mostly been avoided by pros but how good is a simple software Gamma tester for us everyday shooters. I have a little program that I use and I am happy very happy with the color of my LCD but how accurate is it compared to a Spider.
I have been told that the Gamma for an average LCD should be 2.2 my LCD is 2.19 very close.
The software that I use is Quick Gamma, I would like to ask anyone that has professional equipment to quickly try Quick Gamma and let us know just how far out or accurate the reading is. Us males wont have to ask the women folk then to pinpoint color as females do not get color blind.
anyone game
hawk22

 

Hawk, from what I have read, the picture on the screen may be different from the output (printed version?).

Rather than trying to match a perfect picture to a "possible printout ", why not compare the results? Make some prints and compare them to what you see on the screen. That is the difference from what I have investigated.

If you know the printout may be slightly different from what you see on the screen, use your intuition.

2.19 vs 2.2, how much do you want push the limits or find the exact settings? Is it 2.19999999999999999999999999999999999999 to 2.2000000000000000000000000000000? Can anyone notice the difference?

Pro, me, nope. For professionals it is probably important and they should take note of setting Gamma. They should be using professional equipment and if not, not wonder why the screen appearance is not "true to life ".

Matt

 

Agree with Matt here, (Again I'm not a pro)...

I've never seen any image either digital/film or various video formats that come anything close to life (ie what I see with my own eyes).

We use PAL here (I think you're the same down under but I maybe wrong)... When NTSC VHS/DVD's started to come over the pond we had a joke that NTSC stood for Never The Same Colour.

For the pro's yes they may think it's important but for the regular punter I doubt it, everybody's eyes are different.

 

Hi Matt and wildfire, I am sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one. I am by no stretch of the imagination a pro, but I do a reasonable amount of photo editing, and changing contrast, brightness, saturation, histogram, gamma, is always on the cards. When I save the image after editing I like to be reasonably confident that the Image is as true to the natural as possible without printing out or taking to a machine for printout.
Matt I think you might have misunderstood me a little bit in regards to the Gamma readout on my Monitor, 2.19 yes that is close enough if it is correct, what I would like is a pro like Pete for example to compare the results of Quick Gamma with what ever professional Gamma tester he has on his or her Monitor.
Given that Quick Gamma and a pro Gamma tester give equal or close to equal results than the amateurs have something to go by without the expense and difficulty.
hawk22