Re: Web Site Horror--Feedback requested

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;>
Date: 09/20/05-11:22:18 AM Z
Message-id: <>

You guys are absolutely the best. It looks like what I saw at the
library doesn't represent what most folks see when they look at my site,
and thank you all for rescuing me from being depressed on such a
beautiful fall afternoon!

BOB KISS wrote:
> Looks luminous on my PC!
> Please check my website:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Web Site Horror--Feedback requested
> So I went online at the library to look at the cyanotype-gum sharpness
> test, since I couldn't access it at home (don't ask me why one of the
> symptoms of the death throes of my system is that I suddenly can't open
> sites that I could access easily last week, like Mark's site and the
> Epson site, but it is so). So anyway I had some time left on my
> 10-minute allotment, so I decided to look at my website, just for the
> heck of it. Well, I've hardly ever been so shocked in my life. Most of
> the images look terrible -- dark and dirty, dingy, not at all like the
> originals, or like what they look like on my system (or at least how
> they looked before everything turned pink).
> So I need to understand this. I was always under the impression that
> there are basically two gammas that you need to be aware of: 1.8 for
> Macs and 2.2 for PCs. When I set up the website, I had the images
> adjusted to look right on my Mac at 1.8 and then remembered that PC
> users would be looking at them at 2.2, so I changed my monitor gamma to
> see how they would look. They were way too dark at 2.2 so I lightened
> them so they would look more right on a PC. This made the images too
> light on a Mac, but I figured there were fewer Mac users and I dispensed
> with them by adding a warning that Mac users should change their gamma
> to "uncorrected" to see the images closer to correct. And I've left my
> monitor gamma set at "uncorrected" (2.2) and the site looks great to me,
> all the time.
> But this what I was seeing today didn't look at all like 2.2 on my
> system, it looked more like about 2.6 or 2.8. I'm horrified to think
> that maybe this is what people have been seeing all along.
> For example, the image on my home page
> should have luminous blushing apricots in a dark blue bowl. The apricots
> should look clean and clear and luminous, and there should be some
> detail even in the darkest part of the bowl.
> If what you see is a black void with some dingy yellow speckled fruit,
> looking like it's been rotting there for a week or more, which is what
> I saw over at the library, I need to know about it, so please let me
> know (offlist would probably be most appropriate). Thanks millions,
> Katharine
Received on Tue Sep 20 18:17:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/18/05-01:13:01 PM Z CST