Re: Web Site Horror--Feedback requested

----- Original Message -----
From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: Web Site Horror--Feedback requested

> DEAR KATHERINE,
> Looks luminous on my PC!
> CHEERS!
> BOB
>
> Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:01 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> 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
>
> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/
>
> 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
>
  Looks fine here.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com