Should I calibrate my monitor to native gamma or 2.2?
Asked 12/14/2015
3 views
2 answers
0
When calibrating a display, some sources recommend leaving the monitor at its native gamma, while others suggest targeting gamma 2.2 (or sRGB). My display measures around 2.43 natively, which has me confused.
For photo editing and general color-managed use, when should I keep the monitor at its native gamma, and when should I target 2.2? Does gamma mainly affect tonal appearance and banding, and is 2.2 the better choice if I want images to look correct on other calibrated displays, prints, and the web?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
2
Setting display gamma to 2.2 or sRGB (in LCD OSD settings, that is) will make it closer to perceptually uniform (i.e. efficient for be used by human) and also make 8 bit images with gamma 2.2 or sRGB expose less banding (bigger colour depth) when viewed at 100%.
However, there is a problem, at least with DisplayCAL: creating profile for gamma 2.2 means that 1D LUT will be created. This 1D LUT can be applied in two ways:
- using videocard LUT (most oftenly 8bit -> 8bit)
- using display internal LUT (may have much bigger internal precision like 8bit -> 14bit)
Here comes the problem. Assume that you have an 8bit LCD which does not have gamma correction at all (or does not allow the gamma to be set enough closely to taget) and also does not use editable internal 1D LUT. If you calibrate your LCD for gamma 2.2 the DisplayCAL will make your LCD loose colour depth because it does not offer any interactive gamma adjustment. Therefore your LCD won't even be 8bit anymore (more like 7,5bit, for example).
If your entire workflow is 16bit there is zero sense in creating 1D LUT. However, since most LCDs have extra contrast, you may set your LCD gamma to compensate for it BEFORE profiling and then create profile for gamma "As measured".
Creating 1D LUT for video card (8bit to 8bit) will only cut your colour depth.
Originally by user49477. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user49477
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
For most photography workflows, target gamma 2.2 (or an sRGB-calibrated mode). That’s the practical standard for Windows, sRGB/JPEG images, web viewing, many labs, and other calibrated displays, so it gives the best chance that what you see will match elsewhere.
Native gamma can be reasonable only if your display’s hardware is already close to the target or if changing it would require heavy correction that introduces artifacts. If calibration has to force a display far from its natural tone curve using only a low-precision video-card LUT, you can risk banding. Displays with internal hardware LUTs handle this better.
A measured native value around 2.4 isn’t unusual, but for editing photos intended for print, standard displays, or online sharing, 2.2 remains the safer target. Also note that sRGB is not exactly a pure 2.2 curve, but it behaves very similarly in practice, so don’t let the math differences confuse the decision.
In short: use 2.2/sRGB unless your monitor’s hardware limitations make that calibration visibly worse. Full calibration (white point, brightness, profile) matters more than gamma alone.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why won’t two calibrated monitors match the same white point?
What does it mean to calibrate a monitor to sRGB?
Which monitor white point is the “right” one for web-only color viewing?
Can Spyder3 software measure or calibrate monitor brightness to a target value?
Do I need a different ICC profile when switching a wide-gamut monitor into sRGB emulation mode?