"Stephen Klebs" <skl### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 01.12.2010 02:32, schrieb Stephen Klebs:

> Wow! this is really a tough one. Like a political standoff between
> picture-making as art or as science... [clip].. You seem to be saying the
> gradient that looks to me perfectly
> smooth and convincing is really a deception. Whereas, the one that looks skewed
> and unbalanced is really how the physics of things really is.

Yes, succinctly put. I'm feeling the same way, like my world has suddenly turned
upside down. :-O  There are compelling arguments on both sides--and the
arguments are diametrically opposed. It will be interesting to see how this
Mexican Standoff develops further... :-P

What all of this says to me (and I'm not saying it's wrong) is that, from now
on, it's "POV-Ray against the world!" The 'world' meaning, all the *other* apps
(like Photoshop) that we're so used to working with, with their apparently
flawed way of handling gamma.

I have a devilish little question: Does anyone know how BLENDER deals with the
gamma issue? I've never used it, but it would seem to be a decent comparison
tool vis a vis POV-Ray.

Ken

Post a reply to this message