 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*NOTE: Please also reply if you don't care!*
*NOTE: This thread is not intended for discussion!*
Since the topic of gamma handling has recently been brought to the dev
team's attention again, I'd like to get a clearer picture of how POV-Ray
users have come to feel about the issue. Even if you don't care, please
answer at least the following question:
Do you care about gamma handling?
( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
( ) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for deciding to provide some feedback on gamma; please take
the time to answer the following questions (feel free to tick more than
one box per question, and elaborate where you think it might be helpful)
-- or just ignore them and write some prose on what's really on your
mind regarding the topic.
Bystanders, please refrain from replying to people's feedback; we can
have a discussion in a separate thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
( ) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
( ) Other: [___]
What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
( ) none
( ) 1
( ) 1.8
( ) 2.2
( ) srgb
( ) Other: [___]
Why are you using that setting?
( ) I find it easiest to work with.
( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
( ) I think it gives the most accurate results.
( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
( ) Other: [___]
What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
( ) "rgb"
( ) "srgb"
( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
Why are you using that keyword?
( ) I find it easiest to work with.
( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
( ) I think it is the recommended format.
( ) Other: [___]
What other gamma-related features do you know?
( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "gamma" setting for input images
( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
( ) Other: [___]
Which of them do you make frequent use of?
( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
( ) "gamma" setting for input images
( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
( ) Other: [___]
Why are you using those other features?
( ) I like to toy around with them.
( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
( ) I need them to handle special cases.
( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
( ) Other: [___]
How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
( ) I really like it.
( ) I think it's mostly ok.
( ) I think it's so-so.
( ) I think it's mostly broken.
( ) I really detest it.
( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
( ) It works like a charm for me.
( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
( ) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
realistic render results than other settings?
( ) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
How did you come to that opinion?
( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
( ) My own research led me to that conclusion.
( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
the same setting 3.6?
( ) It is an overall improvement.
( ) It seems to work just the same.
( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
( ) It is an overall improvement.
( ) It seems to work just the same.
( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
POV-Ray 3.7?
[___]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/2016 5:13 PM, clipka wrote:
...
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
...
Although I generally design for "shape and shadow", I would like the
option to share my image with others.
Gamma handling is one tool to help others see, and provide feedback, of
my picture.
I've only posted two pictures, lego helicopter and micrometer, that fit
this description. Should I make another one, I would like default values
as a starting place, to help me along.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:5803ed6b$1@news.povray.org clipka wrote:
I'll awnser the rest later
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
The way for example Krita does it is rather nice, define a
colourspace/model/profile including gamma etc.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
(X) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> Bystanders, please refrain from replying to people's feedback; we can
> have a discussion in a separate thread.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
(X) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
(X) 1
> ( ) 1.8
(X) 2.2
(X) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
(X) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> ( ) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
(X) "rgb"
> ( ) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
(X) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
(X) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
(X) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
(X) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
(X) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> ( ) I like to toy around with them.
> ( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
(X) Other: [in my POVRAY.INI from earlier versions]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) I really like it.
> ( ) I think it's mostly ok.
(X) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
(X) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
> ( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
> ( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> ( ) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
(X) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> ( ) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
(X) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
>
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
(X) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
> POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
(X) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
[I have only used it due to it being recommended and for visual correction, not
because I understand its output and input file properties]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16-10-2016 23:13, clipka wrote:
> *NOTE: Please also reply if you don't care!*
>
> *NOTE: This thread is not intended for discussion!*
>
> Since the topic of gamma handling has recently been brought to the dev
> team's attention again, I'd like to get a clearer picture of how POV-Ray
> users have come to feel about the issue. Even if you don't care, please
> answer at least the following question:
>
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for deciding to provide some feedback on gamma; please take
> the time to answer the following questions (feel free to tick more than
> one box per question, and elaborate where you think it might be helpful)
> -- or just ignore them and write some prose on what's really on your
> mind regarding the topic.
>
> Bystanders, please refrain from replying to people's feedback; we can
> have a discussion in a separate thread.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (x) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> (x) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> (x) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> ( ) "rgb"
> (x) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> (x) I think it is the recommended format.
> (x) Other: I think it is more accurate for self-generated colours/textures.
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> (x) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> ( ) I like to toy around with them.
> ( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
> (x) Other: for input images, I think of height_field functions where it is
essential.
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) I really like it.
> ( ) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
> ( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
> ( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> ( ) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> (x) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> ( ) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
>
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> (x) It is an overall improvement.
> (x) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
> POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> (x) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> Following the hot debates in the past, it seems we are now in more quiet waters.
Still, I think there is some confusion remaining about what gamma
handling is about and its relation to the physical world. People tend to
tweak gamma settings in order to get a "more pleasing" image but forget
that this often results in darker or lighter images on other systems. Is
there a need for more/better documentation on the subject? I don't
really know. Just my half cent.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (*) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for deciding to provide some feedback on gamma; please take
> the time to answer the following questions (feel free to tick more than
> one box per question, and elaborate where you think it might be helpful)
> -- or just ignore them and write some prose on what's really on your
> mind regarding the topic.
>
> Bystanders, please refrain from replying to people's feedback; we can
> have a discussion in a separate thread.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (*) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (*) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> (*) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> ( ) "rgb"
> (*) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> (*) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> (*) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> (*) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (*) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> (*) Other: [None of them frequently]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> (*) I like to toy around with them.
> ( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> ( ) I really like it.
> (*) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (*) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
> ( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
> ( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> (*) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> ( ) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> (*) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
>
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> (*) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
> POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
> (*) It is an overall improvement.
> ( ) It seems to work just the same.
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
"assumed_gamma" is still a bit unintuitive IMO in what it actually does.
I'm pretty sure if you took a person who knew a lot about gamma handling
but had never used POV before, and asked them what they thought it did,
they would most likely get it wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
El 16/10/16 a las 23:13, clipka escribió:
> Do you care about gamma handling?
> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
>
>
> What version of POV-Ray are you typically using?
> (x) POV-Ray 3.7 (or a derivative, e.g. UberPOV, HG-Povray)
> ( ) POV-Ray 3.6 (or a derivative, e.g. MegaPOV, MCPov)
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What "assumed_gamma" setting are you typically using?
> ( ) none
> (x) 1
> ( ) 1.8
> ( ) 2.2
> ( ) srgb
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using that setting?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> (x) I think it gives the most pleasing results.
> (x) I think it gives the most accurate results.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended setting.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> What keyword do you typically use to specify colours?
> (x) "rgb"
> ( ) "srgb"
> ( ) Other (e.g. a macro): [___]
>
> Why are you using that keyword?
> ( ) I find it easiest to work with.
> ( ) I get colour values from elsewhere in that format.
> ( ) I think it is the recommended format.
> (x) Other: [old habit]
>
>
> What other gamma-related features do you know?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Which of them do you make frequent use of?
> ( ) "Display_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "File_Gamma" INI setting
> ( ) "Antialias_Gamma" INI setting
> (x) "gamma" setting for input images
> ( ) "blend_gamma" setting for colour and pigment maps
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
> Why are you using those other features?
> (x) I like to toy around with them.
> ( ) I like the flexibility they provide.
> ( ) I need them to handle special cases.
> ( ) They don't default to the settings I typically want.
> ( ) Other: [___]
>
>
> How do you feel in general about gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) I really like it.
> ( ) I think it's mostly ok.
> ( ) I think it's so-so.
> ( ) I think it's mostly broken.
> ( ) I really detest it.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
> How well do you get along with gamma handling in POV-Ray 3.7?
> (x) It works like a charm for me.
> ( ) It has its quirks, but I can live with them.
> ( ) I'm still learning to deal with its quirks.
> ( ) Its quirks still keep getting in my way.
> ( ) It just doesn't work for me at all.
> ( ) Dunno - I'm not using POV-Ray 3.7.
>
>
> What's your opinion on the claim that "assumed_gamma 1.0" gives more
> realistic render results than other settings?
> (x) Yes, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is more realistic.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma" has no effect on realism.
> ( ) No, "assumed_gamma 1.0" is actually less realistic.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't heard that claim before.
> ( ) Dunno - I haven't made up my mind yet.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't really care.
>
> How did you come to that opinion?
> ( ) People say so, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) The docs imply it, and that's good enough for me.
> ( ) That's what sounds most plausible to me.
> (x) My own research led me to that conclusion.
> ( ) It can be proven beyond doubt.
> ( ) Dunno - I don't have a clear opinion yet.
>
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 1.0" in POV-Ray 3.7, compared to
> the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
> (x) It seems to work just the same (IIRC).
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
> How do you feel about "assumed_gamma 2.2" (or any non-1.0 setting) in
> POV-Ray 3.7, compared to the same setting 3.6?
> ( ) It is an overall improvement.
> (x) It seems to work just the same (IIRC).
> ( ) The following behaviour came as a negative surprise to me: [___]
> ( ) Dunno - I don't use it.
>
>
> What other feedback would you like to give about the gamma handling in
> POV-Ray 3.7?
> [___]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.10.2016 um 01:12 schrieb StephenS:
> On 16/10/2016 5:13 PM, clipka wrote:
> ....
>> Do you care about gamma handling?
>> ( ) Not enough to bother answering any more of this survey.
>> (x) Enough to be willing to help you with this survey.
> ....
> Although I generally design for "shape and shadow", I would like the
> option to share my image with others.
>
> Gamma handling is one tool to help others see, and provide feedback, of
> my picture.
>
> I've only posted two pictures, lego helicopter and micrometer, that fit
> this description. Should I make another one, I would like default values
> as a starting place, to help me along.
You don't happen to be able to be more specific what default values you
would like to see, do you?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 16/10/2016 22:13, clipka wrote:
> *NOTE: Please also reply if you don't care!*
>
where is the reply-to address? (not keen on seeing everyone's replies
to questionnaire, feels voyeuristic).
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...
> You don't happen to be able to be more specific what default values you
> would like to see, do you?
>
I will always have to relearn Gamma handling each time I get a picture
this far along.
My personal preference are values that would help import/export with
people who work with pictures for a living.
I "think" Gamma handling is important, I just don't know the values.
Stephen S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
