The whole reason I suggested GCM is because is mostly operates on Argyll defaults, which are reasonably sane. Yes, and very easy to use. In general GCM will generate XYZ Matrix profiles (IIRC -as). Except for printers which are always (LAB) LUT profiles. I see I'm not 100% sure, but I think GCM pretty much uses Argyll defaults. I generated a couple of profiles today. The best conclusion to GCM was a matrix-profile, generated with mostly argyll-defaults: dispcal -yl -qh -f1.0 FP937sA gamma of 2.2 could be a tick better than the default 2.4, I think, but it´s hard to see. Did you actually follow the advice GCM gave you? Adjusting monitor controls etc? Yes I did While I can't judge your particular case, profiles aren't meant to make your pictures look "better", so "washed-out" does not mean inaccurate per-se. That´s clear. I wanted to discribe the difference between old and new profile, not the absolute image quality That said, in general LUT profiles provide more detail (assuming the application applying the profiles actually supports the LUT at all Using the matrix-profile, generated with argyll-defaults, I can concern lower frequencies. I see this, looking with showfoto (cm enabled) on some testcharts. For my monitor this profile does its work better than the LUT-profile. so even if you load a single profile into multiple application, things might turn out differently, since some apps might apply the LUT and some might apply the matrix). This shouldn´t happen, but it happens indeed. That ist the point, when I`m wondering sometimes, what this whole stuff of colormanement is for :) I wish a good night Edgar |