Gamma 1.0 Anybody?

[braddewald]

I was just wondering if anybody still uses gamma 1.0 or if everybody has decided that gamma 2.2 is better. I, personally, use gamma 1.0 exclusively. I have tried the gamma 2.2 workflow in the past but it proved complicated to set up and the results seemed to be somewhat washed out (no I didn't apply a gamma correction twice). I want to know if I should feel stupid for not using gamma 2.2 or if anybody else is like me and is sticking to 1.0.

 

Also a side note: changing gamma to 2.2 would, in theory, ruin all the materials you get off of a site like http://www.vray-materials.de, correct? If you change the material editor settings to be gamma corrected as well, wouldn't this mess up the reflection amount seeing as how reflection value is tied to a color value that has now shifted?

 

So, 1.0 or 2.2?

[Tommy L]

I suggest you do some reading, do some testing and decide for yourself. What does it matter what everybody else is doing?

[Devin Johnston]

No your not stupid but if Gamma 2.2 isn't the standard already it's definitely trending that way. I agree with Tommy that reading about it and figuring out the best way to use it in your work flow is a good idea. I didn't like it at first either but it didn't take long until I acutally perfered it and now looking back I'm glad I went with it. Check this thread out.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/21060-lwf-vray-idiot.html

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Agree with others when they say do some reading. From you comments, I am guessing you are actually working only in gamma 2.2. Almost all monitors and computers are setup to work in gamma 2.2. And by that, I am talking more than 90%. From what I understand Apple is switching from gamma 1.8 to gamma 2.2 as a default also. This mans that 99.9% of all computers will be setup to work with gamma 2.2.

 

When people talk about gamma 1.0 on rendering sites, they are talking about rendering with settings that are equivalent to 1.0, however, when we view it on the screen, we are viewing it corrected to a gamma 2.2. And eventually burn the gamma 2.2 into the image so everyone can see it the way it is supposed to be seen.

 

Gamma 1.0 is very dark in most computer environments, even though it is physically correct. If I remember right, the reason we view the computer environment at 2.2 stems from the days of tube TV's.

 

Nic said it best in another thread. Just do what looks best to you, and don't get to caught up in the science of things. The science is important, but in the end, sex is what sells.

 

Only the most highly tuned professional setups are working entirely in 1.0. I believe even a lot of the higher end movie houses don't work entirely in 1.0.

[braddewald]

So if I understand you, my workflow does not need a "special" 2.2 setup if my images are not to dark already and if applying the 2.2 workflow makes my images look washed out?

[Sawyer]

If your images look good - they are probably fine. If they are washed out you may need to adjust some colors swatches to bring the values down. There are no rendering police that will be offended if you do it one way over another. If it looks good and it works keep it - if you don't like how it looks you might have a setting off.

[Gus_Rayvus]

I have to agree with Sawyer here. If you can make a great rendering, it doesn't really matter how you made it. I find in general people get so caught up in the technical crap that they forget what the end goal is.

[STRAT]

i never use gamma more than 1.0 in the render engine. as mentioned, there is no 'correct' method, it's down to your choosing.

 

Also, dont feel obliged to use it. you wont get a better image with the 2.2 gamma over the 1.0 gamma per se.

 

if my lighting and ambiance need lighting or adjusting, i'll prefer to adjust my general lighting rig, and not the gamma.

 

it's very rare i'll use a lwf method. i dont even use general hdri texturing. does that mean my imagery suffers compared to an artist that uses them as standard? of course not,