So I just downloaded Supercal (http://bergdesign.com/supercal/) and ran the calibration...
The results were pretty good, a lot richer looking. The default iMac profile has always looked really bright-- but not just bright, but almost washed out looking (i.e. different shades of white/grey you commonly see on the net, didn't look so delineated)
So, from my own Supercal profile vs. the default iMac profile... mine wins easily. Then I checked out the "Adobe RBG (1998) profile" just to compare..... and it looks nearly the same as my Supercal profile--- except that it is not as warm. For now I am just using that.
What I'm wondering is: who is still using the default iMac profile.... and why does it look so 'bad'?
(btw this is the matte screen 24")
The results were pretty good, a lot richer looking. The default iMac profile has always looked really bright-- but not just bright, but almost washed out looking (i.e. different shades of white/grey you commonly see on the net, didn't look so delineated)
So, from my own Supercal profile vs. the default iMac profile... mine wins easily. Then I checked out the "Adobe RBG (1998) profile" just to compare..... and it looks nearly the same as my Supercal profile--- except that it is not as warm. For now I am just using that.
What I'm wondering is: who is still using the default iMac profile.... and why does it look so 'bad'?
(btw this is the matte screen 24")