In article ,
D-Mac wrote:

wrote:
I have an iMAC about a year old. I am trying to calibrate the monitor
to assist in making photos. I have used the Spyder3 software and
colorimeter in the process. The problem is that the prints all come
out noticeably darker than the image on the screen. The Spyder people
say this is Apple's fault. The brightness control (really the
backlighting control) on the display will not sufficiently reduce the
brightness to get an accurate calibration. The only work around I see
is to reduce the brightness in Photoshop below what looked good on
the
screen and hope the printer responds by yielding a print of the
correct brightness. But this adjustment is completely ad hoc and is
just the kind of fiddling I hoped to avoid using the calibration
routines.
Two questions: 1) Does anybody have a better way to use Spyder3 to
compensate for this problem? 2) If not, what alternative calibration
system might be used that will avoid (or at least mitigate) this
problem? I read good things about the Macbeth systems, but will they
run into the same problem?
Thanks for the help.

Your problem is in the monitor set-up. Apple (for some odd reason) use a
gamma of 1.8 for their screens when every other computer on the planet
uses 2.2. Try setting your Gamma to 2.2 (The screen will darken) and
then calibrate it again.

Apple chose 1.8 specifically because it's representative of a printed
page (WSYWIG); the riddle is to figure out why M$ decided to use 2.2 (I
have my own suspicions).

Almost 100% of Apple monitor calibration problems are because the
starting point has nothing to do with colour. You need the get the gamma
right before you start.

Apple's included calibration app includes a pane to select gamma; it's
at the end of the process -- as it should be. Before you pick a gamma,
you need to correct the monitor's color tracking over the widest
possible range. After that, picking any particular gamma is easy.

Isaac