OK. I see that Lightroom is basically ProPhoto but with a 1.0 gamma. I also admit that I am not a Lightroom user. But, I still stand by my other statements.
I am also aware of the controversy over Dan Margulis. He is sometimes contrary, but much of the controversy is about what I think of as highly technical, semantic, and trivial. Where else can someone who is struggling with color mechanics learn the practical knowledge and techniques not readily found elsewhere? I thank my lucky stars that I found these resources in a sea of far less helpful books (and a few other excellent ones).
It's all in the seeing.
Like you Richard, I've struggled a lot to figure out what on earth to do when processing images for the web. I've found a few compromises and ways to stay out of real trouble, but it's a real mess, and there's no real solution in sight. When people have old Macs at gamma 1.8, PC's at gamma 2.2, some PC's oddly set up at 1.8, newer Macs at 2.2 (but still somehow differently than PC's), many monitors way too bright, many changing appearance drastically at very tiny changes in viewing angle, and with all kinds of bad or missing profiles, color casts, contrast differences, etc., it's a toss of the dice. I found that different gamma settings on different machines have really made huge differences in the appearance of my images, both black and white and color. I try for a happy medium using view-soft proof and finding a curve that fits PC's and older Macs satisfactorily as a compromise. Maybe someone will come out with a tag that forces proper interpretation by any dufus video card and monitor combination.
Aloha, and thanks for the info,
Aaron
