Suppose I have an digital file containing a series of gray scale images of squares each with a know value in the in the range 0..255. I can in principle measure the values of the images on my monitor using my Eye-One-Pro and argyll. I can then plot the results as a graph. If I understand what is going on properly---which may be far from the truth---the resulting graph should theoretically be that of a power function y = x^g, where g would be gamma. But, in point of fact,the graph will only be approximately that of a power function, and the approximation may not be all that close. (Even in the best case, there may be various corrections added to the graph to allow for a realistic result.) I assume that the process of calibration/profiling---ignoring color for the moment---is aimed at producing such a transfer function. First question: Is this more or less right? Second question: Is there some way to use argyll commands and the data files it produces to produce the graph of the transfer function being aimed at and/or the one actually produced, without going through the process of making the measurements manually? -- Leonard Evens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Mathematics Department, Northwestern University