Monitor Gamma: 1.8 or 2.2

Based on the recommendations in the forums, that calibrating to 1.8 was, in a word, "ancient", I calibrated my monitor to 2.2 -- CRT, with gretag macbeth eye one -- It's definitely darker than I'm used to and it does change/darken the preview in Photoshop when I switch back and forth between the previous, 1.8 and current, 2.2 profiles.

One of the things that seems to be oft mentioned about the "why" as to the use of 2.2 is web work/output etc., and not mentioned about the offset print environment. Is 2.2 o.k for prepress/print?

TIA,

Geoff

Is 2.2 o.k for prepress/print?

Short answer: yes.

The profile you're mostly concerned with is the CMYK working space. As long as the monitor is accurately calibrated and profiled, you won't see a difference between gammas in color-managed applications like Photoshop.

...it does change/darken the preview in Photoshop when I switch back and forth between the previous, 1.8 and current, 2.2 profiles.

If you just toggled between monitor profiles, you would see a difference because the monitor has been *calibrated* for one or the other. Calibration and profiling are two different things. If you were able to toggle between profiles *and* calibrations, then you wouldn't see a difference.

Most of the work I do is for print I have been using a Gamma of 2.2 since the late ninties.