The new lighting looks fine. I don't think there are any pics that look too dark. Some of them may actually have a bit too much light (mostly the L shaped corridors) - maybe use a different delay setting.

MugWump, if a map is too dark with gamma 1, then it's not lit properly. 

Should I use gamme 0.9 or gamma 1.0 while compiling? Or should I rise up it even, when using colors as main light source? 

they look good newhouse, you've put a tonne of extra work in since the jam, that is pretty obvious. the results look like they're paying off. 

Use "gamma 1" in game. 

Honestly, looking back at the grid I think the very bottom dark pictures are perhaps a tad too dark. Those are probably the only ones.

As OTP said, I think a lot of the pictures are a bit too bright (Especially the far right examples)

Admittedly I only ever played your very first offering of the map so I don't have much reference to go on. I'll have to try your newer version at some point! ;) 

You know I'm a bit slow when it comes to learning basics.. I'm more visual person, I almost need people to go hand in hand showing me how things should be done.

L shaped lambs on top indeed are so bright that even my eyes are now burning. I have to decrease intensity a bit* I was only thing on make focus much more clear - but then there is also part "not too clear". It should be a bit more tender touch there.

Inside joke "I have a headache". 

Kinn "You won't get any useful information from knowing what gamma settings people play on" At least knowing which settings people generally use can give some kind of reference.

OTP "MugWump, if a map is too dark with gamma 1, then it's not lit properly." As I said, my gamma is set @ 0.85 with contrast @ 1.5. Not just for this map, but as a general setting. I may need to pump gamma up 1 or 2 notches on certain maps, like Khreathor's Sewage Farm, but NewHouse's Ice Core looked fine to me like that. Sure it's darker than the usual base map, but not to the point of not being able to see shit, and also that's what gives it its distinctive atmosphere.

So, what are you people's gamma/contrast values? 

When running light, is there an actual difference between -range and -gamma? 

 

As I said, my gamma is set @ 0.85 with contrast @ 1.5. Not just for this map, but as a general setting.

http://www.monitorsetup.com/
http://www.displaycalibration.com/brightness_contrast.html 

It's very bright and vibrant. It looks great. Mostly because my laptop LCD screen is very bright and looks completely different to my other LCD screen, and also I don't Quake play in a bright room.

Really, just knowing what gamma people play on tells you like maybe 25% of the story. 

+1, your settings sound wonky, probably trying to compensate for a not so good display.

Mugwump, having a properly calibrated display really is crucial in general. Calibrate it and use it for a while so your frame of reference can readjust.

Then, light your maps using gamma 1. You'll get the desired look in the ballpark for most users this way. 

OTP I'm not talking about the monitor's calibration, but the in-game settings.

Kinn And do you use the default contrast with that or do you tweak it? On my rig, Quakespasm's default settings make a slightly too dark image and I've found that playing with the new contrast setting gave much better results than gamma. 

I did calibrate my monitor the best I could but it's an old and quite crappy LG CRT. 

 

For me, Gamma 1 looks perfect on 99℅ of quake content, IF all the following are true:
- on a calibrated LCD
- in a pitch dark room
- in full screen.
If I am not in those ideal conditions, I need to raise gamma/contrast to compensate.

Btw just switching from windowed to Fullscreen makes a difference, because typically stuff on your desktop is a lot brighter than quake. This is why screenshots look so dark even when the pixel values are the same. 

reset to 0's and try again. black will probably appear washed out, which sucks, but that seems to be the nature of your display. boosting the contrast and dropping the gamma or brightness seems like a fix, but it really isn't (I used to do this too). 

And do you use the default contrast with that or do you tweak it?

Default I guess. I didn't even know QS had a contrast setting. 

I remember using high gamma on an old CRT also... 

So, I can see all color changes all the way through that top 5 (pure black) on my screen+settings, can I use this as a tool somehow? http://www.monitorsetup.com/ 

Quake was developed on CRTs... 

Yes the -gamma option for light.exe is a real gamma, applied on the floating point light map before converting to 8bit and saving. I just added it because it was easy and could be used as a bandaid fix to tune lighting globally.
I forget how -range works but it's not the same as gamma. This is something I should do a series of screenshots of on my site for light. 

Since 1996 I've played quake on all manner of different monitors under all manner of different conditions and used all manner of different gamma values. There isn't really a "correct" gamma value. On old CRTs like in the late 90s, my gamma has been set a lot lighter than I tend to set it today on LCDs. 

I've been using -gamma in light because after I added bounce everything became too bright. Worked pretty well, far easier than changing the values of every light. 

black will probably appear washed out, which sucks, but that seems to be the nature of your display.

I'm an idiot, ignore this. I assume your display seems too dark. CRTs generally have deep blacks and rich color, so boosting contrast seems strange, I would boost brightness first then mess with gamma if you want to brighten up the low end. Of course I'm not there and able to look at it...

Why the fuck am I attempting to deduce what someones monitor looks like from across the world based on contrast and gamma settings in quake? I'm a fool on an errand.

Anyway, I still think it would be worth your while to re-calibrate, reset quake to gamma 1 and go from there.