The following is a plot comparing Exp[Derivative[1,0][Zeta][0,x]+1/2Log[2 Pi]] and Gamma[x]:

In theory the blue and the red graphs should be identical, giving the Gamma function. But in reality we have the blue plot (the plot of Exp[Derivative[1,0][Zeta][0,x]+1/2Log[2 Pi]]) representing the absolute value of the Gamma function instead.
The question is: is this my fault (bad formula); and if so, how then do I correct it? Or it is a Mathematica bug?
To expand on the comments I made (and Anixx has confirmed that it works):
The problem, as noted in the Mathematica documentation for
Zeta[]andHurwitzZeta[]is that those two functions are defined slightly differently:$$\mathrm{Zeta}(s,a):=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac1{((j+a)^2)^{\frac{s}{2}}}$$
$$\zeta(s,a):=\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac1{(j+a)^s}$$
Though the two expressions are equivalent for $\Re a > 0$, they behave rather differently in the left half-plane:
and this manifests itself when you use
Zeta[]instead ofHurwitzZeta[]for your gamma function expression in the left half-plane.Not knowing how they implemented
HurwitzZeta[]internally, however, (it seems to have only been implemented starting with version 7 of Mathematica), I cannot say what, exactly, are the differences in the behavior of those two functions in the left half of the complex plane.As an aside, a similar issue arises with the Lerch transcendent $\Phi(z,s,a)$, the trivariate generalization of the zeta function and the related polylogarithms; Mathematica from version 7 onwards provides for two different functions,
LerchPhi[]andHurwitzLerchPhi[]which also agree for $\Re a > 0$ but behave differently otherwise.