Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:17:19 -0700
At 2:08 PM -0400 9/4/01, jeffstev wrote:
Rob Gailbraith wrote:
It would seem that I'm getting closer to what Nikon colour scientists
intended by calibrating to a Gamma of 2.2 on my Mac. Most of what I've
read,
including my bible, Real World Photoshop 6, suggests that a Gamma of 1.8
is
right for this platform, because it's the native Gamma of the Mac (what
that
actually means I'm not sure).
4. The different gammas you refer to are for the monitor/video card
of the platforms; using 1.8 with a Mac theoretically preserves more
displayable levels, so you can distinguish a greater range of values on
the screen representation of your files. Color space gammas and which is
the best was a long thread a while back. Check the archives.
Personally, I am happy with Adobe RGB as is; at least, I am not yet
enough of a color geek to delve into the subtlety of that technical
choice.
Actually, the only real reason to use gamma 1.8 on the Mac is that
the Mac uiser interface was designed to be displayed at gamma 1.8,
and at 2.2 it looks a little contrasty.
With most combinations of Mac monitors and video cards, you can
robably display slightly more gray levels at gamma 2.2 than at gamma
1.8, though typically they're visually indistinguishable. All that
really matters is that your monitor behaves the way your monitor
profile says it does. There's no inherent problem in calibrating a
Mac monitor to gamma 2.2. (I have a bunch of monitors, some at 2.2,
some at 1.8, and images display identically on them all.)
Bruce
--
email@hidden