Re: gamma 1.8 vs gamma 2.2
Re: gamma 1.8 vs gamma 2.2
- Subject: Re: gamma 1.8 vs gamma 2.2
- From: Ray Maxwell <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:46:10 -0700
Hi Gabriel,
If you are using a color managed application like Photoshop or Preview,
it does not matter if you calibrate and profile your monitor using 1.8
gamma or 2.2 gamma. The color management will correct the data to
display properly on your screen.
I calibrate my Mac monitor to 2.2 gamma since I do mostly print work.
This also means that when Safari displays a file with no tag, it will
display it with a gamma of 2.2 as you would see with an assumed sRGB tag.
Note that video applications like Final Cut Pro don't seem to use the
monitor profile at all. Therefore I have a second calibration and
profile with a gamma of 1.8. I have two Applescripts that allow me to
switch from gamma 2.2 to 1.8 for video work. Of course video work is
output referenced. This means that I use an external calibrated HD
monitor for all critical video work.
Ray Maxwell
Gabriel Graubner wrote:
Hello,
This brings up a question of gamma. I have always understood that on a
Mac with a color managed system, the choice is to use 1.8 gamma. This
I have always done and have not run into a problem. Recently, I used
an outside printing source for Epson 11880 output. The recommendation
was to use a gamma of 2.2. The image was printed out of Photoshop and
because of that, I chose not to "mess" with my gamma setting as I had
been outputting my images on my 7000 and never had a problem. The
11880 print was fine for color but darker than it should have been.
Your comments are appreciated.
Safari is going to either use embedded sRGB profiles or assume the non
tagged or embedded images to use your monitor profile as source
(colours)
profile. So on other's systems it will look different depending on their
default set up.
So Photoshop will have to assume something, which you'll likely
assign sRGB
when opening, thus it is also then run through the monitor profile.
I get identical results here on Tiger with both tagged (embedded) or
not.
Flash however doesn't use any ICC conversions as far as I know, but I
just
did a quick test and Flash Player follows the changes in Monitor
setup as
does Safari with different monitor gammas profiles.
Photoshop however does not. When I change to a gamma 1.8 profile when
updating the image in Photoshop CS3 the image goes darker than Flash or
Safari.
I tried applying the monitor profile in Photoshop as well and it is only
when a profile with a gamma around 2.2 is chosen do the colours and
density
appear the same in all three; Flash, Photoshop, and Safari.
Firefox 3 now has a plug-in for color managed windows with ICC profiles,
just I could not get it to install.
Neil Snape
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden