Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Hi,
I'd like to hear from all you guys using Aperture, what Display Gamma do you use on your Mac (in System Preferences > Displays > Color)? All Macs still seem to ship with the gamma set to 1.8, but a lot of people seem to suggest changing it to 2.2.
17" iMac 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 250GB Hard Drive, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
Posted on Jan 23, 2008 3:51 AM
Question marked as Top-ranking reply
User profile for user: Andreas Yankopolus
Andreas Yankopolus
User level: Level2 426 points
Posted on Jan 23, 2008 5:06 AM
Reuben,
Set your gamma to 2.2 if you need to ask. The images on your Mac will then match 99% of the world's monitors.
A gamma of 1.8 is a throwback to matching tones between LaserWriters and B&W Mac displays.
Cheers,
Andreas
View in context
13 replies
Loading page content
Page content loaded
Question marked as Top-ranking reply
User profile for user: Andreas Yankopolus
Andreas Yankopolus
User level: Level2 426 points
Jan 23, 2008 5:06 AM in response to Reuben Feffer
Reuben,
Set your gamma to 2.2 if you need to ask. The images on your Mac will then match 99% of the world's monitors.
A gamma of 1.8 is a throwback to matching tones between LaserWriters and B&W Mac displays.
Cheers,
Andreas
Link
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Jan 23, 2008 8:22 AM in response to Andreas Yankopolus
Thanks a lot for your reply. Just the fact that all these new Macs still ship with the gamma set to 1.8, makes me kind of cautious about the way things look on Apple displays, as in, I don't quite trust them. If 2.2 really is preferable, why are Apple still pumping out all these iMacs, MacBook Airs and MacBook Pros with their displays set to 1.8?
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Jan 24, 2008 6:31 AM in response to Andreas Yankopolus
"Unless you have a color management expert instructing you otherwise, select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point."
Ok, so 2.2 it is. I still find it odd though that all these new iMacs and MacBooks still ship with the gamma at 1.8. I mean, the average person buying a Mac doesn't have a color management expert instructing them, so how would they know to change the gamma from 1.8 to 2.2?
Link
User profile for user: julesselmes
julesselmes
User level: Level1 10 points
Jan 24, 2008 7:05 AM in response to Reuben Feffer
Reuben,
Are you a pro photographer?
I suggest 1.8 only because as a pro photo'r I know all my clients use Mac's and will be viewing and working with my images on Mac's with the default Mac gamma of 1.8. If in doubt as your clients.
If they are going to use your images for web applications they will (should, if they are at all professional) view any site they have created on a windows 2.2 gamma machine and adjust your images accordingly.
Are you a serious amatuer?
I suggest 2.2 if most of the use of your images is web based and you are publishing to or via the web yourself.
Anyone agree with me?!
Link
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Jan 28, 2008 1:45 PM in response to julesselmes
Ok thanks. Well, I guess the 2.2 option would apply more to me, although, I think I care more about how my content looks on other Macs, than on other PCs.
The interesting thing is though, looking at my iPod Touch, images on it look more similar to my iMac when the iMac is set to gamma 1.8, not gamma 2.2. So maybe all the iPod Touchs and iPhones have their gamma set and fixed to 1.8!
Link
User profile for user: julesselmes
julesselmes
User level: Level1 10 points
Feb 5, 2008 1:25 AM in response to Reuben Feffer
Just had another thought. I am posting this in case you subscribe to your questions or someone does a search in at a later date...
Set your Mac up to 2.2 gamma save it named so.
Then set up your Mac to the prefered working 1.8 gamma and save it named so.
Then in Aperture you can choose "On Screen Proofing" from the VIEW drop down menu.
Now choose the relevant gamma profile from "Proofing Profile" from the VIEW drop down menu. (You will not see the changes when your image is in Grid mode)
This way you can very quickly swap between Gamma's to see how you image will look on the different platforms. Top Tip: Get in the habit of checking that it is set on the right one every time you use Aperture!
Link
User profile for user: scott nichol
scott nichol
User level: Level2 350 points
Feb 5, 2008 4:37 AM in response to julesselmes
i disagree.
anyone who is a professional photographer, PC or Mac will have their monitors calibrated to gamma 2.2 and D65 temperature. this is the standard color space.
even if your clients are viewing on a 1.8 gamma monitor, if you convert the right color space for the web (sRGB), you clients should be able to see a good representation of the image. most modern web browsers know how to use the color profiles embedded in JPGs.
scott
Link
User profile for user: Sekoya
Sekoya
User level: Level2 265 points
Feb 5, 2008 6:04 AM in response to scott nichol
Except for WebKit-based browser (ie, Safari (Mac/Win), Omniweb, Shira) no current browser knows anything about CM and will ignore embedded profiles.
But, if the images are always viewed in CM-aware applications, the difference between gamma 1.8 and 2.2 does not really matter too much. It still have some effect, as will the brightness setting of the respective monitor and color temperature setting and even more the room lighting.
Calibrating your monitor and using CM-applications are the most important step, setting your gamma to 2.2, the temperature to 6500K (or even better native, which will be close to 6500K for LCDs), the brightness to ~120 cd are additional steps to standardize and optimize the viewing conditions. Having a neutral, rather dim room lighting is another important factor. Having a strongly colored wall in front of you, will noticeably shift your perception of colors.
Link
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Feb 5, 2008 6:37 AM in response to Sekoya
Ok, thanks for your answers guys.
I still find it interesting that a photo shown on an iPod Touch looks more similar to the same photo shown an iMac, with the iMac's gamma set to 1.8, not 2.2. If anything, the iPod Touch display looks even lighter than 1.8.
Also, I'd like to know, do Apple design their user interfaces to look best at gamma 1.8, or 2.2? I ask because the Bookmarks Bar in Safari can be quite hard to read when you have your gamma set to 2.2. At 1.8 there is more contrast between the text and the background grey, making it easier to read.
Link
User profile for user: Sekoya
Sekoya
User level: Level2 265 points
Feb 5, 2008 8:15 AM in response to Reuben Feffer
Yes, Apple seems to design their (non-CM) user interfaces to look best at gamma 1.8 (I don't really notice the difference anymore but others do). That may be one reason why they still stick with a default gamma of 1.8, it takes to much of an effort change all the user interface elements to look good at 2.2.
One could create a stepped grey gradient in a profile-less image file and compare it on an iPod touch and a Mac.
Link
User profile for user: Reuben Feffer
Reuben Feffer Author
User level: Level2 289 points
Apr 5, 2008 7:27 AM in response to Sekoya
I'd just like to add some new information to this discussion.
An m4v video in QuickTime on the Mac looks much more like the same video on an iPod Touch if the Mac's display gamma is set to 1.8. If you have the Mac's gamma set to 2.2, the video on the Mac looks way darker than the same video on an iPod Touch.
Not so much of a problem for Mac users with the gamma on the default 1.8, but Windows PC users especially must notice that any video they put on their iPhone or iPod Touch looks a lot lighter than it did on their PC.
Link
User profile for user: Andreas Yankopolus
Andreas Yankopolus
User level: Level2 426 points
Jan 23, 2008 8:31 AM in response to Reuben Feffer
Reuben,
Voila!
I couldn't find that article earlier today.
Cheers,
Andreas
Link
User profile for user: jrg_uk
jrg_uk
User level: Level3 720 points
Feb 5, 2008 5:19 AM in response to julesselmes
Are display profiles suitable for use as output profiles?
(On the original question, 2.2 is what I'd pick. It's the native gamma of the Apple Cinema Displays, too.)
Link
What Display Gamma - 1.8 or 2.2?
