Thanks very much in advance to all for any info!
Apple used to use a 1.8 gamma setting. And some tools, such as monitor calibrators may even suggest you use it.
Don't. Use 2.2.
Neil
For some reason the adobe forums are one of the few forums left on the internet where a small number of participants still like to flame and insult people for asking questions. It's rude and you should get over it.
If you would like to see proof that the Mac OS monitor calibrator does default to gamma 1.8, and describes it saying "This is the traditional setting for Mac OS computers," please look at this link:
Thanks very much for your response. Unfortunately my colors for this project have all been developed using gamma 1.8. Is there a way to use Photoshop to find out the hex values of the equivalent colors under gamma 2.2?
As I said, some of the monitor calibrators may still suggest a 1.8 gamma setting. For years, Macs used 1.8 gamma and 5000°K color temperature. The current standard for Macs and Windows is 2.2 gamma and 6500°K.
I wouldn't take Lundberg's comment to heart. It's more a gentle tap with a handful of popcorn than full-fledged trebuchet attack.
Neil
Then, using the sRGB color space in Photoshop, re-specify your colors to your taste — by eye.
(Of course you will still have absolutely no control what 99% of your Internet viewers will see on their non-color managed browsers on their uncalibrated monitors!)
Thanks for the feedback. When I go to Mac OS X' built-in, official monitor calibration program, using the latest version of OS X, it shows 1.8 as the default, and it says of gamma 1.8 that, "This is the traditional setting for Mac OS computers." I've taken a screen shot and posted it here:
<http://www.flavorzoom.com/anomalies/default_gamma.png>
In what sense can it be said that the current standard for Macs is 2.2 gamma?
Thanks in advance for the info.
> OS X, it shows 1.8 as the default, and it says of gamma 1.8
every Mac I've ever looked had a default 1.8 monitor gamma profile enabled (unless someone re-profiled it)
while that may change in 10.6, I think it is a fair statement that "Macs have a default gamma of 1.8"
"This is the traditional setting for Mac OS computers."
With the unstated, but implied, emphasis on "TRADITIONAL" … meaning "HISTORICAL" (or ancient, prehistoric and … extinct!).
Forget about 1.8 and just re-calibrate and profile your Monitor to Gamma 2.2 as I suggested previously.
I saw your screen shot in your original post and replied appropriately. Ignore what your calibration software says. As we've all been recommending, please use 2.2 gamma.
Neil
It won't look on any competent user's Mac because they have all adopted 2.2 Gamma long ago.
Whatever you do will not probably look that great on the average computer out there, regardless of platform, because their users haven't a clue — and can't tell good color from bad color anyway!
:(
The obsolete 1.8 gamma standard is merely a leftover from the days of the old LaserWriter monochrome printers and Apple monochrome monitors. It has absolutely nothing to do with color.
Apple is not particularly meticulous in updating their documentation.
Neil
then I guess that is the way to go.
You "guess"?
Lundberg02 did not insult you in any way. He just used a somewhat laconic shorthand expression to indicate the 1.8 gamma is rather ancient history, just as I tried to tell you it's just an unfortunate leftover from the days of b&w LaserWriter printers and monochrome Apple screens.
Neil
I wish color calibrator makers would forget 1.8 gamma ever existed
They'd be swamped with questions, complaints and rants coming from vast numbers of clueless users clinging to an irrelevant, way obsolete practice. :/
Now you're confusing the gamma of the ProPhoto color space with the monitor profile gamma. Apples and oranges, or apples and elephants. This is a can of worms that will confuse the heck out of beginners. :/
ProPhoto RGB is my working color space, which is indeed a gamma 1.8 space, yet my monitors are calibrated to gamma 2.2. Adobe RGB and sRGB are gamma 2.2.
For printing purposes, any gamma setting is valid, as long as the calibration and profiling is done accurately and consistently. It's the users working on web images who have problems in gamma 1.8.
Alas, I fear you have already opened the can of worms. :/
Obviously, I could have phrased that a litter more artfully:
You're not confusing the two in the sense of being confused yourself, what I'm trying to say is that you may be sowing confusion in the mind of some users, especially those to new to color management and color theory.
In any event, I just want to make the distinction between monitor gamma and color space gamma.
Turn down that Atwater Kent 12-tube superheterodyne...! <g>
Neil
For previews, you can use the softproofing preview commands in Photoshop.
But if you are designing for the web: gamma 2.2 / sRGB is the way to go.
And also OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard will be defaulted to 2.2 gamma. Currently it is 1.8.
(Just from a color rendering point of view - i.e. outside of the question of whether non-white background-colors are acceptable).
For more about this subject:
<http://www.flavorzoom.com/anomalies/FFE7B5/FFE7B5.gif>
Is there a method I can use to find out whether my Apple Cinema Display is showing this color correctly?
Or is the chance of them being incorrectly rendered too great for it to
be considered acceptable?
If that were the case nothing would be acceptable.
Think about it, Most of the monitors viewing anything on the web are not calibrated. Most of the people with computers don't even know its possible to calibrate their monitor. So its safe to say that whatever you create and however good it looks on your computer it will not look the same on the the majority of the computers hooked up to the interweb thingy.
My wife has a brand-new Windows Vista laptop from Toshiba, and on her
monitor, #FFE7B5 is noticeably redder and less buttery.
You just made my point. All you can do is calibrate your monitor with a hardware calibrator and not worry about what other people see on their computers.
> Windows Vista
VISTA (for all practical purposes) is ASSIGNING sRGB profile to your background color
Your Mac OS (for all practical purposes) is ASSIGNING your custom monitor profile to your background color
That would explain a fundamental difference, but
Who know where your eyeball 'calibration' process ended up
Who knows where your VISTA laptop is
The point is (if color is this important to you) get a hardware profiling package and get your monitor profiles in order — save your images correctly — forget about other people's monitors
i've run the Mac OSX color calibrator to set it to gamma 2.2 and white
point D65
The only way to be sure, as said above, is with hardware calibration. If you were to do the same visual calibration three times in a row, I'd put money on the results not exactly matching each other.
Neil
OTOH, on my wife's new Windows Vista laptop, and on her old Windows XP laptop as well, the color looks reddish. So I may go to a local PCmall tonight and see how it looks on the Windows computers there. If there's still a mystery after that, hardware calibration will be the next stop.
How is your wife calibrating and profiling her monitor?
As for the monitors on view in the computer store, you can be absolutely sure of one thing — every one of them will look different!
8/
Neil
Neil