Is there any program, script, or plug-in out there that would allow me to publish an image on the web such that it looks the same on the monitors of all platforms?
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
If you are using a Mac to create images that will work for both platforms I’ll share with you what I do… thanks to some advice given on a very interesting thread a while back.
Note: On the Proof Settings, others may suggest using Windows RGB Preview. For some reason I think I’ve had better luck using my Monitor Preview since my monitor is set up to imulate a Windows monitor.
Thank you. I just changed my monitor’s Gamma to more closely reflect that of the majority of web users. But I was also wondering if there was some kind of utility (does Adobe GoLive have it) which will automatically adjust the brightness of web-published images in accordance with the monitor’s native brightness.
AFAIK, you won’t be able to remotely change the Gamma setting of the Monitor of the visitors of your website…
Maybe Apple should now recommend using a 2.2 gamma, and have that as stock setting, if it is not the case, as most Color Management experts recommend to use that setting instead of the now obsolete 1.8…
If you embed a profile, and instruct Mac users to enable ColorSync in their Explorer preferences, ColorSync will Convert the sRGB 2.2 gamma file into their monitor profile, including their gamma.
I generally do not embed a profile, to keep the file size down…
I know about the Gamma and how you could make an image look ideal for Windows users if you did X or ideal for Mac users if you did Y, but is there some kind of something out there (JavaScript, maybe) which adjusts images on the fly in accordance with any given web user’s monitor settings? Doesn’t Adobe GoLive offer something of this nature?
I along with others have been discussing and experimenting on this issue in the Color Management forums for quite some time.
It is a problem that can’t be completely controlled due to the fact that, like TV’s, there are to many inconsistencies between system level graphics and their monitors displayed on.
Channel surf on your cable/satellite TV and you’ll see what I mean. Do all shows have the same black level? Channels? If you think you have problems on the web, you should see what broadcast/DVD video edtiting people have to deal with:
sRGB was designed to represent an average PC monitor and that color space has become the defacto web standard. There is no way you can know exactly how any particular monitor out there is calibrated, much less it’s viewing conditions. All you can really do is shoot for an average and hope for the best. The gamma of your own display won’t matter if it’s calibrated and you convert your web images to sRGB, which itself has a 2.2 gamma. There are simply too many factors to guarantee that everyone sees the same thing to spend that much time worrying about it. A lot of people will be looking at something very close to what you want and the rest of them will be somewhere in the ballpark.
You’re right in that there continues to be variables that determine how something looks on screen, even from one PC to another… at least by changing my settings, I managed to get closer to my PC friends.
If you do color critical work as an integral part of sales off the web, such as fine art prints, clothing or furniture, the only solution, in my opinion, is to have a small color target for customers to calibrate too.
If they don’t want to hassle with it, provide a disclaimer from responsibility for any surprises encountered from perceived color of shipped item off the web.
Look at HQV, HSN. Have you seen the gorgeous HiDef images of their products on cable TV? I wonder how many returns they receive based on unexpected color of said item? Probably not much.
I’ve been experimenting with converting to sRGB space in PS and I don’t care much for the yellowing affect it puts in the image when viewed on my Mac system set to 2.4 based perceptual gamma curve created with SuperCal.
Gamma shifts are not my major concern. It’s pretty subtle. But to see a nice sky blue take on a yellowish tinge when converting to sRGB and viewed in Save For Web, doesn’t sit with me very well but it’s still no big deal.
I’m assuming the sRGB space is thinking the majority of PC monitors have a blue violet tint to their display compared to AdobeRGB. Yellow neutralizes purplish blue violets.
My display is set to D65 and it has a greenish blue tint compared to my Trinitron phosphor based pinkish blue Sharp TV I compare it to.
Am I missing something or are you saying that you’ve changed your entire workflow to reflect the sRGB settings and a 2.2gamma?
Or are you just using this for web work and perhaps you mainly do web work and this is the reason?
Have you looked closely at the difference in images in general when the monitor is set to a 2.2 gamma versus a 1.8 gamma?
I’m not denying that if a person has a site, or creates sites for others, that will mostly be viewed by PC users that setting calibrations to reflect sRGB + 2.2 gamma is not a good idea… I just think it’s not a good idea in general… especially for print media.
I read through this thread quickly so maybe I’m missing something.
Not my entire workflow. I do keep my monitor at 2.2 but when I work on print projects I change my Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign Color Management settings to US Prepress Defaults, using US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 for CMYK conversions, unless given other settings by the printer.
Last year I probably had a little more Web work than print work but it was pretty close to 50/50.
Outside of Photoshop, such as using a Web browser, I do notice a big difference between 2.2 and 1.8 gamma on my monitor. But it’s not just the gamma that I’ve changed, it’s the White Point settings, 6500 now. Prior to that thread, I was using the Mac Standard 9300. I changed everything back when the Gamma vs PC thread was going and I haven’t looked back since. From what I understand, the 2.2 gamma is better for print and web. sRGB is another story.
Here is one quote from Bruce (hope he doesn’t mine)…
The "Gamma 1.8 Standard" really never existed — it was simply a nod to the fact that the Mac OS applied a gamma correction to the display that the PC OSs didn’t. If you actually went out and measured a bunch of uncalibrated Mac monitors you’d find that the gamma was all over the place, because it depends on the way the black level and luminance (brightness and contrast) are set.
No-one is telling you to change this standard that didn’t really exist. What we ARE saying is that, when the black level is set correctly, at reasonable white luminances, a gamma of around 2.2 will produce smoother gradients and a fuller range of levels than some other setting — the monitor is displaying as many colors as it can. If that’s not what you want, don’t do it!
Not trying to put you on the spot… in fact I found something I’d filed away about 1.8 vs 2.2 (re. link below).
It appears the general concensus is that 2.2 is fine. I’m use to 1.8, but after rereading the following again I may change. I figure if it’s good enough for Andrew… <g>
Just reread the link again and I think I’ll stay at 1.8.
You CAN calibrate your Mac to 2.2. Outside of Photoshop, the previews of windows and such will look dark and contrastly but that’s not a big deal. Or you can calibrate to 1.8 in which case, the two previews in Photoshop should match. Andrew Rodney (from the link in post #18)
You do not have to stick with Mac gamma of 1.8. That is really a relic of the past. Most people calibrate their monitors to a gamma of 2.2 and 6500k.
Now that I’m accustomed to 2.2 and 6500, I find that going back, the brightness now bothers me… something that at one time I preferred. Interesting. I still wish Apple would fix those ugly dark drop shadows on the desktop though.
I’ve also seen an improvement in that my monitor now matches my Xerox 790 printouts better… that is when it prints, ugh!
If you refer back to Bruce Fraser’s quote, the central issue isn’t the gamma number. It’s whatever gamma it takes to allow the viewer to see all gray levels evenly distributed in a grayramp between 0,0,0rgb to 255,255, 255rgb after finding the darkest black level setting your monitor can display that can’t be darker than with the monitor turned off.
You may notice this black level and even gray distribution viewing standard may not be the same between monitor brands and especially between LCD’s and CRT’s.
Whatever gamma chosen after establishing black point that retains this environment is the gamma number to settle on. Gamma 2.2 is a "standard" that comes closest to retaining this environment on most monitors and reduces file degradation when converting from the wider color managed space of AdobeRGB to the standardized so to speak uncalibrated PC monitor space of the web’s sRGB which have the same gamma.
If you can see all 21 levels of a 21step grayramp RGB target with the monitor calibrated to 2.2 gamma with the blackest black the monitor can generate, stay with it.
In almost all monitors being sold today, the only way to adjust the gamma of the display system is by tweaking the 8-bit/channel lookup table in the video card, and when you do that, you lose levels, just as you do when you apply a gamma edit to an 8-bit image.
The bigger the tweak, the more levels you lose, so the further away you take the display from its native gamma, the more likely you are to see banding in gradients. The gamma 2.2 recommendation stems from the fact that the unadjusted behavior of most CRTs connected to Macs comes in pretty close to gamma 2.2. On those systems that allow it, I prefer to leave the gamma unadjusted, and simply profile the display at native gamma.
I just read the Charles Poynton article on what Quickdraw does to gamma. Has that been worked out by Apple, now?
I never considered that Quickdraw had so much influence in respect to gamma.
I can’t use 2.2 gamma because it causes the gray levels in the grayramp to go to black at level 13. 1.8 flattens the middle. So I use a 2.4 based perceptual curve in SuperCal. I can now pass your PS black level test only I do have shifts in cast at those levels.
Quickdraw went away in OS X, being replaced by Quartz. But Charles’ info on Quickdraw is very old indeed—it started being less than definitive back in OS7, when the "uncorrected gamma" option was introduced—it turned off Quickdraw’s gamma correction.
If gamma 2.2 turns your grays black at level 13, either the gamma is being miscalculated or, more likely, the black point is being set incorrectly (which is almost guaranteed with visual calibrators like SuperCal), possibly because the white luminance is also being mis-estimated.
I set black point visually with the overscan method which makes the screen seem even darker. I can adjust the brightness button and level 13 will show up, but then I’m not getting the blackest black the display can produce.
Even if I lighten the black point, 2.2 produces an unevenly distributed grayramp much like 1.8. There is an abrupt shadow increase from level 13 on up to 128 and then it smooths out.
The perceptual curve elliminates this. I get a very smooth grayramp.
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
