What #color Looks in Gamma 2.2, the Way...

Macs have a default gamma of 1.8, and PCs have a default gamma of 2.2. I have several colors, for example a peach color, #FFE2A8, which I like on my Mac. Is there a way to use Photoshop to find out the hex# of the color which will look on a PC, like #FFE2A8 does on a Mac?



Thanks very much in advance to all for any info!
What #color Looks in Gamma 2.2, the Way...
No, Macs do not have a default gamma of 1.8. Where have you been for 15 years?
What #color Looks in Gamma 2.2, the Way...
Vik,



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

Lundberg02,



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:



http://www.flavorzoom.com/anomalies/default_gamma.png

I see a moderator has removed the comment from Lundberg02.

Oh, the comment from Lundberg02 was just hidden.

Neil,



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?

Vik,



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掳K color temperature. The current standard for Macs and Windows is 2.2 gamma and 6500掳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

Your best bet is to recalibrate your monitor to Gamma 2.2 and build a new Monitor Profile.



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!)

Neil,



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.

%26gt;%26gt; 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''

that said, anyone wrestling with 1.8 gamma in a 2.2 pc gamma world is asking for a headache

%26gt;''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.

Vik,



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

Neil,



I'm almost convinced to re-calibrate my monitor to 2.2 and update the colors. The only thing that's puzzling me is, won't this look bad on most Macs? As g ballard says:



%26gt;every Mac I've ever looked had a default 1.8 monitor gamma profile enabled

%26gt; (unless someone re-profiled it)

Vik:



It will look fine 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!



:(

Vik,



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.

Dear Mr Touchy: Macs long ago had a partial hardware gamma and a software tweak. Beginning with the G3 era, no hardware correction.

Even Apple recommends 2.2 gamma



http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2026

Thanks Buko. Ha! Even ''g'' gets a mention there!%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;(But we found him first!) %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
Thanks, Buko! If even Apple is recommending 2.2 gamma, then I guess that is the way to go. Thanks to all on this thread for your help

%26gt;then I guess that is the way to go.



You
''guess''?

Incidentally,



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%26amp;w LaserWriter printers and
monochrome Apple screens.

I wish color calibrator makers would forget 1.8 gamma ever existed -- it just confuses folks. It's up there with printer and scanner manufacturers that mix up dpi and ppi.



Neil

%26gt;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. :/

1.8 is a perfectly valid setting that is useful for high end photo prints and is the default ProPhoto.

Lundberg02,



Now you're confusing the gamma of the ProPhoto color space with the monitor profile gamma, also called

display 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, no matter how capricious, 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. :/



http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

I'm not confusing anything over here. If people don't know what they're -------- doing. that's their problem.

Lundberg02,



Obviously, I could have phrased that a little 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 who are new to color management and color theory.



In any event, I just want to make the distinction between monitor gamma and color space gamma.

It's my job, it's what I do. I cloud men's minds. The Shadow knows.

:)

Lundy,%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Turn down that Atwater Kent 12-tube superheterodyne...! %26lt;g%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;%26lt;br /%26gt;Neil
How to convert colors between gammas: you can use convert to profile, or the midtones slider in levels.



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.

You can preview windows gamma in Photoshop. Just go to View%26gt;Proof Setup%26gt;Windows RGB. Alos make sure View%26gt;Proof Colors is checked as well.



And also OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard will be defaulted to 2.2 gamma. Currently it is 1.8.

That's all gamma correction is about anyway, mid tones. The top end and bottom end are approximations to prevent plugging and blowing out.

Is it considered acceptable to use colors that are not among the few websafe colors, for menus, body background-color, etc? Or is the chance of them being incorrectly rendered too great for it to be considered acceptable?



(Just from a color rendering point of view - i.e. outside of the question of whether non-white background-colors are acceptable).

The ''Websafe'' colors were formulated at the time when many people were still using 256-color 8-bit monitors which is no longer the case so there is really little need to be concerned about sticking to Websafe Colors these days.



For more about this subject:



http://www.lynda.com/resources/webpalette.aspx

Thanks, Ann. I've got an Apple Cinema Display, and i've run the Mac OSX color calibrator to set it to gamma 2.2 and white point D65. I've also run the advanced color calibration options on it. I'm using #FFE7B5 as the background color on a web site; on this Apple Cinema Display that appears to be a peach color. My wife has a brand-new Windows Vista laptop from Toshiba, and on her monitor, #FFE7B5 is noticeably redder and less buttery. A link to a .gif showing this color is here:



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?

%26gt;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.



%26gt;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.

%26gt;%26gt; 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

Vik,

%26gt;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

I very well may do hardware calibration. In the meantime, I just went to the local Apple store, and verified that the color looks as I expected it to on the monitors there.



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.

Next question:



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/

There isn't any mystery.

There's color management. Plenty of books and g ballard.

(Typically,) computers on display in the store are like TVs on display in the store: They pull 'em out of the box and just plug 'em in. Period.



Neil

(Typically,) computers on display in the store are like TVs on display in the store: They pull 'em out of the box, plug 'em in, and press the Power button. Period.



Neil