| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2004 11:54:33 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
You are absolutely right about my intent when I created this thread. My silly anti-Mac comments, as well as the thread subject line, were intended as humor and to capture attention. As you said, I had hoped to generate a little discussion on the subject of color management and gamma settings. I did not intend for this to become a debate over the relative merits of the two platforms. In retrospect, I see that I should have left my poor attempts at humor out of my post. My apologies to anybody that felt offended by my comments.
--Mick |
Thank you, Mick. That took a lot of guts to say and I'm sure everyone appreciates what you said including myself. I understand you were just messing around but many people are sensitive to certain things and one of them is OS preference as you found out.
I hope we can continue this thread with it's intended course and that is color correction and, perhaps, gamma settings and how they affect each other. Many good links have been posted earlier in this thread and maybe they hold the answers you seek. Again, thanks for apologizing, Mick.
(edit a typo-Apparently, I still forget the difference between affect and effect and I always feel stupid as a result.)
Message edited by author 2004-11-03 23:59:25.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:15:55 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Everyone, just set the damn gamma to 2.0 and be done with it. Problem solved!
I hardware calibrated my G5 to 2.0 with an iOne, so I have a happy median. I want them to look good when printed on my printer and when I post to here. |
I guess no one read this. Is it not feasible? Oh yeah..I forgot with a PC you have to go through all those folders and try to find exactly where to reset the gamma...if it is at all possible, considering MicroSoft probably left that Control Panel out, since there is no need to EVER change it in the first place. (C: |
The PCs use to be around 2.5, until this issue first started being a problem. As a resulte, a standard was drafted and presented to W3 for adoption. This standard sets the internet gamma at 2.2 for technical reasons detailed in the links earlier in the thread. 2.2 gamma is already nearly halfway between, 3 below PCs and 4 above Macs -- so why should what you suggest be done again? The benefits of 2.2 are detailed in the submission; what are the benefits of 2.0?
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, run the equipment at whatever gamma desired, but proof your images for the media they are to presented in (print or media). The gamma of the monitor is not that important for creating the image; an image can be proofed for any gamma -- the difference comes about when viewing the images outside of photoshop. I don't know any monitor that views a printed image more than an electronic one -- so the electronic gamma standard of 2.2 makes for sense to me.
***
Originally posted by Arcanist:
Okies, so I use the Adobe Color Space and I know I'm at such a serious disadvantage using a Flat panel LCD with PC (hehehe) but do I need to go into the color correction of my video card and slide the gamma from 1.0 to 2.0 or do I need to adjust the screens controls or is the color profile all set the way it is out of the box? |
IIRC, the Adobe color-space (if by that you mean AdobeRGB(1998)) is a 2.2 gamma color-space, if that helps you make your mind up. However, Adobe RGB is an interim color-space (used for editing, but not presentation) so its gamma may not make a difference to you. Just as the gamma of the Lab and CMYK color-spaces may not be important to you (2.5 to 3.0 or higher, from one report I read -- but I have no difinitive sources).
David
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:45:33 AM · #78 |
We should all calibrate our monitors so what the "default" is it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:57:04 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
2.2 gamma is already nearly halfway between, 3 below PCs and 4 above Macs -- so why should what you suggest be done again? The benefits of 2.2 are detailed in the submission; what are the benefits of 2.0? |
Using terms like "halfway" for power function exponents is probably inappropriate.
Assuming dacrazyrn wasn't half-joking, I presume he means that 2.0 will yield results that are just as bad (though different) in 1.8 as they are in 2.2. There's really no good reason to use 2.0 especially if you're using a color-managed editor. Without color management (and assuming no PC/CRT gamma adjustment), there's no salvation with 2.0 as CRT gamma varies wildly and is usually well above 2.2 - before calibration). It's just another shot in the dark (like most of this stuff).
Besides, (most? sufficiently many?) Mac browsers are color managed, so they can display images correctly (under the right circumstances) making 2.2 (sRGB) the best short-term solution (as recommended by W3). However, the long-term solution is keeping images with embedded profiles (or having appropriate CSS code for them) and having browsers support this (there are various initiatives in this area).
Originally posted by Britannica:
Just as the gamma of the Lab and CMYK color-spaces may not be important to you (2.5 to 3.0 or higher, from one report I read -- but I have no difinitive sources). |
FYI, there is no lab gamma. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:13:31 AM · #80 |
have to say, once again, that i cannot believe there is 4 pages of this stuff.
i think you are putting way to much into the gamma settings of both platforms, the difference in brightness is negligable and there is no such thing as a Web Standard for gamma settings since gamma cannot be incorporated and auto adjusted within an image except for PNG graphics which nobody uses because IE fails to implement the standard properly so why don't you all go have a hot cup of tea and be quiet!
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:33:30 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Article19:
the difference in brightness is negligable |
nope.
Originally posted by Article19:
there is no such thing as a Web Standard for gamma settings |
Actually, the reference is a simplification for specifying the recommended use of sRGB (which is very, very close to gamma 2.2).
Originally posted by Article19:
go have a hot cup of tea and be quiet! |
Ahh, if only we were all able to follow the advice we give so freely. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:09:59 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Originally posted by micknewton:
You are absolutely right about my intent when I created this thread. My silly anti-Mac comments, as well as the thread subject line, were intended as humor and to capture attention. As you said, I had hoped to generate a little discussion on the subject of color management and gamma settings. I did not intend for this to become a debate over the relative merits of the two platforms. In retrospect, I see that I should have left my poor attempts at humor out of my post. My apologies to anybody that felt offended by my comments.
--Mick |
Thank you, Mick. That took a lot of guts to say and I'm sure everyone appreciates what you said including myself. I understand you were just messing around but many people are sensitive to certain things and one of them is OS preference as you found out.
I hope we can continue this thread with it's intended course and that is color correction and, perhaps, gamma settings and how they affect each other. Many good links have been posted earlier in this thread and maybe they hold the answers you seek. Again, thanks for apologizing, Mick.
(edit a typo-Apparently, I still forget the difference between affect and effect and I always feel stupid as a result.) |
That was nice of you to apologize, Mick - I mean Love Muffin - but you didn't have to. If folks are so sensitive about their OS of choice, then maybe they need to examine why they are so threatened by a little good natured ribbing. Just a thought!
People just need to calibrate their monitors and realize that images are going to look different in different mediums and regardless of attempts to standardize the web, somebody's monitor somewhere is going to display some images darker or lighter or whatever. It just impossible to control every variance. Do the best you can and then get over it. :-) |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:21:58 AM · #83 |
Do you see what i see? Prove it!
You can't. Ferrari Red may be a different color to me or you, and we have no way to prove it. Add in a computer, and the video card, the myriad of settings, whether the monitor is LCD/Plasma/backlit/CRT or something else, and remember that CRTs get dim with age....and it is a dilemma that has no answer.
CRTs can do true black, LCDs cannot. LCDs are much brighter and have a more stable image. I would suspect ALL images appear darker on any CRT compared to any LCD.
Macs are for kids. We have a brand new grade school here - all Macs.
When you grow up you get a PC. The high school is all PCs.
So, grow up and get a PC! :P |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:37:27 AM · #84 |
| This school has a Mac-based system, too. Wanna drag old man? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:55:51 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
This school has a Mac-based system, too. Wanna drag old man? ;-) |
I have one of those at home! ;)
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:11:56 AM · #86 |
| I'm typing on one now. Have you noticed how little a dynamic weather simulator brings down the frame rates on Unreal Tournament? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:14:38 AM · #87 |
It does not slow down at all! LOL. Do you notice a slowing down? I'm on a dual 2.5 with 3GB RAM
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 11:15:50. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:20:06 AM · #88 |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:37:18 AM · #89 |
| Wow! So that $25 million Thunder system achieves 19.9 Teraflops- nearly twice the performance of the $5 million Big Mac system. Even a pocket calculator can figure out the logical conclusion... LOL |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 01:50:25 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Everyone, just set the damn gamma to 2.0 and be done with it. Problem solved!
I hardware calibrated my G5 to 2.0 with an iOne, so I have a happy median. I want them to look good when printed on my printer and when I post to here. |
Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, run the equipment at whatever gamma desired, but proof your images for the media they are to presented in (print or media). The gamma of the monitor is not that important for creating the image; an image can be proofed for any gamma -- the difference comes about when viewing the images outside of photoshop.
David |
So why did you ask why I have it a 2.0? Because I want to. Like I said...happy median. I edit it this way so that I know pretty close to exactly the way it will look for printing or for the web. I mainly edit/adjust photos for printing (isn't that the idea?), then when I am all done and it is going to be put on the internet-View->Monitor RGB in sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color space and then make adjustments form the original until it looks the same.
If the gamma is not that improtant then why do people keep saying 2.2 is what you should use? It depends on what you are using it for, but I am not going to flip flop my gamma setting on my monitor everytime I want to post something on the web (again 2.0)
Reminds me---ned to calibrate the monitor this month.....in 2.0. (C: |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 11:06:18 PM · #91 |
I have been playing online for years and none of us use Macs. Yes your can play games in an emulator but then you only get 12 FPS and you can't play FPS unless you like your ass handed to you.
I look at it this way. Use the tool for what it is designed for. My 4x4 SUV is not the fastest car on the road but I don't have stay on the roads either. :> So which is better? Neither. Use them for what they are intended.
Originally posted by fotodude:
Unreal Turniment 2004 is out for mac. and if you played it on 1 you would see that the graphics are so very very much cleaner than a on pc!
although not many games are avalibule for mac. one can use vurtule PC for mac. and play any PC game out on the market on a mac. comp. so your rong. lots of games can be played on mac.
congrats. on the buliding of your own computers though thats a nice way to go. i've done it once or twice.
but that doesn't change the arts industry and the printing industry they still use the good ole' mac. and they arn't chainging any time soon (unless their jobs are "out sorced"by bush and his gang)
so see if you don't have a design job you can't be a"snob designer".
get a new attitude!!!
Originally posted by DoFear:
"although gaming is sooo very much better on a mac."
What? No gamers use Macs for gaming. There aren't enough games on the market for Macs.
I build my own computers so Mac is not a choice. I don't want some snob designer thinking he/she knows what I want in a computer. I select each component myself. |
|
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/25/2025 07:32:19 PM EDT.
