There are a lot of "it depends" to this answer, but here goes:
As a previous poster said, Window monitors are typically set to a gamma of 2.2 and Mac OS monitors are typically set to a gamma of 1.8. NOTE that I specify the OS as being the issue as the issue is the OS that is being used, not the actual monitor for this part. Now, without any other software intervention (more about that later), a gamma of 2.2 will be darker than a gamma of 1.8.
This makes for the potential of files edited on a Mac to appear too dark on a Windows machine and files edited on a Windows machine to be washed out on a Mac.
Now, all the it depends:
1) Monitor calibration on editing and viewing machine
2) Viewing software support for color profiles
3) Embedding of profiles with the image
4) Which color profile you use
5) Light conditions around the monitor at time of editing and viewing
6) If the monitor in question is an LCD, angle of view comes into view.
If you edit the image or view it on an uncalibrated monitor, you get what you get, and it will look completely different on other people's monitors. At the barest minimum, you should use one of the software monitor calibration tools out there. It is built into the OS for the Mac. If you are running OS X, you should use the Displays System Preference to do this.
If the software you are viewing the image in does NOT support ICC color profiles, then you will revert back to viewing the image at the gamma your monitor has been set to (see above). For instance, on the Mac, at least the older versions of iPhoto DO NOT take color profiles into account when viewing or editing an image.
If your software you use to edit an image does not honor, keep, or embed color profiles in an image, then you end up sending out an image with no profile embedded. This is not the case here, but for completeness sake... In this case, it totally depends on your viewing software. Many packages will have a default color profile they use for images without an embedded profile. Whatever you have it set to will determine the results. Or, you could default back to the no profile, just the monitor gamma situation.
On the color profile front, MOST of the books and articles I have read strongly suggest using Adobe RGB as your color space and to stay away from sRGB. My understanding is that sRGB was designed for old (say Windows 95) era monitors that had poor color gamuts (NOT GAMMAs), so they were trying to emulate some color space for a hypothetical "average" Windows based system's monitor. Riggghhhtttt.
View an image on a monitor in a completely dark room. Then view it on the same monitor in daylight outside. Guess what?
This comes more into play with different room lighting conditions....
Number 6 is kinda obvious, but tilt the LCD and wash out the image.
There's lots more to this, but I hope it helps,
Doug
I took a series of photographs the other day, and when viewing them
on my PC they looked pretty good. BUT when I took them to a
friends MACintosh, they all looked sooo washed out, I was shocked!
Does anyone know why this is the case?
Here is one of the images (no touch-up done, just resize):
EXIF DATA:
Nikon D70
2005/01/23 12:02:20.7
JPEG (8-bit) Fine
Image Size: Large (2000 x 3008)
Lens: 70-300mm F/4-5.6 G
Focal Length: 122mm
Exposure Mode: Programmed Auto*
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
1/160 sec - F/4.2
Exposure Comp.: -0.3 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 1000
Optimize Image: Custom
White Balance: Auto +1
AF Mode: AF-C
Flash Sync Mode: Not Attached
Color Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)
Tone Comp: User-Defined Custom Curve
Hue Adjustment: 0°
Saturation: Enhanced
Sharpening: High
Image Comment:
Noise Reduction: OFF
--
homepage.mac.com/greypilgrim;
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it
means -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
