Reading mode: Light Dark

Web design, Apple computers, and Gamma

Go to last post
D

David Crockett

Leading Member
Messages
662
Reaction score
1
Location
Los Angeles, US
I’m an Apple user. I worked part time designing web sites about a year ago. Because my clients were pc users and their target audience was mostly pc users I would set my monitor’s gamma for the PC standard of 2.2. I know that Apple users represent maybe 5% of all computer users however, in the creative industry that percentage is much higher. I’m currently designing my own photography portfolio website and my target audience will mainly be publications, ad agencies, designers, and other creative professionals. I’m curious if professional photographers, who are targeting the creative industry as opposed to the average computer user, create images purposefully to be viewed on Apple computers. Conversely, do photographers who use Apple computers who are marketing to the general public create images that display better on PC’s? When I switch between the Apple display profile and a profile I created that has the Gamma set to the PC standard of 2.2, the difference is enough to warrant concern as to what computer the majority of people viewing my site will be using. I’m curious as to what most photographers do.
-David
 
David Crockett said:
I’m an Apple user. I worked part time designing web sites about a
year ago. Because my clients were pc users and their target
audience was mostly pc users I would set my monitor’s gamma for the
PC standard of 2.2. I know that Apple users represent maybe 5% of
all computer users however, in the creative industry that
percentage is much higher. I’m currently designing my own
photography portfolio website and my target audience will mainly be
publications, ad agencies, designers, and other creative
professionals. I’m curious if professional photographers, who are
targeting the creative industry as opposed to the average computer
user, create images purposefully to be viewed on Apple computers.
Conversely, do photographers who use Apple computers who are
marketing to the general public create images that display better
on PC’s? When I switch between the Apple display profile and a
profile I created that has the Gamma set to the PC standard of 2.2,
the difference is enough to warrant concern as to what computer the
majority of people viewing my site will be using. I’m curious as to
what most photographers do.
-David
Click to expand...
I use a Mac too, set for 2.2 gamma. This matches PC users in web work and is better for print work with desktop inkjets that are designed around the 2.2 windows gamma. Here's the easy way; make your photos in the sRGB colorspace. I usually work in Adobe RGB then convert them to sRGB for the web. Windows browsers assume you use sRGB, and sRGB is a 2.2 gamma colorspace. Mac users will view them fine even on 1.8 gamma screens because Safari and Internet Explorer on Mac are color managed so they'll show the image correctly IF (very important!) IF you embed the sRGB profile in the image when you save it in Photoshop. I do that and my pics display fine on both Macs and PC's.
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography
 
Hey Chris.

Thanks for your reply. I do all that, work in adobe rgb 1998, convert to srgb and embed the profile for web output. However, when switching between the two different gammas, the images displayed in the PC gamma appear darker. I’ve looked at websites and photographs I have published to the web on different computers and indeed no one computer monitor looks the same, however there is a big difference in gamma between Apple computers and PC’s. The gamma issue doesn't matter that much with all my images however, a few of my images definitely do not look as good in the Apple gamma if edited in the PC gamma and visa versa. So I guess the real question is what percentage of creative professionals, editors, art directors, designers, use Apple computers. I would feel better knowing that my images were edited for the gamma profile that most of my target viewers are working in.
-David
 
Finally gave in to a small portion of the Dark Side and have set the gamma of all my machines to 2.2.

Typically, I'm using Adobe RGB.

p

--
http://www.paulmbowers.com

This post represents the personal opinion of Paul M Bowers, and every opinion,
while likely to be factual, should be independently verified. Your mileage may
vary, standard disclaimers apply. I maintain the copyright on my posts, and they
may not be republished without express permission. But seriously, folks, it's a
forum, not a big deal. And please don't feed the trolls.
 
I once saw a recommendation to split the difference and calibrate
to 2.0. When I used a gamma of 1.8, I got a complaint once
from a PC user, but I've actually received a couple of unsolicited
compliments since going with 2.0.

Not perfect, but then neither are 90% of the monitors (I just
made that number up : ))

Darrell
 
Darrell

That was my fist idea, but then I considered that if you split the difference then none of your images are going to be viewed as you would like them to be. At least if you pick one, those computer users (whatever percentage that may be) will see your images as you want them to be seen. Paul, I keep my monitor to 2.2 all the time, and when I design web sites or provide images and graphics to customers who use a PC (which is most people) I edit everything in the 2.2 gamma profile. However, my site that I'm working on now is intended mainly for the creative professional. So if most creative pros use Apple, which I suspect, then I'm assuming I should edit my images to be viewed on an Apple monitor. But then that begs the question; do most creative professionals who use Apple change their gamma to 2.2 to accommodate most computer users who use PC’s?

-David
 
Start with highest quality jpg from Canon 300D
Using Photoshop CS set to 2.2 gamma, Windows XP,
Work in Adobe rgb with PC notebook screen calibrated with Adobe gamma.
Converted to srgb and embedded srgb profile.
Converted to .jpg , 10 quality
Saved and posted to pbase
Asked friends to look at picture(s) with Macs, Old PCs, New PCs, etc.

They all were slightly different, but all were acceptable except an old windows 95 machine with 14 inch vga monitor

My conclusion: Since you don't control what your audience will use, just do your best work and go for it!
 
I use 2.2 gamma on my Mac. This causes my pictures to look brighter on Macs using 1.8 gamma, and just right on PCs using 2.2 gamma. This is better than the pictures looking too dark on PCs, in my opinion, because an image that's too bright doesn't obscure picture detail the way that an image that's too dark does.

I suppose a good compromise might be 2.0 gamma -- smack dab between Mac and PC.
 
Im a PC user who has many of the same issues but in reverse. I know most users are PC's but outside of embedding the sRGB i constantly proof with the MAC Gamma in Photoshop and try to hit a happy medium for both plateforms. I was even considering two different version of my site for each platform (thats pretty anal but it gives the viewer that more precise look). Ive noticed that if you're a PC user and you dont soft proof for a MAC, your images will look less than desirable when you see them on the MAC. On the other hand ive used MACs with no great consideration for the PC viewer and they still looked pretty good in the end on the PC. I also generally keep a levels adjustment layer that is used just for the PC to MAC proofing...........
 
Most web browsers and not ICC aware (Safari is as is IE 4.5 and 5.0 on the Mac only when ColorSync preferences are on). Both browsers assume all untagged web doc's are in sRGB.

Monitor gamma and working space gamma do NOT need to match in ICC aware applications. They only share the term gamma (monitors, images and working space all have a gamma value).

For the web, since the vast majority of users are on the PC who's display gamma is 2.2 and who have web browsers that are not ICC aware and in most cases do not use any display calibration, the bottom line is there is no way to guarantee that anyone will see the same numbers in an image the same way. So it's a very big compromise. What you can (and should) do is save all images in sRGB which should look reasonably good on most PC display systems. Since so few recognize embedded ICC profiles, it's questionable if you even want to embed the profile (that will take up about 4K of space per image; not a lot but if you have lots of images and users are on dial up, that can really slow down the process). The smart browsers will recognize the images are not tagged with a profile and assume sRGB anyway.

Mac users who are smart enough to calibrate their displays should probably aim for a 2.2 gamma anyway. It's closer to the native gamma of a display so there's less work going on at the look up table resulting in smoother previews of stuff like gradients. The old 1.8 gamma was there for silly reasons and Apple should have tossed it out when they rewrote the currnet OS (OSX). Outside of ICC aware applications, things will look a tad darker in the midtones at 2.2 but in ICC aware applications, you'll get better results.

If you're using Photoshop, there is a proof setup whereby you can see how your images will appear on a Mac verses Windows box. This assumes the box has a calibrated display (the preview is based on the profile for your specific display so again, your mileage may vary). It at least shows you what the same image should appear like on either a Mac or PC based on the gamma settings (1.8 vs. 2.2).

Bottom line is the PC folks are getting a raw deal because as far as I know, no browser operates like Photoshop and takes BOTH the embedded image profile (or an assumption of sRGB) AND the users display profile into account to produce a preview. That means the numbers are just sent right to the screen (much like Photoshop 4 and earlier). So everyone is basically seeing the same images differently.
--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
I tried different settings and for me it works best to convert pics to the"Apple RGB" colorspace and then save for web without colorprofile. My Monitor is set with gamma 1,8 on Mac. With this easy workflow the pictures show up correct bozh on mac and pc, in Browsers like safari or ie. I dont know why sRGB dont work, maybe because of the different gammasetting. But aslong as AppleRGB works why should i change?
regards
Martin
digidog said:
Most web browsers and not ICC aware (Safari is as is IE 4.5 and 5.0
on the Mac only when ColorSync preferences are on). Both browsers
assume all untagged web doc's are in sRGB.

Monitor gamma and working space gamma do NOT need to match in ICC
aware applications. They only share the term gamma (monitors,
images and working space all have a gamma value).

For the web, since the vast majority of users are on the PC who's
display gamma is 2.2 and who have web browsers that are not ICC
aware and in most cases do not use any display calibration, the
bottom line is there is no way to guarantee that anyone will see
the same numbers in an image the same way. So it's a very big
compromise. What you can (and should) do is save all images in sRGB
which should look reasonably good on most PC display systems.
Since so few recognize embedded ICC profiles, it's questionable if
you even want to embed the profile (that will take up about 4K of
space per image; not a lot but if you have lots of images and users
are on dial up, that can really slow down the process). The smart
browsers will recognize the images are not tagged with a profile
and assume sRGB anyway.

Mac users who are smart enough to calibrate their displays should
probably aim for a 2.2 gamma anyway. It's closer to the native
gamma of a display so there's less work going on at the look up
table resulting in smoother previews of stuff like gradients. The
old 1.8 gamma was there for silly reasons and Apple should have
tossed it out when they rewrote the currnet OS (OSX). Outside of
ICC aware applications, things will look a tad darker in the
midtones at 2.2 but in ICC aware applications, you'll get better
results.

If you're using Photoshop, there is a proof setup whereby you can
see how your images will appear on a Mac verses Windows box. This
assumes the box has a calibrated display (the preview is based on
the profile for your specific display so again, your mileage may
vary). It at least shows you what the same image should appear like
on either a Mac or PC based on the gamma settings (1.8 vs. 2.2).

Bottom line is the PC folks are getting a raw deal because as far
as I know, no browser operates like Photoshop and takes BOTH the
embedded image profile (or an assumption of sRGB) AND the users
display profile into account to produce a preview. That means the
numbers are just sent right to the screen (much like Photoshop 4
and earlier). So everyone is basically seeing the same images
differently.
--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
 
martin hopfengart said:
I tried different settings and for me it works best to convert pics
to the"Apple RGB" colorspace and then save for web without
colorprofile. My Monitor is set with gamma 1,8 on Mac.
Click to expand...
That's why they look better to you in your browser. But PC users (the majority of users) will see the image as a bit washed out as they use a 2.2 gamma for display. If you calibrated your display to 2.2 (fine for Macs) it might look a bit better but bottom line is it's a big fat compromise since most browsers are not color managed.

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k. Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and than save his pics without profile...
digidog said:
martin hopfengart said:
I tried different settings and for me it works best to convert pics
to the"Apple RGB" colorspace and then save for web without
colorprofile. My Monitor is set with gamma 1,8 on Mac.
Click to expand...
That's why they look better to you in your browser. But PC users
(the majority of users) will see the image as a bit washed out as
they use a 2.2 gamma for display. If you calibrated your display to
2.2 (fine for Macs) it might look a bit better but bottom line is
it's a big fat compromise since most browsers are not color managed.

--
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
 
Martin,

Interesting problem. I have a Mac. My monitor is calibrated/profiled to 1.8 and 6500 degrees. I post images in sRGB with embedded profiles. I see sRGB or any other space ok in Photoshop or Safari as long as there is something to indicate the color space. If all is set up properly, 1.8 or 2.2 should be transparent to you. I went to the Mark Tucker site and my experience was the same as yours. That I don't understand. I am going to do some testing. The Tucker images do not have profiles so I assume that Safari assigns sRGB but in Photoshop, Apple RGB best matches the Safari message. Why don't you go to my site below and download my picture or some other image. All my images have embedded sRGB profiles (unless I messed up with one). Obviously, Safari and Photoshop agree with my images. In the cases where I mistakenly put Adobe RGB images on my site, there was still agreement. I am going to upload an image without a profile and see what happens. Maybe, the Safari default is Apple RGB. Are you using Safari?
martin hopfengart said:
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k.
Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and
it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set
their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save
pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and
in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save
without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and
pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try
later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb
Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers
without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without
colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile
in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps
and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark
Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the
loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop
assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like
the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and
than save his pics without profile...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
 
Martin, I looked at the Mark Tucker image with Internet Explorer and got the same result as with Safari. I sure would expect IE to use sRGB as the default. More to follow.
Leon Wittwer said:
martin hopfengart said:
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k.
Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and
it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set
their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save
pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and
in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save
without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and
pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try
later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb
Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers
without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without
colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile
in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps
and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark
Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the
loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop
assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like
the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and
than save his pics without profile...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
 
i use safari and mozilla and both display the same way. I downloaded a pic of your site and it has srgb and displays correct in ps and safari.
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon Wittwer said:
martin hopfengart said:
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k.
Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and
it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set
their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save
pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and
in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save
without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and
pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try
later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb
Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers
without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without
colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile
in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps
and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark
Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the
loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop
assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like
the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and
than save his pics without profile...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
 
download your own pic, opne in ps, save a copy without the srgb profile and drag it to safari: a bit lighter than with srgb. in ps again convert to apple rgb and save a copy drag to safari icon and it looks right to me. Very good pics on your site.

kindest regards
martin
martin hopfengart said:
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon Wittwer said:
martin hopfengart said:
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k.
Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and
it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set
their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save
pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and
in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save
without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and
pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try
later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb
Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers
without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without
colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile
in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps
and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark
Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the
loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop
assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like
the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and
than save his pics without profile...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Comments below.
martin hopfengart said:
download your own pic, opne in ps, save a copy without the srgb
profile and drag it to safari: a bit lighter than with srgb.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is consistant with Safari not assuming sRGB as the default. It seems to be assuming Apple RGB or perhaps Colormatch RGB is the default. Interesting. Does this means that virtually all images I look at on the web have embedded images (or flags) since I don't see things that seem too light? Doesn't seem right.
martin hopfengart said:
in ps
again convert to apple rgb and save a copy drag to safari icon and
it looks right to me.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean starting with the version with a profile.

Yes. I agree. That is what I would expect. Safari understands color profiles, sees the Apple RGB embedded profile and adjusts accordingly. What was the point of this last exercise?
martin hopfengart said:
Very good pics on your site.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
martin hopfengart said:
kindest regards
martin
martin hopfengart said:
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon Wittwer said:
martin hopfengart said:
I use Optical set to "print standart" its gamma is 1,8 and 5000k.
Thats what the People in the shop where i get it told me to do and
it works for me. Also i read here in these forums that most set
their monitors to d65 it doesent match my lightbox. when i save
pics with profile sRGB they look way off both in my macbrowser and
in pc my Girlfriend uses. When i convert to Apple RGB and save
without profile the pic looks identical in mac photoshop and
pc-browser. I havent try the 2.2 Gamma until know, have to try
later. but for me its a miracle why it works with Apple Rgb
Conversion and save then without profile. It works for browsers
without colormanagement so it cant be very faulty.

Another point for me is, most pro websites have pictures without
colorprofile and when i download a pic i have to assign a profile
in ps. If i assign apple rgb it works and has the same look in ps
and safari. if i assign srgb its off. Try it yourself, go to Mark
Tuckers site , marktucker.com download the second pic in the
loveley berlin gallery, the little girl. than open in photoshop
assign srgb, way to dark. try apple rgb, it shows up correct like
the browser. So i think Marl Tucker also converts to apple rgb and
than save his pics without profile...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Leon
http://pws.prserv.net/lees_pics/landscapes.htm
 
Leon Wittwer said:
Leon Wittwer said:
in ps
again convert to apple rgb and save a copy drag to safari icon and
it looks right to me.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean starting with the version with a profile.
Yes. I agree. That is what I would expect. Safari understands
color profiles, sees the Apple RGB embedded profile and adjusts
accordingly. What was the point of this last exercise?
Click to expand...
Sorry my fault, getting confused..

If you convert yuor pic in ps to apple rgb and save itwithout profile and drag to safari it also displays correct. And makes me wonder...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top