COLOUR PROBLEMS: Monitor settings for Apple computers?

[guido11664881459]

<p>Hi everybody,</p>

 

<p>I'm a Mac user and I think the colours of my monitor are ok, even though it's only a small Powerbook.

Every time I show some photos on my laptop, people comment on how superiour the colours are.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, when I look at my own pics on a Windows computer, I am mostly disappointed or

downright shocked about the colours. Often they are too dark, seem grey-bluish, or have some nasty

shadow effects.</p>

 

<p>I made 2 versions of the last pic I posted here on PN, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=6731199">one which looks how I want it</a>, on MY screen, and <a href="http://www.photo.net/

photodb/photo?photo_id=6731570">one that is intended for Windows systems</a>. I don't think this is

a good solution, though.</p>

 

<p>My question is primarily directed at other, more experienced Mac users in the field of photography:

what settings to use, so that images on a forum like photo.net appear, to the majority of viewers, the way I

intend it?</p>

 

<p>I know there will be no definite answer to the question, but is there a way to find a good compromise?

I've done different calibrations of my monitor. The setting of the "Gamma"-value, however, seems to make

the biggest difference, with the system preferences telling me that a Gamma of 1.8 is standard for Mac,

and 2.2 standard for Windows systems. I don't like the 2.2 setting on my monitor at all, as colours appear

very cold and dark - but if this is the solution I'll give it a try.</p>

 

<p>I'd be very happy if I got any practical (and - please - technically simple) information on how more

experienced photographers working with a Mac, deal with the problem.</p>

 

<p>Thank you!</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

We can't control other people's displays or choice of browsers.

 

 

Anything you post on the web is subject to Microsoft Internet Explorer's and Firefox's lack of color management lack of color management, so you are best off makeing a dupe of your master and converting (not assigning) the dupe to the sRGB color space.

 

You are better off by just plunking down the money and getting a good colorimeter like the i1 Display 2 or , if you can find one, the now discontinued Monaco OPTIXxr systems of colorimeter and software for accurately profiling and calibrating your monitor.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Guido,

 

If your monitor is calibrated and your files have a profile embedded then whether a system is calibrated to a gamma of either 1.8 or 2,2 shouldnt make any difference, assuming the application is colour profile aware - most browsers arent.

 

People will tell you that Macs today should be calibrated at a gamma of 2.2 the same as PCs but personally I still calibrate mine at 1.8. The same as you, I dont like the appearance at 2.2. For web posts I just convert profile to sRGB in PS then save for web. Once uploaded I dont keep the 2.2 version. I only leave an image at 1.8 if Im leaving the profile embedded and I know the target system is both calibrated and icc profile aware

[guido11664881459]

do you mean, you work on the pics that you post in the web with a 1.8 calibrated monitor as

well? Because that's what I'm doing - and yes, I'm using sRGB, save for web (only, since that

makes the colours a lot "flatter", I usually increase the saturation until they look ok in the

'save for web' version. On my monitor they look ok after that even in Firefox). Still, the pics

look weird on PCs.

[mona_chrome]

On the discussion of the gamma, there are a couple of things to be aware of. The setting of your monitor calibration is NOT the gamma of your image!! AdobeRGB and sRGB are both 2.2 gamma profiles (colorspaces). So, programs like photoshop do compensate for the difference between the monitor calibration and the profile of the image-these have no relation to each other.

 

As to the macs, the powerbooks-not sure which you have (age etc), will never calibrate as well as a good freestanding monitor. I have had 3 different Mac laptops(writing this from the current top of the line Macbook pro) and would never consider using this color for anything other than ballparking it. My older ibook was even less accurate(saturated).

 

As to the calibration gamma, I have always used the 1.8 Mac standard, but recently bought a Mac LCD for my tower and found that the 2.2 gamma gave better overall results--just seemed to calibrate more accurately.(I use an Optix on all of my computers, but actually found that the built in monitor calibration software works pretty well on the Macs!) On my CRT, I was always happier with the 1.8 gamma. I only tried the 2.2 on the LCD because my tech guy said that the LCD's should be done that way--he was right. (I haven't yet, but I may try the 2.2 on the laptop to see if it improves it)

 

Now, looking at your two images, on my Mac tower system, the PC version does seem to be more natural, while the Mac version had an unreal, oversaturated red where the face transitions from light to dark. Overall, the Mac version is just more orange, again, probably caused by saturation(remember that saturation can be affected by levels, curves and overall brightness, not just the saturation adjustments). This is what I would expect if I were doing "fine" color on the Mac Laptop. (On my Macbook Pro, I still prefer the more natural look of your PC version, altho the Mac version is toned down a bit) I shoot on the road for a client that does not accompany me on the shoots. I send back digital images that I finalize on my laptop and, when I get home and view these on my tower system, I am always appalled at how over saturated the images are(done on the ibook). I think that is the main difference between the laptop screen and a good calibrated monitor. You might want to add an external monitor to your laptop or find a way to modify your images that are done on the laptop--or seeing if a 2.2 gamma calibration works better for you.

[mona_chrome]

Guido, I also went and looked at the two images you posted on my CRT across the room--on a G5Mac and calibrated to 1.8 gamma and still find the same result, the PC version is more natural looking while the Mac version is more orange.

 

And just to explain the 2.2 calibration on my new LCD versus the 1.8. Being rather stubborn about the 1.8 and not liking, as noted by you and others above, the 2.2, I calibrated at 1.8 and compared it to my CRT and prints I had made. The results were not very good and I really considered returning the monitor. Remembering my tech guys comment about 2.2, I recalibrated and compared--other than having to get used to how bright the LCD is, it was very good and even with the extra brightness, there was more detail in the highlights than with the CRT(a very good CRT)and more like what I get in prints. Since I haven't used the laptop for imaging since I calibrated the LCD, I just haven't gotten back to trying 2.2 on my Macbook Pro.

[guido11664881459]

thanks a lot for all the information and the time you are putting into this thread and my

question! I really appreciate it; I have to work now but will be back in 5 hours or so - maybe

with some more questions :)

[guido11664881459]

<p>Last night I've been experimenting once more with different monitor settings. At

the end I was so confused and frustrated that I gave it up. Guess there is no alternative to

getting a colour calibration system, as Ellis Vener suggested.</p>

 

<p>Until then, if I understand you correctly, I assume that Apple notebooks' monitors

(BTW, I have a 12" PB, last generation before Intel) are lacking in colour saturation - which

means I should be careful not to oversaturate my posted images. Is that how it could be

summed up?</p>

 

<p>One last thing about my posted image B2: to a certain extent the oversaturation was

deliberate; I liked the effect of the "glowing" yellow-orange-red colours which gave the

image a special feeling, something that a painted picture might have; as if the model was

seen in candlelight. Well - what I've learnt from the experience, is to be careful with things

like that, as it might come out very differently for viewers on the web.</p>

[mona_chrome]

Sorry to get back so late, but, yes, my experience is that the laptops are not as saturated. As I said, however, I use a monaco/pulse calibrator and the problem persists--still haven't gone back to try the 2.2 gamma tho.

 

With regards to your posted photo, I think I understood what you were going for, and posting to the web does seem to hurt many things--some more than others.

 

If you have a good printer, and profiles for your paper and know how to color manage your output, then I would compare your prints to your monitor to see where they are coming out. I am certainly not suggesting that the printer is the best thing to calibrate to, however, it will give you indications as to how your monitor is seeing things versus what they actually are. You just have to be sure that you really know what you are doing with the color management of the output.