creating web images that have the same brightness on Windows and Mac monitors

[Paul_Albert@adobeforums.com]

Hi,

Is there any program, script, or plug-in out there that would allow me to publish an image on the web such that it looks the same on the monitors of all platforms?

Thanks,
Paul

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Paul,

If you are using a Mac to create images that will work for both platforms I'll share with you what I do... thanks to some advice given on a very interesting thread a while back.

Note: On the Proof Settings, others may suggest using Windows RGB Preview. For some reason I think I've had better luck using my Monitor Preview since my monitor is set up to imulate a Windows monitor.

Linda

Monitor Settings:



Photoshop Settings:



Proof Settings:

[Paul_Albert@adobeforums.com]

LRK,

Thank you. I just changed my monitor's Gamma to more closely reflect that of the majority of web users. But I was also wondering if there was some kind of utility (does Adobe GoLive have it) which will automatically adjust the brightness of web-published images in accordance with the monitor's native brightness.

Thanks,
Paul

[Pierre_Courtejoie@adobeforums.com]

AFAIK, you won't be able to remotely change the Gamma setting of the Monitor of the visitors of your website...

Maybe Apple should now recommend using a 2.2 gamma, and have that as stock setting, if it is not the case, as most Color Management experts recommend to use that setting instead of the now obsolete 1.8...

[g_ballard@adobeforums.com]

Here's another spin on the same: <http://www.gballard.net/psd/saveforwebshift.html>

If you embed a profile, and instruct Mac users to enable ColorSync in their Explorer preferences, ColorSync will Convert the sRGB 2.2 gamma file into their monitor profile, including their gamma.

I generally do not embed a profile, to keep the file size down...

[Mike_Ornellas@adobeforums.com]

sinner.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Pierre,

It may be obsolete to you, but I still find gamma 1.8 preferable. I don't deal with web images or prepress, though.

[Paul_Albert@adobeforums.com]

Folks,

I know about the Gamma and how you could make an image look ideal for Windows users if you did X or ideal for Mac users if you did Y, but is there some kind of something out there (JavaScript, maybe) which adjusts images on the fly in accordance with any given web user's monitor settings? Doesn't Adobe GoLive offer something of this nature?

Thanks,
Paul

[Tim_Lookingbill@adobeforums.com]

I along with others have been discussing and experimenting on this issue in the Color Management forums for quite some time.

It is a problem that can't be completely controlled due to the fact that, like TV's, there are to many inconsistencies between system level graphics and their monitors displayed on.

Channel surf on your cable/satellite TV and you'll see what I mean. Do all shows have the same black level? Channels? If you think you have problems on the web, you should see what broadcast/DVD video edtiting people have to deal with:

<http://www.signvideo.com/dv-black-levels-dvd-authoring-mpeg-2-part-1.htm>

It's a three parter.

[Peter_Figen@adobeforums.com]

Paul,

sRGB was designed to represent an average PC monitor and that color space has become the defacto web standard. There is no way you can know exactly how any particular monitor out there is calibrated, much less it's viewing conditions. All you can really do is shoot for an average and hope for the best. The gamma of your own display won't matter if it's calibrated and you convert your web images to sRGB, which itself has a 2.2 gamma. There are simply too many factors to guarantee that everyone sees the same thing to spend that much time worrying about it. A lot of people will be looking at something very close to what you want and the rest of them will be somewhere in the ballpark.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Hi Tim,

Sounds like you are still working on this topic. I changed my habits way back when we had that lively discussion going that the Gamma PC vs MAC thread. <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.1de8b599/0>

You're right in that there continues to be variables that determine how something looks on screen, even from one PC to another... at least by changing my settings, I managed to get closer to my PC friends.

[Tim_Lookingbill@adobeforums.com]

If you do color critical work as an integral part of sales off the web, such as fine art prints, clothing or furniture, the only solution, in my opinion, is to have a small color target for customers to calibrate too.

If they don't want to hassle with it, provide a disclaimer from responsibility for any surprises encountered from perceived color of shipped item off the web.

Look at HQV, HSN. Have you seen the gorgeous HiDef images of their products on cable TV? I wonder how many returns they receive based on unexpected color of said item? Probably not much.

[Tim_Lookingbill@adobeforums.com]

Hi LRK,

I've been experimenting with converting to sRGB space in PS and I don't care much for the yellowing affect it puts in the image when viewed on my Mac system set to 2.4 based perceptual gamma curve created with SuperCal.

Gamma shifts are not my major concern. It's pretty subtle. But to see a nice sky blue take on a yellowish tinge when converting to sRGB and viewed in Save For Web, doesn't sit with me very well but it's still no big deal.

I'm assuming the sRGB space is thinking the majority of PC monitors have a blue violet tint to their display compared to AdobeRGB. Yellow neutralizes purplish blue violets.

My display is set to D65 and it has a greenish blue tint compared to my Trinitron phosphor based pinkish blue Sharp TV I compare it to.

[Ronald_Lanham@adobeforums.com]

Linda,

Am I missing something or are you saying that you've changed your entire workflow to reflect the sRGB settings and a 2.2gamma?

Or are you just using this for web work and perhaps you mainly do web work and this is the reason?

Have you looked closely at the difference in images in general when the monitor is set to a 2.2 gamma versus a 1.8 gamma?

I'm not denying that if a person has a site, or creates sites for others, that will mostly be viewed by PC users that setting calibrations to reflect sRGB + 2.2 gamma is not a good idea... I just think it's not a good idea in general... especially for print media.

I read through this thread quickly so maybe I'm missing something.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

Hi Ron,

Not my entire workflow. I do keep my monitor at 2.2 but when I work on print projects I change my Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign Color Management settings to US Prepress Defaults, using US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 for CMYK conversions, unless given other settings by the printer.

Last year I probably had a little more Web work than print work but it was pretty close to 50/50.

Outside of Photoshop, such as using a Web browser, I do notice a big difference between 2.2 and 1.8 gamma on my monitor. But it's not just the gamma that I've changed, it's the White Point settings, 6500 now. Prior to that thread, I was using the Mac Standard 9300. I changed everything back when the Gamma vs PC thread was going and I haven't looked back since. From what I understand, the 2.2 gamma is better for print and web. sRGB is another story.

[Ronald_Lanham@adobeforums.com]

From what I understand, the 2.2 gamma is better for print...

Linda... would you give me a reference for this?

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

I'll try to find one. Let's see how I do. I could be wrong.

[LRK@adobeforums.com]

I'm pretty sure it was something Bruce Fraser said at the same thread I was referring to, possibly starting at around this post. <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.1de8b599/200>

Here is one quote from Bruce (hope he doesn't mine)...

The "Gamma 1.8 Standard" really never existed -- it was simply a nod to
the fact that the Mac OS applied a gamma correction to the display that
the PC OSs didn't. If you actually went out and measured a bunch of uncalibrated
Mac monitors you'd find that the gamma was all over the place, because it
depends on the way the black level and luminance (brightness and contrast)
are set.

No-one is telling you to change this standard that didn't really exist.
What we ARE saying is that, when the black level is set correctly, at reasonable
white luminances, a gamma of around 2.2 will produce smoother gradients
and a fuller range of levels than some other setting -- the monitor is displaying
as many colors as it can. If that's not what you want, don't do it!

I'll continue reading for more info.

[Ronald_Lanham@adobeforums.com]

Linda,

Not trying to put you on the spot... in fact I found something I'd filed away about 1.8 vs 2.2 (re. link below).

It appears the general concensus is that 2.2 is fine. I'm use to 1.8, but after rereading the following again I may change. I figure if it's good enough for Andrew... <g>

re. Why Mac is 1.8 and PC is 2.2 <http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=147539&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1>

[Ronald_Lanham@adobeforums.com]

Oops!

Just reread the link again and I think I'll stay at 1.8.

You CAN calibrate your Mac to 2.2. Outside of Photoshop, the previews of windows and such will look dark and contrastly but that's not a big deal. Or you can calibrate to 1.8 in which case, the two previews in Photoshop should match.
Andrew Rodney (from the link in post #18)