Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gammas 1.8, 2.2  (Read 2515 times)
mbalensiefer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« on: November 26, 2008, 01:56:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!
 I have profiled my monitor on Windows to 1.8. I have also selected the 1.8 Gamma setting on my scanner.
 I have profiled my monitor on my Mac to 2.2. I have also selected the 2.2 Gamma setting on my scanner, when connected to this computer.
 
 Question:
 When I scan the same picture within both OS's with these settings applied; will each resultant .jpg look the same on the opposite OS as that OS's original scan?

Michael
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2008, 02:01:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mbalensiefer
Hi!
 I have profiled my monitor on Windows to 1.8. I have also selected the 1.8 Gamma setting on my scanner.
 I have profiled my monitor on my Mac to 2.2. I have also selected the 2.2 Gamma setting on my scanner, when connected to this computer.
 
 Question:
 When I scan the same picture within both OS's with these settings applied; will each resultant .jpg look the same on the opposite OS as that OS's original scan?

Michael

I thought that the 2.2 gamma applied to windows and the 1.8 gamma applied to MAC? Am I missing something?
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2008, 03:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
I thought that the 2.2 gamma applied to windows and the 1.8 gamma applied to MAC? Am I missing something?


Gamma settings are not dictated by computer system platforms, for example many monitors have a native gamma, at, or closer, to 2.2 - unless there is a good reason don't force the monitor away from its native state.

Scanner - forget the 1.8 or 2.2 gamma settings, as set fast rules, and experiment with higher settings closer to 2.8  
a higher gamma produces smoother, improved shadow detail,
no sudden contrast changes,  
retains almost the same mid-tone to highlight contrast ratio

You need to experiment with different gamma settings. I often change the scanners gamma to higher settings for Velvia, especially those images captured in full light, with deep shadows. I lower the gamma, nearer 2.2, for specific negatives.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 04:53:33 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

mbalensiefer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2008, 10:51:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I should change my monitor's settings. Should it be set at 5700k or 6500k?

Thanks,
Michael
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8603



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2008, 10:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

IF you don't have an LCD with high bit, internal LUTs to do all adjustments, best to use Native Gamma and Native White Point.

There's little reason to force an arbitrary TRC gamma on a display. It is what it is, hence Native as an option.

There's no reason to force a display that's not anything close to 1.8 to 1.8 because its a Mac. And hopefully that will all go away in the future.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mbalensiefer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2008, 01:11:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok. I changed my Gammas to read correctly; PC at 2.2 and Mac's at 1.8. Silly me.

How can I best (batch-file) my already-scanned, false-gamma'd, images UP .4 gamma?

Thank you,
Michael
Logged
David Good
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2008, 04:20:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Michael,

Both platforms (monitors) should gamma 2.2, or as Andrew said, unless using high end LCD's, choose the Native settings. Whether scanning prints or transparencies you may have to rescan them to avoid any heavy lifting in your editor of choice.

Dave
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad