What Display Gamma - 1.8 or 2.2?

Reuben,

Set your gamma to 2.2 if you need to ask. The images on your Mac will then match 99% of the world's monitors.

A gamma of 1.8 is a throwback to matching tones between LaserWriters and B&W Mac displays.

Cheers,

Andreas

Reuben,

Are you a pro photographer?
I suggest 1.8 only because as a pro photo'r I know all my clients use Mac's and will be viewing and working with my images on Mac's with the default Mac gamma of 1.8. If in doubt as your clients.
If they are going to use your images for web applications they will (should, if they are at all professional) view any site they have created on a windows 2.2 gamma machine and adjust your images accordingly.

Are you a serious amatuer?
I suggest 2.2 if most of the use of your images is web based and you are publishing to or via the web yourself.

Anyone agree with me?!

Just had another thought. I am posting this in case you subscribe to your questions or someone does a search in at a later date...
Set your Mac up to 2.2 gamma save it named so.
Then set up your Mac to the prefered working 1.8 gamma and save it named so.
Then in Aperture you can choose "On Screen Proofing" from the VIEW drop down menu.
Now choose the relevant gamma profile from "Proofing Profile" from the VIEW drop down menu. (You will not see the changes when your image is in Grid mode)
This way you can very quickly swap between Gamma's to see how you image will look on the different platforms. Top Tip: Get in the habit of checking that it is set on the right one every time you use Aperture!

i disagree.

anyone who is a professional photographer, PC or Mac will have their monitors calibrated to gamma 2.2 and D65 temperature. this is the standard color space.

even if your clients are viewing on a 1.8 gamma monitor, if you convert the right color space for the web (sRGB), you clients should be able to see a good representation of the image. most modern web browsers know how to use the color profiles embedded in JPGs.


scott

Except for WebKit-based browser (ie, Safari (Mac/Win), Omniweb, Shira) no current browser knows anything about CM and will ignore embedded profiles.

But, if the images are always viewed in CM-aware applications, the difference between gamma 1.8 and 2.2 does not really matter too much. It still have some effect, as will the brightness setting of the respective monitor and color temperature setting and even more the room lighting.

Calibrating your monitor and using CM-applications are the most important step, setting your gamma to 2.2, the temperature to 6500K (or even better native, which will be close to 6500K for LCDs), the brightness to ~120 cd are additional steps to standardize and optimize the viewing conditions. Having a neutral, rather dim room lighting is another important factor. Having a strongly colored wall in front of you, will noticeably shift your perception of colors.

Yes, Apple seems to design their (non-CM) user interfaces to look best at gamma 1.8 (I don't really notice the difference anymore but others do). That may be one reason why they still stick with a default gamma of 1.8, it takes to much of an effort change all the user interface elements to look good at 2.2.

One could create a stepped grey gradient in a profile-less image file and compare it on an iPod touch and a Mac.

Reuben,

Voila!

I couldn't find that article earlier today.

Cheers,

Andreas

Are display profiles suitable for use as output profiles?

(On the original question, 2.2 is what I'd pick. It's the native gamma of the Apple Cinema Displays, too.)