windows 7 default gamma ?

[kvdv]

Hi,

I just installed Win7 x64 (for testing (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/#) purposes) on my Macbook Pro 17" LED screen (Macbook v4.1) and I notice that the initial screen settings in Windows 7 are set so that my screen looks extremely bright! I don't know whether it's a gamma setting or brightness/contrast or something else, but the desktop and of course photos look ridiculously bright now! It's like the initial gamma setting is something like 1.4 or even less!!! I know, it's sounds crazy... but I'm seeing so much (ugly) information in (extreme) dark areas of my photos, which is impossible to see at gamma 2.2 or even 1.8!

Now, I know that Win7 has an easy to use Gamma/Screen adjust wizard and if you walk through it, the screen settings can be easily set to a more normal setting. Although this is good, I know that many users, especially Windows users, are very lazy about configuring in general and especially calibrating their screen, so I'm worried that most new W7 user will not do this and watch online photos (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/#) on a screen which is set way(!!) to bright.

Windows 7 shows the photos so extremely bright!! Or maybe I'm totally wrong and it's all about color (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/#) rendering in IE8 under W7 x64 ? At this moment, I'm clueless....

Can anyone confirm having the same experience with Win7 on a PC (or on a Macbook)? I'm worried that all new Windows 7 (http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/#) users will have the wrong screen settings and that all of my photos will look very(!) bad on PC's in the coming years.

Thanks,
Kris

[basroil]

2.2 is brighter than 1.8. If it was 1.4, it would be very dark on your typical screen. And no, Windows users are not lazy about configuring their screens any more so than a typical Mac user. Assumptions like that are what cause the "mac vs pc" arguments to start.

If your laptop initially shipped out with 10.5 or lower, perhaps the drivers that came for bootcamp don't yet work on W7, so you are displaying at 2.2 when it should be at 1.8 to match your display profile (which should work with any windows version). However, until you can get us your current setup instead of bashing the OS and its users, we can't really help you fix anything.

[kvdv]

Windows tech/power users are not lazy, in fact, they will configure and tune more than most Apple users. But, what I meant was, that most users out there in the world are not tech savvy and will not change or configure their computer and most of them use Windows. I know that if I upload a new photo and my Aunt Anna and Uncle Pete are going to check out my new pictures using Windows 7, that they have *not* run the built-in Windows calibration tool!

I used the latest Boot Camp 3.0 drivers for Windows7. But you're right, maybe the drivers are still a bit buggy?

Gamma 1.8 is brighter than gamma 2.2. I'm using 2.2 as a default in OSX, because 99.9% of all Windows users are set to 2.2. When I change to gamma 1.8, my screen is more bright and, obvisously, my photos too and they display more information in the dark areas. And like I said, in W7 default screen setting, the dark parts are so bright it's completely ridiculous.

Thanks for the reply.

-Kris

[Todd Lambert]

Actually, starting with Snow Leopard, OS X now defaults to 2.2 in order to match the rest of the computer world.

As a web developer, one of the very first things I ever did, was change the gamma to 2.2 in order to match Windows. I am very glad that Apple has finally given up on 72dpi and 1.8 gamma, even though they are actually more correct, since they relate to WYSWG and printing. The rest of the world moved to 96dpi and 2.2 gamma and it took this long for Apple to finally give in and just go along with the rest of the world.

[kvdv]

Todd,

I did the same thing a year ago when I started using OSX: I changed to 2.2. As a photographer it was very frustrating to see my pictures I edited in 1.8, being too dark on a 2.2 screen. Why Apple used the 1.8 setting for so long is difficult to understand for me. :)

Anyway, have you tried Win7? Seriously, the default setting (using Boot Camp at least) is crazy, it looks like the screen is set to gamma 1.0! :) I can only guess, because I think you can't really look at the precise setting in Windows (I'm not sure about that). But, as I wrote in my previous post, it could very well be caused by a buggy Apple driver for the Mabook Pro's videocard. But it was very interesting : I noticed a lot of editing errors in my photos that nobody would have ever seen in gamma 1.8 or above ;)

-Kris

[Todd Lambert]

Hmmm, interesting. I only have Win 7 in a virtual machine, so it's not going to change the actual monitor for me to check it for ya.

Makes me curious though.

[kvdv]

That's right, in a VM I don't have that problem.

A 3rd possibility is that the IE8 64bit version (in Win7 x64) is rendering pages incorrectly. I've never used this version before.

I can only hope that it's truly a faulty driver ... :)

-Kris

[basroil]

IE8 is not color managed. Try Firefox and see what the difference is.

[kvdv]

That's right, but I'm not uploading my pictures with color profiles included, so it wouldn't make a difference in my case. Also, the difference with normal gamma settings is much too big, I don't think a color management profile attached to your JPG would solve this problem. But I'll try it anyway, I'm curious. Thanks.

[René Damkot]

That's right, but I'm not uploading my pictures with color profiles included, so it wouldn't make a difference in my case.
Yes, it would. If you set FF 3.5 to fully color manage, it'll assume sRGB for untagged images.

[kvdv]

sRGB? Hey, that's interesting... didn't know that.

When I edit photos I proof them against "Windows monitor", then I know it looks identical when I upload my JPG without color profile.


So I guess sRGB and "Windows monitor" are very similar then?..


Thanks for the input guys!
Kris

[René Damkot]

So I guess sRGB and "Windows monitor" are very similar then?..

Not just similar: Identical.