Filed under: Leopard, Snow Leopard
Make your display's gamma in Leopard match Snow Leopard
John Gruber mentioned in a recent post about Apple's Snow Leopard list of Enhancements and Refinements that one of the small adjustments to Snow Leopard will be that the default gamma on displays will switch from the typical 1.8 value to 2.2, which is what is used on TVs as well as being the long-standing default gamma value in Windows.
Gamma affects the visual contrast you see on your screen, and a higher value indicates a higher level of contrast. The cost of this higher contrast is that you lose some detail on the less luminous parts of your screen.
If you're interested in seeing what this is going to look like in Snow Leopard, or switching your gamma setting now so that you're used to it ahead of time, here are the steps to do it using the Display Calibrator Assistant:
- Head into System Preferences, and click on the Displays icon.
- Click on the Color tab, and press the Calibrate... button.
- On the Introduction window that opens, click Continue
- On the next screen, "Select a target gamma", choose "2.2 Television Gamma"
- Click Continue leaving your Target White Point set to Native (or whatever yours is set to)
- Now name the new profile you've created, click Continue and then Done.
- Lastly, you can now choose to switch between your default color profile, and your newly created profile with the gamma set to 2.2.
I realize this might seem terribly obvious to some users, but for others playing with color profiles is not ground they've previously covered. If you're one of those people, this tip is for you.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Logie said 10:19AM on 6-12-2009
I have a wide gamut monitor which doesn't work very well out of correctly managed applications. The new Safari still doesn't work out the correct colour space, so fingers crossed for wide gamut goodness all round in Snow Leopard.
Reply
HandyMac said 10:19AM on 6-12-2009
I've been doing this on every Mac I set up for years, as the default 1.8 always looks washed out. Professionals have to get into more detail, of course, but for the average user I think the 2.2 setting is more pleasant to look at all day.
Reply
Alistair Holt said 10:21AM on 6-12-2009
Hmm.. 2.2 looks awful.
Reply
Nick said 10:25AM on 6-12-2009
Wow.
I was definitely one of those "never covered this ground before" types, and I am literally SHOCKED by the amazing difference this makes. When I switch back and forth between the original & new, calibrated color profiles, it's such a drastic change. Granted, the Calibration Assistant also had me fidget just a little with my brightness & contrast (not by too much though), but still - the colors are so much richer now.
Thanks!!
Reply
jonbruck said 10:25AM on 6-12-2009
2.2 gamma has been standard in the graphics world for a while now.
Reply
eric f. said 10:57AM on 6-12-2009
In the graphics world we use calibration tools too, not Apples built in Calibration Assistant. 2.2 may look prettier with it's higher contrast, but I need to see all the shadow detail when I'm retouching my photos.
brian said 10:32AM on 6-12-2009
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html
** Finder
* Rewritten for Snow Leopard.
The Finder has been completely rewritten using Cocoa to take advantage of the new technologies in Snow Leopard, including 64-bit support and Grand Central Dispatch. It’s more responsive from top to bottom, with ***snappier*** performance throughout the Finder.
It's right there in black and white, folks--IT'S GOT TEH SNAPPY!!!!!11 :-)
In all seriousness, there are LOTS of good things coming. Stuff that should have been done YEARS ago, like
"If you put an item in the Trash, then change your mind, you can restore it to its original location." -- Ooh! just like WINDOWS 95!
and
"Improved dialogs tell you which applications are using the drive so you know what to close in order to safely disconnect your drive." -- SWEET!
Reply
duh said 10:54AM on 6-12-2009
Brian -
"If you put an item in the Trash, then change your mind, you can restore it to its original location." -- Ooh! just like WINDOWS 95!
You mean just like Mac OS 9 ;)
bongl said 12:38PM on 6-13-2009
Back under the bridge, please…
brian said 1:15PM on 6-12-2009
(Not a Windows fan/Mac hater, just pointing some things out...)
First of all, Win95 came out before Mac OS 9. :-) Secondly, IIRC, OS 9 would let you "put away" (command-Y) something from the trash, but only the last thing you threw away. Windows, and now 10.6, will let you restore *any* item, at any time, with a right-click option. My point being--it's been done, it's trivial, and it's about *$%#$^ time.
Many other cool features coming out, including HFS+ read support in Boot Camp and the ability to record your screen with QuickTime X.
iheartbeer said 3:04PM on 6-12-2009
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but "Put Away" was introduced in 1991 with System 7.
I just tested it in OS9 and it works with all items, not just the last thing you put away. Not only that, it works with placing items in other folders, not just the trash. Mac OS always got a bad rep from people who didn't know shiat about it.
zipperseven said 10:54AM on 6-12-2009
Maybe it's just me but I much prefer the original setting.
Of course I tweak the calibration on almost anything so perhaps the 2.2 just looks worse with 'my' settings rather than the default.
Reply
matteorampazzi said 11:12AM on 6-12-2009
Improved dialogs tell you which applications are using the drive so you know what to close in order to safely disconnect your drive.
Isn't that what Time Machine is for? Seems redundant to me...
Time Machine saved my... back... more than once.
I recalibrated the monitor, feels better now. I will check the difference next time that I use Aperture.
Reply
Kevlar said 12:21PM on 6-12-2009
Either you misunderstood the text, you have no idea what time machine does, or your sarcasm was not very apparent.
This feature is if you're using files on an external disk, and you try to eject the disk, instead of the usual "A file on this device is in use ... blah blah blah ... please quit the program before ejecting" message, you'll get a new "The following programs are using this drive : Photoshop, Console, Finder"
Time machine is for backup...
matteorampazzi said 11:14AM on 6-12-2009
Nice... I quoted the wrong sentence. But luckily there's the "edit" option... Oh... wait... never mind...
It's been a hard day of work. Sorry for the misquote. I was referring to the "put back" option of the trash...
Reply
Kevlar said 12:23PM on 6-12-2009
And replying to your own comment might make it apparent that you noticed the problem, instead of posting separately below, which makes it look like you're posting again about something else, and makes me look bad for trying to correct you.
... I know, this comment system is a little less than intuitive.
puhsitch said 5:49PM on 6-12-2009
The "put back" comes into play before you empty the trash.
If you accidentally throw a file in the trash, but then change your mind, you can essentially "undo" your action and send the file back whence it came without having to remember the exact location.
John Storm said 11:30AM on 6-12-2009
Everyone toning photos on a Mac, amateur or professional, should be using 2.2 Gamma if you are not using a hardware colorimeter and accompanying software for calibrating your display. Using 1.8 Gamma so "you can see the shadow detail better" sounds great in theory, but the reality is you need to tone for the output/viewing medium, whether that is a print or other computers.
If you are using 1.8 gamma, the images will not look the way you intended when someone looks at them on a Windows machine, a Mac set for 2.2, on a TV, or printed. As an extension of this thought, it's better for something to look incorrectly brighter if viewed at 1.8. This is the lesser of two evils compared to toning at 1.8 and making things too dark when viewed at 2.2.
Reply
DJFriar said 3:25PM on 6-12-2009
Since I'm a curious fellow, could you toss out a laymans definition of what exactly gamma is and why it looks so different when we change 1.8 to 2.2?
Luigi193 said 12:02PM on 6-12-2009
I don't really like 2.2 =(
Reply