If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... I might well send proofs to a client, or friends or add specific prints. I might, and I have sent select prints to family members, or friends. -- teleportation kills |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On May 25, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): On Thu, 25 May 2017 17:06:30 -0700, Savageduck wrote: --- snip --- Is your computer screen calibrated? Do you have the necessary plugins? Maybe it's me, but anyone on Windows can test this easily enough. You could download his DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think. I would like to but I can't find the original link. Since that is my JPEG, I am happy to oblige; https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg Maybe they'll look exactly the same to you. But the saturation and sharpness clearly look different to me. You're not curious to know whether different software might convey such differences? (Probably having nothing to do with color management.) Well! That was interesting! I've downloaded the image via Dropbox and also directly as a JPG. I then loaded the JPG into Photoshop and also the Windows viewer. After a certain amount of twiddling I finished up with three images almost exactly the same size, side by side on the screen. The Photoshop and Firefox/Dropbox images were so similar that for practical purposes they were identical. No doubt determined pixel peeping would determine differences. The Windows viewer showed more detail in the shadows and the greens were somewhat greener. I thought it looked the best overall. I twice tried to take a screen print and dump it into a Photoshop file but twice I got nothing. In fact, the first time I tried it the computer locked up and I had to resort to turning it off. Yet on other occasions I have had no problems doing a screen dump. Most peculiar. I notice that the colour space used by Savageduck was sRGB while the screen on which I was using things was set to AdobeRGB. The screens make use of an internal color matrix rather than relying on something inside the computer. I am wondering whether or not Photoshop and Firefox are paying attention to Savageduck's color profile while Windows is just pouring it into my screen which displayed it as AdobeRGB. When I export to JPEG for online sharing I make the assumption that the viewer is going to use a browser which will default to sRGB. Photoshop and Firefox should both render in sRGB. Making a change from sRGB to A-RGB can result in issues such as banding due to the mismatched gamuts. If you want a wide gamut image file from me, ask for it, and you will get a TIFF, PSD, DNG, or other RAW file. TIFF or PSD will be in either ProPhoto RGB, or A-RGB, the DNG or RAW I will leave up to you. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On May 25, 2017, android wrote
(in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? If they are going to get an image for online viewing then it will be in sRGB. I work from RAW or TIFF in ProPhoto RGB using my calibrated display. The only time I print sRGB JPEGs is when somebody has sent me a JPEG they want printed. I print to my Epson R2880 (it is still going strong) using printer/paper specific icc profiles. I use Epson, Red River, and Ilford papers. Doing things that way I get great prints which in many ways exceed what I see on my display. I might well send proofs to a client, or friends or add specific prints. I might, and I have sent select prints to family members, or friends. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? It's internet standard... -- teleportation kills |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? It's internet standard... And you did wanna use the internet, right? -- teleportation kills |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On 2017-05-26 06:04:58 +0000, android said:
In article .com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? It's internet standard... For online viewing, not printing. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article 2017052523112329662-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: On 2017-05-26 06:04:58 +0000, android said: In article .com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? It's internet standard... For online viewing, not printing. And online viewing was your original problem... -- teleportation kills |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On 2017-05-26 06:06:07 +0000, android said:
In article .com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In iganews.com, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, android wrote (in ): In , Tony Cooper wrote: I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print. ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion? Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on... Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my workflow? It's internet standard... And you did wanna use the internet, right? You don't read everything that is written do you? I will share JPEGs for online viewing in sRGB, but I don't print from JPEG or use sRGB for my print workflow, which has nothing to do with the internet. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article 20170525231507560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: You don't read everything that is written do you? I will share JPEGs for online viewing in sRGB, but I don't print from JPEG or use sRGB for my print workflow, which has nothing to do with the internet. And the original topic was... Drum drum drum! "Is Your Browser Color Managed?" -- teleportation kills |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On 2017-05-26 06:09:40 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
On Thu, 25 May 2017 22:25:20 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote (in ): On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:03:45 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On May 25, 2017, Mayayana wrote (in article ): "nospam" wrote while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across multiple devices. No, you can't. As the article shows, even if you use color management on your own devices, IE may show a different image from Firefox. (That's the quote you snipped. If you want to disagree with the author that's one thing, but you could at least read the article we're talking about.) LetÂ’s start with the understanding that none of us, not even the most fastidious of the color managed workflow fiends among us, can control the viewing environment an online shared image is viewed on. It is of no consequence if the image is viewed on a smart phone, a tablet, a Mac, or a WIN machine, regardless of viewing software. If the creator of the image edits with a color managed workflow, he/she should be confident that he/she has shared an image faithful to his/her intentions. Producing prints faithful to the edited/adjusted intent, is a totally different proposition and shouldnÂ’t be a part of this particular discussion. Perhaps we can return to that as a separate subject, even though it has been discussed in this NG many times before. But getting back to the original point, I wasn't questioning the value of color management locally. I was only saying that once it comes to the Web the idea of controlling what people see is not realistic. The author mentions that sRGB should be used for the Web. So what value does color management in the browser have, unless you're viewing something like a friend's art photographs with an embedded color profile other than sRGB? A real world example: A real world example for me would entail shooting in RAW, adjusting and editing that RAW file using LR, or ACR+PS in ProPhoto RGB, or one or another of the apps I might be using. Once the edit/adjustment was complete to my satisfaction I would export using the export dialog of the controlling software. That is usually an export to JPEG with sRGB embedded. When shared online I know for most, that the recipientÂ’s OS + browser of choice, and monitor used is not going to make an awkward extrapolation from Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto RGB to sRGB. The image delivered should be consistent with my intent. However, I canÂ’t be responsible for an uncalibrated monitor at the receiving end, so if the online viewer reports an inconsitancy he/she perceives, I can make a reasonable assumption that there might well be an issue with their viewing environment, not mine. I am still baffled by this type of thinking. Why? The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended. Agreed. However, if all of your work is done in a color managed environment converted to sRGB on export and JPEG conversion for online sharing, the viewer should see an image as you intended. For the most part they might well see an image which is not 100% identical to the original edit, but close enough that any subtle differences will be irrelevant. How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values? All the viewer can do is accept that the poster of the image has made adjustments to his/her liking for that particular subject/scene. If there is something wrong such as a color tone, saturation level, banding in color fields, etc., to the viewerÂ’s eye, it is worth commenting on, and querying the issue. That way the image creator can at least clarify their intent and/or methodology. There can only be consistency with a standard. Your output is the standard in this case, and your actual output is what you see on your monitor. Agreed. I can't see your monitor, so I have no idea if the image on my monitor is consistent with that. I can't report an inconsistency when I have no standard to use to compare. You can certainly report that something about the image doesnÂ’t look right to you. That opens the discussion, and via feedback, response, and constructive criticism an answer might be reached. Provided individuals on either end of the exchange are open to that discussion without entering a flame war. You're wandering afield. Your original statement, which prompted my comment, was "so if the online viewer reports an inconsitancy he/she perceives, I can make a reasonable assumption that there might well be an issue with their viewing environment, not mine." Yup! That would be a reasonable assumption. Now the viewer should describe the inconsitancy he/she perceives. You are stating that any comment from a viewer that reports an inconsistency can be assumed to be a problem at the viewer's end. Tell me what is troubling you and we might come to a consensus as to whether or not you are seeing my intended image, or if I have made some gross illogical adjustment, or if it is a taste issue, or a problem with the viewer's system. An image that "doesn't look right" is not necessarily an image that is inconsistent with your standard. Agreed. I see quite a number of images which don't look right to me, and I have no doubt that some of my images might not look right to some viewers. Some of that might be my editing/adjustment, some of it might be taste, but whatever it is I know that I am working with a regularly calibrated display with a color managed work flow. For example, in many of your images the grass in the image "doesn't look right" to me. California grass is different from Florida grass in color. I may be seeing what you intended, but still not feel the image is right. In this case, the inconsistency is the viewer's perception of what is right. Agreed. Florida and California are quite different. Right now, the grass around here which was a a vivid saturated green, has turned to straw just in time for our fire season. In some of your photographs you've made the sky more dramatic in post. I don't know if you've done that or if that's what the sky actually looked like that day. If I think the result is not quite right, that's not an issue where what I view is not consistent with what you intended. Yup! I have made adjustments to the sky using grad filters, and those images will be quite different from the unprocessed RAW files. Sometimes I have not needed to adjust the sky at all. I guess you might say that was part of my intention. The best you can expect is to attempt to level the playing field by having both the sender and the viewer viewing the image under the same conditions as far as the delivered image goes. I guess the easiest way to do that is to just take "me" out of ther interpretation and just share the RAW file, or perhaps a SOOC JPEG. I might actually do more of just that since I am getting pretty good SOOC JPEGs of of my X-T2. All the viewer can report is whether or not he likes the rendition. If he doesn't like it, it is not at all indicative that it's not what you intended. He may be viewing exactly what you intended, and still not like it. First establish that the image as shared is as intended. After that there is only individual taste, and we all know there is no accounting for taste. In this NG that happens all the time, it can be frustration when, what is a perfectly good image is ruined when shared simply due to resizing and heavy JPEG compression, which has nothing to do with a color managed workflow, but presents an online image which is nothing like the original edit. Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at something completely different from your intended appearance. Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewerÂ’s perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and green sky. ...and if you were shooting IR all bets are off. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
have i managed to buy a camera with two faulty lenses | sean-sheehan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 21 | September 20th 10 05:37 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital Photography | 23 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |