Is Your Browser Color Managed?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


(And that, of course, still
doesn't take into account variations in color perception
between people. I'm, only pointing out software
differences here, which is a relatively small part of
the equation.)

people perceive colours in the same way.

if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.

Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
just as taste, and hearing do.

nope. this was well established long ago not to be true.

http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells

duh. they need a study to figure out that infecting some of the cells
in an eye will affect perception?

the fact remains that people with normal vision see colours the same.

Extraordinary! It so happened that at the moment I read that I had
http://www.livescience.com/21275-col...cientists.html up in
my browser. Of course you won't believe that article.

it's not that i don't believe it, it's that what it's about is not
relevant to normal vision.

In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells. The virus inserted
a gene into the DNA of the green cones it infected that converted
them into red cones.

obviously, if you infect and modify someone's physiology, things will
be different. duh.

ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.

and if you're going to mention colour blindness, that is also well
understood. there are even ways for those without colour blindness to
visualize what a colour blind person can see.

eizo has an option on some of its displays
http://www.color-blindness.com/2007/...es-colorblind-
vision/
Eizo went even one step further and introduced this simulations into
some of their LCD monitors as a hardware solution. This gives you a
realtime transition, which doesn¹t need any CPU time and is working
even with fast moving movies.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| 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.

I think there's an issue of context here, which is part
of the original point. If you share a high quality photo
with photographer friends, or maybe a publisher, you
may assume they have a calibrated monitor on their end
and you can coordinate what OS/software they use to
view the image.

no need to coordinate what os/software they use.

this is particularly true on a mac where *everything* is colour
managed. even the icons.

So if they see some problem it's likely to be an issue on
their end and perhaps you can straighten it out.

actually it's at your end, since they'll see what you saw. that's the
point of colour management.

there could be *other* problems though, such as not being able to read
a certain file type.

If you post a JPG online, to share or use on a webpage,
any inconsistency is not the viewer's "problem". It's your
problem if you expected precision. Presumably you're doing
your best to make a consistent presentation, but you have
to accept the context and recognize that your audience
will see various things. It's just the nature of the medium.

if the viewer has a non-calibrated system, then it absolutely is their
problem, one which they can easily solve too.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

An interesting example of something similar made
the rounds online awhile back:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...e-dress-blue-b
lack-white-gold-vision-psychology-colour-constancy

you *really* don't understand colour.

https://twitter.com/Sci_Phile/status/862009299274485760

more optical illusions:
http://brainden.com/images/same-color-illusion-big.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba.../the-blue-and-
the-green/

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2006/06/15/black-and-white-to-color/

and a really weird one:
http://i.imgur.com/mN4Dy.png

In article ,
nospam wrote:

if the viewer has a non-calibrated system, then it absolutely is their
problem, one which they can easily solve too.

Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
unaware of the problem.
--
teleportation kills

On May 26, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 25 May 2017 23:35:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

That, to me, isn't the objective of photography as a hobby. What I
want to accomplish is to take a photograph of an interesting subject
and process that photograph in such a way that presents it in a manner
that appeals to me.

That has pretty much been my goal, and one of my reasons for my interest in
many of the different image editing options, regardless of my normal LR CC/PS
CC workflow. However, there have been times the appeal of SOOC JPEGs have
been appealing.


I have no particular interest in seeing what someone else can do with
my original file. Nor do I have any particular interest in seeing
what I can do with someone else's photograph.

There are times I might see someone else's photograph, and be curious to see
what my approach and/or interpretation might produce. At the end of the day
it seems that becomes a personal thing and one is always going to favor one's
own work. Sometimes there is the element of an editing/adjustment challenge.


If I do my end of it right, and post up that image for others to see,
any critical comments I expect will have to with composition,
sharpness, perspective, and distractions in the image.

The issue with presenting an image online to be subjected to comment, is
still the intent of the creator of the image. Not every image is intended to
be a clear, sharp, documentary shot, and once you move into the realm of
photography as art other issues, not the least of which are interpretation,
and personal taste arise.


True color is not usually discernable by the viewer unless there's
something in the image that the viewer has knowledge of. A viewer
might know what a professional baseball player's uniform color should
be, but most hobby photography doesn't contain such benchmarks.

Mind you, I'm not talking about saturation or intensity of color; I'm
talking about replication of true color.

All the photographer can do is deliver an image that is true to his/her
vision and purpose, a color managed workflow can aid in this. If the image is
presented as an example of self expression, it isn't going to matter one bit
whether their workflow is color managed or not.


Also, don't take this as me diminishing the need for color management
or monitor calibration. That's something the originator of the image
should be concerned with, but not often something that comes into play
when sharing images online.

In that I agree. There is never a guarantee that any image is going to be
viewed as intended, but that is out of the hands of the photographer. For the
photographer using a color managed workflow he/she can be reasonable sure
that the image is going to be viewed within the bounds of his/her intent.


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 viewer?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.

If I see pink foliage and green sky, my assumption is that the
originator intended some treatment for effect.

Let's just say that was an exaggerated statement for some sort of hyperbolic
effect on my part, but with some of the stuff Peter shares anything could
happen. ;-)

Those effects are not
the result of poor color management or an uncalibrated monitor. The
difference between viewing the output of a color-managed workflow with
calibrated monitors on both ends, and viewing an image where neither
condition exists, is much more subtle than that. So subtle that it is
often unnoticed.

....and for any of us that is the best we can expect.


When it comes to color in a photograph, most of the problems are
created in post or the colors are not brought out in post. When we
see a photo online that has color problems we are usually viewing an
image that has been uploaded by someone who lacks skill in post or has
tried to achieve some look and not done it right.

There is that, or as Peter says, it is his artistic expression.


It's usually pretty obvious. But, we don't look at that image and
think that the originator's color management/monitor calibration
protocol was defective. We look at and think he's been ham-handed
with the sliders.

....or we wonder at what he/she could possibly have been thinking.


In summary, I think that a color-managed workflow and a calibrated
monitor can be essential to the originator of an image to achieve the
best result. I don't think it has much impact on how our images are
viewed by others when the image is posted online.

Ultimately it doesn't.

A color managed workflow is actually more important when it comes to
printing.

I know that most of the people I share my work with have no idea what a color
managed/calibrated system is. I would also hazard a guess that less than a
handful of the usual suspects in this NG actually use a fully color managed
workflow/system.

Other factors have more impact.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 26, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 26 May 2017 07:44:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2017-05-26 14:24:01 +0000, said:

wrote

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.

I think there's an issue of context here, which is part
of the original point. If you share a high quality photo
with photographer friends, or maybe a publisher, you
may assume they have a calibrated monitor on their end
and you can coordinate what OS/software they use to
view the image.
So if they see some problem it's likely to be an issue on
their end and perhaps you can straighten it out.

If you post a JPG online, to share or use on a webpage,
any inconsistency is not the viewer's "problem". It's your
problem if you expected precision. Presumably you're doing
your best to make a consistent presentation, but you have
to accept the context and recognize that your audience
will see various things. It's just the nature of the medium.

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.

I think of you as a notably talented photographer.
You've posted photo after photo that have been
beautifully done. One of my favorites is a photo you
took of a swan that appeared to be swimming through
liquid obsidian.

I can't take credit for the shot you described, the shooter must be
PeterN, Tony, or some other yet to be IDed photographer.

I think I posted this one of mine, but I think he's remembering it in
more favor than it was received at the time.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan...-10-04-411.jpg

Just acknowledge that you have now received at least one favorable comment
for an image that isn’t bad.

I don’t recall making any comment one way, or another when you first posted
it.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Tony Cooper" wrote

| I can't take credit for the shot you described, the shooter must be
| PeterN, Tony, or some other yet to be IDed photographer.
|
| I think I posted this one of mine, but I think he's remembering it in
| more favor than it was received at the time.
|
|
https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan...-10-04-411.jpg
|
Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote
| I can't take credit for the shot you described, the shooter must be
| PeterN, Tony, or some other yet to be IDed photographer.
|
| I think I posted this one of mine, but I think he's remembering it in
| more favor than it was received at the time.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan...11-10-04-411.j
pg
|
Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas

check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.

however, there is this:

User Comment : (C)2009 Jill Florie

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan.../2011-10-04-41
1.j
pg
|
Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas

check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.

however, there is this:

User Comment : (C)2009 Jill Florie

I took that photo at Lake Eola in Orlando in October, 2011 (which is
shown in the EXIF. At that time, I was using a Nikon D60 camera body
that I purchased used from Keh. I no longer have the D60 and now use
a D300 that I also purchased used from Keh.

I have no idea who "Jill Florie" is unless she was the previous owner
of the D60.

couldn't afford a new camera?

On Thu, 25 May 2017 22:44:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

I started off by assuming that all three applications would make use
of the same color profile, but clearly they do not. I have since
switched my screen back to sRGB and found that the differences
persist, although not nearly so marked.

I have spent another hour trying to produce a screen dump which will
show all three renditions of your file side by side but I just cannot
get it to work. All three applications seem to do something which
interacts with one of the others. I can get two out of three depending
on what I do with PS Autoselect and which way I hold my tongue.

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.

Of course, but this was not a question which required a wide gamut to
answer. All we needed was a source image and several different ways to
view it. My experiments have generated more questions than they have
answers. I am still trying to discover the details of the way(s) that
Windows handles colors. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens