Is Your Browser Color Managed?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I am still trying to discover the details of the way(s) that
Windows handles colors. :-(

so is microsoft

On Fri, 26 May 2017 10:58:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

You have taken a very selective quote from the article. There is much
more to ithan just the work with monkeys.

ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.

By definition. But how many extraordinary people with abnormal vision
see colors differently and don't even know that they do?

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.

You should see
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/...ectid=11862311
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

You have taken a very selective quote from the article. There is much
more to ithan just the work with monkeys.

yep. you're focused on exceptions. i'm focused the norm.

http://dba.med.sc.edu/price/irf/Adobe_tg/models/cie.html
CIE has two specifications for a standard observer: the original 1931
specification and a revised 1964 specification. In both cases the
standard observer is a composite made from small groups of
individuals (about 15-20) and is representative of normal human color
vision. Both specifications used a similar technique to match colors
to an equivalent RGB tristimulus value:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_19...andard_observe
r
Due to the distribution of cones in the eye, the tristimulus values
depend on the observer's field of view. To eliminate this variable,
the CIE defined a color-mapping function called the standard
(colorimetric) observer, to represent an average human's chromatic
response within a 2° arc inside the fovea. This angle was chosen
owing to the belief that the color-sensitive cones resided within a
2° arc of the fovea. Thus the CIE 1931 Standard Observer function is
also known as the CIE 1931 2° Standard Observer. A more modern but
less-used alternative is the CIE 1964 10° Standard Observer, which is
derived from the work of Stiles and Burch, and Speranskaya.

ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.

By definition. But how many extraordinary people with abnormal vision
see colors differently and don't even know that they do?

not enough to matter.

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.

You should see
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/...ectid=11862311

what about it?

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

On Fri, 26 May 2017 19:44:14 -0400,
wrote:

In , Mayayana
wrote:

"Tony 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.../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.

I guess the lesson here is; Check the menus settings in used cameras.

There is no guarantee that KEH has reset anything. That also goes for your
D300.

The swan in the photo is an Australian black swan as shown on this
page about Lake Eola:

http://www.cityoforlando.net/wp-cont...an_trifold.pdf

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 26 May 2017 08:04:58 +0200, android wrote:

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...

It's only Internet standard because for a long time it was an
acceptable color space which most displays might almost fill (although
even now most of the cheaper screens fall short). There is now a flood
of higherquality displays starting to emerge on the market and I
suspect that sRGB's days as 'the' standard are numbered.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
workflow?

It's internet standard...

It's only Internet standard because for a long time it was an
acceptable color space which most displays might almost fill (although
even now most of the cheaper screens fall short). There is now a flood
of higherquality displays starting to emerge on the market and I
suspect that sRGB's days as 'the' standard are numbered.

dci-p3 is the emerging standard, with a couple hundred million devices
already out there.

On Fri, 26 May 2017 17:44:21 +0200, android wrote:

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.

I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| 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.

Usually it works to just press PrtScr. If one of
the programs is interfering (Irfan View does that)
then you might be able to use Alt + PrtScr to get
one window at a time. (It captures the active
window.)

On Fri, 26 May 2017 14:47:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2017 10:24:01 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Savageduck" 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.
But now, with this discussion, I realize that my color
management is so poor I was probably just looking
at a photo of that crummy California grass and it was
distorted on my monitor.

I've posted a swan-on-water, but would another type of bird on darker
water appeal mo

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellan...3-25-45-XL.jpg

Then there is
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yx7n7i038j...00210.jpg?dl=0
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"nospam" wrote

| 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.
|
I'm talking about the pelican photo.