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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 doesnąt need any CPU time and is working even with fast moving movies. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
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 |