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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 doesnąt 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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 doesnąt 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? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"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.) |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"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. |
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 |