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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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