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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"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.) 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: Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera. He then decides to post some online for family to see. First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default? So why embed an sRGB profile? Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress and he's got a picture of that to post. But something's wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look cranberry. So he adjusts the hue. So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts to something like Dropbox, they might further compress or shrink for the same reason. Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in several ways from the original shot. What advantage did color management give him? It helped to ensure that he saw on his monitor the most accurate possible colors as captured by the camera. Whatever those are. He thought Susan's dress needed to be altered. Was that a problem with his eyesight? Or was the shot tinged? Or was he so taken by Susan's behind that he imagined, in "hindsight", let's say, that her dress was brighter than it actually was? No matter. The image goes online. Now 20 family members see it. It's unlikely that even one of those people has installed the color profile for their monitor, much less calibrated their monitor with an external device. They have different browsers, different eyes, different OSs, different monitors. They're all looking at a notably downgraded version of an altered photo of Susan's dress. What purpose did it serve that Eric calibrated his monitor? Almost none. It only helped him to get the colors he wanted for his own eyes, on his own computer, as he looked at the image of Susan colored by his own imagination of what he saw at the party. And as the article author pointed out, even on his machine, his color managed browser is probably not showing him the exact same colors that Photoshop is showing him. Then his cousin Ed writes and says, "Nice pictures. But how did Susan's orange dress come out red?" Where's the discrepancy? It's anyone's guess. You're trying to achieve an absolute objectivity where none exists. With color management locally you can achieve some degree of correlation, but you can't translate that to other devices and software, and on the Web you've already settled for a relatively low quality image where exact color matching is not very relevant. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
"nospam" wrote | You just snipped the quote making exactly the | opposite point. Read the article and look at the | comparison pictures. 3 yellow cars, all different | hues. 3 different color-managing browsers. Why | is this simple point so hard to grasp? | | looks like *you* need to reread it Yet another informative, insightful and well-argued point. You're a fountain of enlightenment. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Mayayana
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. you clearly can't, but others sure as hell can. 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.) only slightly, and that's because ie uses a different cme. the point of the article, which you still don't understand, is that the yellow cars are yellow and not purple. 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. again, the word you want is not 'control' and it's absolutely is 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? historically, srgb has been suggested for the web because most people *aren't* colour managed. however, a significant number of people have a calibrated workflow (particularly photo pros and enthusiasts) and/or a a wide gamut display (possibly more than one), therefore they can benefit from images that are *not* srgb. A real world example: one that you made up, so it's not real world. Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera. He then decides to post some online for family to see. First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default? So why embed an sRGB profile? actually, knowing what software he uses, he's likely going to work with melissa, possibly converting for the masses, although he might export as something better. and i'm quite sure you won't grok what i meant. others, however, will, particularly eric. Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress yes, she certainly was. and he's got a picture of that to post. so does everyone else. But something's wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look cranberry. So he adjusts the hue. this is where you go off the rails. So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts to something like Dropbox, they might further compress or shrink for the same reason. jpg doesn't necessarily mean dithered, nor is it about intentionally downgrading images. Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in several ways from the original shot. What advantage did color management give him? accurate colours, for everyone viewing the photos. the rest of your silly made up story snipped. go read a book or two on colour management and try to learn something for a change. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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.) Let’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 shouldn’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 recipient’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 can’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. When it comes to me viewing an image/artwork, I have no idea of the workflow they employ, the colorspace they used for editing/adjustments, or the colorspace they used for the shared file. If they used something other than sRGB there is a possibility that the results I see might have some inconsistencies, if I’m lucky they might not. What I know for sure is the browsers I use, Safari, and Chrome are going to deliver an sRGB image which might choke on a file with wider gamut colorspace. It might be OK, or it might be awful. Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera. He then decides to post some online for family to see. First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default? So why embed an sRGB profile? You convert to sRGBfrom a wide gamut colorspace, and embed it because sRGB is going to be the default for the recipient, and if A-RGB or ProPhoto RGB is delivered there is a good possiblity all sorts of inconsistancies will be seen. Most likely banding rather than serious color discrepancies. Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress and he's got a picture of that to post. But something's wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look cranberry. So he adjusts the hue. So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts to something like Dropbox, they might further compress or shrink for the same reason. That is a different issue, but for the most part Dropbox and Adobe CC seem to deliver files they have not sat on. What is done on a personal web site or blog is something else again. Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in several ways from the original shot. What advantage did color management give him? It helped to ensure that he saw on his monitor the most accurate possible colors as captured by the camera. Whatever those are. He thought Susan's dress needed to be altered. Was that a problem with his eyesight? Or was the shot tinged? Or was he so taken by Susan's behind that he imagined, in "hindsight", let's say, that her dress was brighter than it actually was? No matter. The image goes online. Now 20 family members see it. It's unlikely that even one of those people has installed the color profile for their monitor, much less calibrated their monitor with an external device. They have different browsers, different eyes, different OSs, different monitors. They're all looking at a notably downgraded version of an altered photo of Susan's dress. What purpose did it serve that Eric calibrated his monitor? Almost none. It only helped him to get the colors he wanted for his own eyes, on his own computer, as he looked at the image of Susan colored by his own imagination of what he saw at the party. And as the article author pointed out, even on his machine, his color managed browser is probably not showing him the exact same colors that Photoshop is showing him. Then his cousin Ed writes and says, "Nice pictures. But how did Susan's orange dress come out red?" Where's the discrepancy? It's anyone's guess. You're trying to achieve an absolute objectivity where none exists. With color management locally you can achieve some degree of correlation, but you can't translate that to other devices and software, and on the Web you've already settled for a relatively low quality image where exact color matching is not very relevant. Yup! ...and that isn’t worth getting an ulcer over. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article ,
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. -- teleportation kills |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 06:49:01 +0200, android wrote: In article , 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. This discussion has been about calibrated monitors, and the Duck's comments were about consistency in viewing an image on different monitors. I'm aware of the topic of the discussion and my comment stands. -- teleportation kills |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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.) Let’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 shouldn’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 recipient’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 can’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 viewer’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 doesn’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. 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 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. ....and if you were shooting IR all bets are off. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
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? 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 07:10:48 +0200, android wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 06:49:01 +0200, android wrote: In article , 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. This discussion has been about calibrated monitors, and the Duck's comments were about consistency in viewing an image on different monitors. I'm aware of the topic of the discussion and my comment stands. I didn't disagree with your comment, but it adds nothing to the discussion. Sure it does, and it ends it... :-)) However, there is a second way to determine consistency: two or more people, one of which provides the standard, with their own laptops sitting in the same room under the same conditions. Two or more screens can be compared. There are no two identical screens. As said: 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. -- teleportation kills |
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 |