recommended profiler for newbi Web site users

[mbalensiefer]

Hi! I run a Web site that displays some photos that are profiled to MY monitor (and in sRGB). I'd like to hotlink users to a common, easy-to-use monitor profiler for the average color "newbie."

Any recommendations?
 I believe that most of my site users are on Macs or Windows...and will NOT have high-gamut displays. Id' like to stick to an EASY one to use, as better or more expensive ones often require deeper knowledge of color profiling and may offer complications.

Thanks!
~Mike

[Mark D Segal]

I doubt that any canned profile downloaded to a non-calibrated device would serve much of a useful purpose. This is an "occupational risk" with posting images to the web. The best insurance is to do what you are doing - keep the images in sRGB space, and when you prepare them, make sure that Black Point Compensation is active.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The other important ting to remember is that many of your viewers will not have calibrated monitors and what they see is in no way what you have spent time creating.  Frustrating, but a fact of life.

[Jonathan Wienke]

If your viewers can't be bothered to calibrate their monitors, then they deserve the less-than-optimal viewing experience they will get. And anything you try to do to cater to them (beyond posting sRGB images to the web) is a complete and utterly pointless waste of time. Unfortunately color management is neither simple nor idiot-proof, so there isn't really any simple and idiot-proof color management solution available. The best you can hope for is to get come color management consulting work, assuming you know what you're doing.

[Mark D Segal]

Jonathan, yes - in principle no argument, we're saying the same thing in different "tonality" - but the simple fact of life is and always will be that 95% of the world (at least 95%) will not have "colour-managed displays, and they wouldn't even have a clue what the concept means to start with. I won't get into what they deserve, because that's unecessarily judgmental, but let us simply recognize the problem is there, it's real, and the OP is looking for a quick-fix curative. We're agreed there is none - for now.

But thinking forward, wouldn't it be nice if there were some univeral standard, like an ISO spec, to which all displays manufactured anywhere in the world would conform right out of the box (i.e. they comne shipped already claibrated and profiled), with instructions to viewers to leave the display buttons untouched unless they have special reasons for tweaking them. Yes, it would add a few bucks to the cost of each display, but it would go a long-way to standardize viewing conditions for web images and make the outcomes for image posters more predictable. Drift of LCD displays is low, so this kind of solution would be durable enough for a reasonable period of time.

[Jonathan Wienke]

But thinking forward, wouldn't it be nice if there were some univeral standard, like an ISO spec, to which all displays manufactured anywhere in the world would conform right out of the box (i.e. they comne shipped already claibrated and profiled)

It would be nice; that's more-or-less the reason sRGB was invented. But it doesn't account for monitor drift over time. LCDs drift less than CRTs, and LEDs probably even less, but periodic re-profiling is always a good idea. The reason it hasn't happened (and probably won't happen anytime soon) is cost vs perceived benefit. Most people don't care enough for the benefit to be worth the cost.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

One device I have seem just might help the situation a tiny bit. Some websites post a gray scale step wedge across the bottom of pages that they want to be viewed correctly. If the scale doesn't look gray, or you can't see any difference between adjacent steps at either end, then at least you know you aren't seeing the image correctly. One could do this, and perhaps add a friendly message such as:

"If you see any hint of color in this gray scale, or if you can't differentiate between steps at either end, then your monitor is way off, bud. Close this page immediately and have your monitor profiled properly before you DARE try to look at it again, you slovenly jerk!" 

 

[jjlphoto]

One device I have seem just might help the situation a tiny bit. Some websites post a gray scale step wedge across the bottom of pages that they want to be viewed correctly.

Yep-  this is the best you can do. But most won't adjust it anyway.

[Mark D Segal]

Most people don't care enough for the benefit to be worth the cost.

Uhuh

[Desmond]

One of the feature that Colormunki claims solving the problem called Viewsafe, I am not using Colormunki and have no idea how this work.

The pre-profiled monitor that Mark suggest will not be of appetite of the 95%. Apple iMac (pre-LED versions) is a good example, they are too bright and contrasty. I would say they are designed for more video than images viewing.

[Mark D Segal]

...................................

The pre-profiled monitor that Mark suggest will not be of appetite of the 95%. Apple iMac (pre-LED versions) is a good example, they are too bright and contrasty. I would say they are designed for more video than images viewing.

I think that's the nub of the matter. A variety of mass-market web experiences are geared for bright, contrasty displays and a whole viewing culture and set of tastes has been cultivated around that.

[mbalensiefer]

IMHO:
 Mac's glossy displays are similar to Bose's Accoustimass in marketing and public deception. A true audiophile woudl NEVER use Bose's accoustimass, as it is missing the entire set of mid-and lower-midrange. Similarly, Apple's displays are set with bright whites and very deep blacks. Photos appear unreal even when the monitor is calibrated. The rest of the public simply thinks it looks cool...and "dynamic contrast ratio" is a big selling point. In reality, "standard" contrast ratio is what matters, and I've not yet met a glossy screen I've liked. People pay money in fact to de-gloss their screens!

http://theappleblog.com/2009/06/16/matte-v...-health-hazard/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_Displays

I think that high-end monitors should come with options for UV protection, anti-static coatings, AND a layer that is very similar to that found on those "uplifting" posterboards, where it is basically fingerprint-proof. Ipods could use this, as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating

Marc, you note to make sure that Black Point Compensation is active. How do I achieve this?

Thanks!
~Michael

[mbalensiefer]

BTW, I decided to hotlink to X-Rite's I1 Basic.
 http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1238

I would NOT link to an .icc profile, as this can tell nothing about a user's monitor and is more likely to ruin a person's viewing experience.

I'd like a small image on my Site, like that described in the post above, as well: that will allow users to know that their Web browser is not color-managed. Any suggestions on the actual content?

~Michael

[Mark D Segal]

IMHO:
 
Marc, you note to make sure that Black Point Compensation is active. How do I achieve this?

Thanks!
~Michael

When you select "Convert to Profile" there is a check box called Black Point Compensation (under the Destination pane). Make sure that box is checked.

[mbalensiefer]

When you select "Convert to Profile" there is a check box called Black Point Compensation (under the Destination pane). Make sure that box is checked.

Thanks.
 I opened and checked several of my images, and all of them have Black Point Compensation "on."
 In a batch process, will Photoshop effect this setting by default with ALL my images, or is this setting a default only for the images that already have this feature "on"?

~Michael

[Mark D Segal]

If by "batch process" you mean you have created an Action to make all the necessary conversions in one click, then the answer is: when you create the Action, while implementing the Convert to Profile" step, make sure BPC is checked if it is not already checked when you get there. The Action recorder internalizes that set-up and retains it for all images which you process using that Action. From my observation, I'm *almost* sure that Convert to Profile normally has BPC checked by default and you need to uncheck it if for some reason you don't want BPC.

[digitaldog]

If you want a URL to show people how potentially screwed up their web browsing experience can be, try this:

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter