Glencoe, Scotland

[Eyeball]

No, what G. Ballard says is that using mode 1 Firefox will on both platforms (PC and Mac) assume sRGB for untagged files and use the monitor profile to display them and therefore make the display identical to a tagged sRGB file.

No, you have to go back to Slobodan's post about this to see exactly what part he is quoting.  In that part he is not talking about FF specifically.  He is making the following points:
- "Your monitor is most likely sending the RGB numbers directly to the monitor unchanged."  In other words, the image is being assumed to be in the monitor color space (like mode 2 FireFox, not 1).
- Since most monitors are somewhat close to sRGB, it will be the untagged sRGB image that will appear closest to the properly color-managed image on the left.

I believe that for real photos assigning a profile is the right thing to do.

I think you meant "embedding" a profile is the right thing to do.  Jeez, if you start convincing people to assign profiles, we'll be here for another 9 pages.

[jeremyrh]

No, what G. Ballard says is that using mode 1 Firefox will on both platforms (PC and Mac) assume sRGB for untagged files and use the monitor profile to display them and therefore make the display identical to a tagged sRGB file.

This was not the point. The point is that there is no virtue in not embedding the profile

[Hans Kruse]

No, you have to go back to Slobodan's post about this to see exactly what part he is quoting.  In that part he is not talking about FF specifically.  He is making the following points:
- "Your monitor is most likely sending the RGB numbers directly to the monitor unchanged."  In other words, the image is being assumed to be in the monitor color space (like mode 2 FireFox, not 1).
- Since most monitors are somewhat close to sRGB, it will be the untagged sRGB image that will appear closest to the properly color-managed image on the left.


I think you meant "embedding" a profile is the right thing to do.  Jeez, if you start convincing people to assign profiles, we'll be here for another 9 pages.

Of course I meant embedding or tagging sRGB when posting pictures on the Internet  

And I was not referring to Slobodans post at all in what I wrote about G. Ballard!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

1. The "test", don't you mean?  The "test" that some of us are trying to tell you is invalid?...

His test was not invalid at all. It simply showed how it looks like on a non-color managed browser. All this talk about screenshot color profile or the lack thereof is also beyond the point, since the top photograph was displayed correctly.

How about instead of semantic hairsplitting (the height of which is where the emphasis in the phrase "un-tagged sRGB" is) SOMEONE posts a better test ? Show me all this theories in practice. Show me how embedded sRGB is better than an untagged one. I am not saying it isn't possible that it is, but for god's sake, just show it.

Someone, anyone!?

[jeremyrh]

And I was not referring to Slobodans post at all in what I wrote about G. Ballard!

But that was the subject of Eyeball's post!! You should read what people write hé hé hé    

Anyway - time for sleep for those of us with jobs. And for those with a drive to Buachaille Etive Mhor tomorrow !!

[Hans Kruse]

And I was not referring to Slobodans post at all in what I wrote about G. Ballard!

But that was the subject of Eyeball's post!! You should read what people write hé hé hé    

Anyway - time for sleep for those of us with jobs. And for those with a drive to Buachaille Etive Mhor tomorrow !!

Right but I was only referring to what Eyebal was responding and not to Slobodans post. And yes, better to rest than responding to an ever growing thread.

[jeremyrh]

His test was not invalid at all. It simply showed how it looks like on a non-color managed browser. All this talk about screenshot color profile or the lack thereof is also beyond the point, since the top photograph was displayed correctly.

How about instead of semantic hairsplitting (the height of which is where the emphasis in the phrase "un-tagged sRGB" is) SOMEONE posts a better test ? Show me all this theories in practice. Show me how embedded sRGB is better than an untagged one. I am not saying it isn't possible that it is, but for god's sake, just show it.

Someone, anyone!?

That was you who claimed that the emphasis was in a particular place.

Anyhow - no need to show anything, as it's quite clear. A tagged SRGB will be better in any situation where a browser does not assume that an untagged file is SRGB, and displays such an image on a non-SRGB display.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... no need to show anything, as it's quite clear...

Wow! Seriously! After 10 pages of "quite clear"!?

[jeremyrh]

Wow! Seriously! After 10 pages of "quite clear"!?

Of course, if you snip the context nothing is clear.

Anyway, sov godt.

[Eyeball]

His test was not invalid at all. It simply showed how it looks like on a non-color managed browser. All this talk about screenshot color profile or the lack thereof is also beyond the point, since the top photograph was displayed correctly.

The missing screen-shot profile is not besides the point since it impacts how YOU are seeing John's screen grab.  It is what is making you THINK that the top image is the "correct" one.  It is absolutely pertinent to the test and the discussion.

How about instead of semantic hairsplitting (the height of which is where the emphasis in the phrase "un-tagged sRGB" is) SOMEONE posts a better test ? Show me all this theories in practice. Show me how embedded sRGB is better than an untagged one. I am not saying it isn't possible that it is, but for god's sake, just show it.

Someone, anyone!?

I did the test Slobodan, but as I said earlier my monitor is very close to sRGB so the differences are very small.  I did the test with FireFox in both mode 1 and 2.  Mode 2 shows differences but I have to bring the images into PS as layers and use a difference blending mode to see them.  Mode 1 shows no difference, again verified with PS and the difference blend mode.

I could post the examples but they will only demonstrate that there is a difference, not which one is "right".  I'm sure they won't convince you.

The best person here who could convince you is probably John, since he apparently has quite a bit of difference between his monitor profile and sRGB.  All he would need to do would be to embed his monitor profile in the screen grab.

YOU can also simulate the untagged/wide-gamut scenario by doing the following:
- Get ahold of a wide-gamut monitor profile like this one: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/icc_profiles/eizo_sx2762w_widegamut.icc
- Bring an sRGB image into Photoshop and then Assign (not Convert) the wide-gamut profile to the sRGB image.

That will simulate viewing an untagged sRGB image on a wide-gamut monitor with a browser that is using the monitor profile for untagged images (instead of assuming sRGB).

[nutcracker]

Ah,Kevin, how can dedicated and enthusiastic scribes concentrate on intricate typing if you introduce the distraction of a photograph!!!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It is what is making you THINK that the top image is the "correct" one....

Maybe my thinking is faulty, my eyes are deceiving me, etc... words are cheap, so here is a picture, so you decide whether the top image is the correct one, i.e., closest to what my intention was. The image on the left is the original from LR, on the right is John's screen grab.

[Eyeball]

Maybe my thinking is faulty, my eyes are deceiving me, etc... words are cheap, so here is a picture, so you decide whether the top image is the correct one, i.e., closest to what my intention was. The image on the left is the original from LR, on the right is John's screen grab.

Slobodan, I think I am getting to my limit to being able to explain it to you.  One final attempt:
Because John did not include his monitor profile in the screen grab, the bad image looks correct and the correct image looks bad.
You are matching your original to the image that LOOKS good but in reality is bad because of the missing profile.

If John would post a copy of his monitor profile we could assign it to his screen grab ourselves AND THEN you could do your comparison against your original.

[Eyeball]

Here you go.  Here is a simulation of what your comparison would look like if John had embedded his monitor profile in the screen grab.
I kept your original on the left in sRGB.
For the pics on the right, I assigned the Eizo wide-gamut profile I linked earlier and then I converted them to sRGB.
I then composited both back together in sRGB.

The Eizo profile for sure is not exactly the same as John's monitor profile but I suspect it's not far off.

Now which image matches your original???

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The Eizo profile for sure is not exactly the same as John's monitor profile but I suspect it's not far off..

Except John's monitor's is NOT wide-gamut, so you can't really "suspect it's not far off"  

P.S. Nice touch in labeling your screenshot (SlobodanIsStuborn)... I appreciate the humor, but this should not really be about me. We've been trying, and I thought jointly, to resolve a conundrum, and I said repeatedly that I do not mind learning something new, or being proven wrong. I was just asking for a visual proof.

P.P.S. I appreciate your effort in the above demonstration

[Eyeball]

Except John's monitor's is NOT wide-gamut, so you can't really "suspect it's not far off" 

Incorrect. He SAID it isn't wide-gamut.  And I'll remind you he also originally SAID that he was using Firefox in Mode 1, not mode 2.
And I'm not just making a wild-assed guess; I'm using my eyes and applying logic.  If he doesn't have a wide-gamut monitor, then he apparently has a monitor that requires significant adjustment via it's profile.

P.S. Nice touch in labeling your screenshot (SlobodanIsStuborn)... I appreciate the humor, but this should not really be about me. We've been trying, and I thought jointly, to resolve a conundrum, and I said repeatedly that I do not mind learning something new, or being proven wrong. I was just asking for a visual proof.

I thought you would enjoy that.
The problem is that you put me in a catch-22.  You want visual proof but if that visual proof doesn't agree with what you want to see, then you want an explanation.  But the explanation requires words and logic and you appear to not value those.  With that catch-22, it makes it a little hard to "jointly resolve the conundrum".

[Hans Kruse]

Incorrect. He SAID it isn't wide-gamut.  And I'll remind you he also originally SAID that he was using Firefox in Mode 1, not mode 2.
And I'm not just making a wild-assed guess; I'm using my eyes and applying logic.  If he doesn't have a wide-gamut monitor, then he apparently has a monitor that requires significant adjustment via it's profile.

I thought you would enjoy that.
The problem is that you put me in a catch-22.  You want visual proof but if that visual proof doesn't agree with what you want to see, then you want an explanation.  But the explanation requires words and logic and you appear to not value those.  With that catch-22, it makes it a little hard to "jointly resolve the conundrum".

No, he SAID that he had Firefox in mode 2, first he said mode 1 and corrected that. But really, it would be useful if John responds with some explanation of what could be the reason for the differences.

[Eyeball]

No, he SAID that he had Firefox in mode 2, first he said mode 1 and corrected that. But really, it would be useful if John responds with some explanation of what could be the reason for the differences.

You missed an important word in what I wrote: "And I'll remind you he also originally SAID that he was using Firefox in Mode 1, not mode 2.".
In other words, you and I are saying the same thing in different ways.

And by the way, I didn't mention that to crap on John.  I just mentioned it as an illustration that it is easy to make errors when researching these things (we all do on occasion) and when we do, it can take us down a long, painful path of incorrect conclusions.

Also Hans, if you don't have anything better to do and happen to be on your wide-gamut display, could you take a screen shot of Slobodan's two "orange" images with Firefox in mode 2 and post it (with your monitor profile embedded    )?

[Hans Kruse]

You missed an important word in what I wrote: "And I'll remind you he also originally SAID that he was using Firefox in Mode 1, not mode 2.".
In other words, you and I are saying the same thing in different ways.

And by the way, I didn't mention that to crap on John.  I just mentioned it as an illustration that it is easy to make errors when researching these things (we all do on occasion) and when we do, it can take us down a long, painful path of incorrect conclusions.

Also Hans, if you don't have anything better to do and happen to be on your wide-gamut display, could you take a screen shot of Slobodan's two "orange" images with Firefox in mode 2 and post it (with your monitor profile embedded    )?

I'm sorry that I found your post confusing, but anyway if you agree that he used mode 2 and not mode 1 then we agree

I'm certainly planning on checking on my Dell U3014 when I'm back home as I'm sitting in the airport of Edinburg.

[jeremyrh]

Hans has been trying to persuade me to buy a wide gamut display, but in the light of this thread, I think I'll stick to an SRGB one !