Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: rabanito on December 17, 2018, 02:43:46 am
-
I edited a .tif file in Photoshop
Profile ProPhoto/16 bit
When I was finished I prepared the file for the web (resize/sharpen...)
Changed Mode to 8 bit
Converted Profile to sRGB
Saved the file with a new name.jpg.
Then I double-clicked on the icon and the file opened with Microsoft "Photos"
The colors were different. ("The horror, the horror" :( )
I opened the file now with "Galerie" and re-imported it to Lightroom as well - both just to check.
In both the file was correctly rendered.
Now when I open the files from anybody in LULA, it opens with "Photos" by default
Probably the colors are also not right
And maybe I'm not the only one.
OR: I am doing something wrong in my workflow?
-
Easiest explanation and cure. Windows Photo is not a colour managed application, best to just simply ignore it!
You will need to associate your JPEG etc with another default program to prevent opening with Photo.
In theory the conversion to sRGB should have been OK, but who knows what other gremlins crept into the workflow
-
Easiest explanation and cure. Windows Photo is not a colour managed application, best to just simply ignore it!
Thank you Tony.
I'd never thought of that and just opened pictures with the default Windows application.
I was very confused, must confess. And it never crossed my mind to open files from the Internet with Photoshop or the like :)
BTW after doing some detective work I found a thread in this very forum, from April 2017, in which you explained the same thing.
I changed the default to Photo Viewer now, looks better.
-
If you are working with a computer that does not have a color managed photo viewer installed, just open the file in a browser. Chrome, Firefox, and Edge are all color managed.
-
In theory the conversion to sRGB should have been OK, but who knows what other gremlins crept into the workflow
Not really so. Non color managed applications have no idea what sRGB means, has zero idea about the conditions of the display via a profile. And for those using a wide gamut display, an awful outcome.
sRGB urban legend & myths Part 2
In this 17 minute video, I'll discuss some more sRGB misinformation and cover:
When to use sRGB and what to expect on the web and mobile devices
How sRGB doesn't insure a visual match without color management, how to check
The downsides of an all sRGB workflow
sRGB's color gamut vs. "professional" output devices
The future of sRGB and wide gamut display technology
Photo print labs that demand sRGB for output
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4)[/font]
Low resolution on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvVUL1gWVs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvVUL1gWVs)
-
Not really so. Non color managed applications have no idea what sRGB means, has zero idea about the conditions of the display via a profile. And for those using a wide gamut display, an awful outcome.
Unless you pine for the days of E100VS!
-
Not really so. Non color managed applications have no idea what sRGB means, has zero idea about the conditions of the display via a profile. And for those using a wide gamut display, an awful outcome.
You mean it should be better not to convert the file to sRGB even for the web?
Sorry, making sure that I understand.
-
Not putting words into Andrew's keyboard, but you typically do want to convert everything for the web to sRGB. HP and Microsoft created sRGB in 1996 as a color space that kinda-sorta emulated what low end CRT monitors natively displayed. Through inertia more than anything else, common monitors have gamuts that are closer to sRGB than anything else. The majority of Windows applications do not pay attention to embedded color profiles. Image data are thrown at the video driver, displaying however they come out. Converting images to sRGB and embedding the profile (except in tiny images where page load time is critical) gives the best hope that your work will appear close to how you intended.
Wide gamut displays are another matter. Images in sRGB appear hugely oversaturated on wide gamut displays without color management. There isn't anything you can do here. Convert to Adobe RGB and while graphics look OK-ish on unmanaged wide gamut monitors, the majority of people will wonder why your images are so undersaturated and washed out.
-
Not really so. Non color managed applications have no idea what sRGB means, has zero idea about the conditions of the display via a profile. And for those using a wide gamut display, an awful outcome. ...
I guess my choice of wording i.e. non colour managed application is incorrect?
AFAIK Windows Photos is not colour managed in the sense that it just does not understand/ignores embedded profiles and any image data is treated as sRGB regardless and displayed using the monitor profile (IF enabled in the Windows Colour Management dialogue Your own profile).
And yes using a wide gamut display I can confirm makes for a less than stellar result
-
You mean it should be better not to convert the file to sRGB even for the web?
Sorry, making sure that I understand.
All images should have an embedded profile. Color managed applications understand the scale of the RGB values and understand the display profile to produce a preview.
IF you have a color managed application, browser or otherwise, the embedded profile is understood. If not, sRGB is a meaningless concept. What you shouldn't do is use non color managed browsers IF you care about color appearance. Posting sRGB on the web being viewed by non color managed browsers is the best of a bad situation but none the less, as you'd see in the video, it doesn't ensure a match and on wide gamut displays, it's a worse situation than if a wider gamut (Adobe RGB (1998)) image were viewed without color management.
Bottom line again: don't view images without color management.
-
Well, the answers to this topic (and not only this one) makes my 1$ a month worthwile.
I'm surprised how much I've learned in the short time I've been in LULA.
Thanks, friends!
-
If you are working with a computer that does not have a color managed photo viewer installed, just open the file in a browser. Chrome, Firefox, and Edge are all color managed.
You are kidding, right? Don't know about the other two, but Chrome is definitely not color managed out of the box.
Jack
-
The only W10 browser I've found that truly color managed, including proper rendering of pro photo images, is Firefox. Didn't occur out of the box, required a setting.
Richard Southworth
-
If you are working with a computer that does not have a color managed photo viewer installed, just open the file in a browser. Chrome, Firefox, and Edge are all color managed.
Ethan, are you sure about MS Edge as it does not appear to be colour managed on my Win 10 system - is there a switch?.
Firefox, Chrome and Opera all appear to be managing a Prophoto image without issue but MS Edge and IE do not (horrible garish on wide gamut monitor)
-
You are kidding, right? Don't know about the other two, but Chrome is definitely not color managed out of the box.
Jack
Chrome now (at least on Windows 10) is fully colour managed.
Here a couple of links for testing:
The following link from color.org will let you test if your browser supports v2 & v4 profiles (in firefox you need to change the default configuration to fully support v4)
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
The following link lets you test your browser for profiles with LUTs:
http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/ (http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/)
Based on the previous links, Chrome and Firefox fully support colour management while Edge does it partially (it does not support LUTs)
-
Chrome became fully color managed for both matrix and LUT profiles sometime earlier this year. Stock unmodified Edge works with images having matrix profiles or LUT profiles with fallback matrices. In other words, embed sRGB and your web images will display correctly on calibrated and profiled monitors.
-
In other words, embed sRGB and your web images will display correctly on calibrated and profiled monitors.
In my experience there is still something wrong with Edge, colours look too saturated in wide gamut displays.
-
Chrome now (at least on Windows 10) is fully colour managed.
Here a couple of links for testing:
The following link from color.org will let you test if your browser supports v2 & v4 profiles (in firefox you need to change the default configuration to fully support v4)
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
The following link lets you test your browser for profiles with LUTs:
http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/ (http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/)
Based on the previous links, Chrome and Firefox fully support colour management while Edge does it partially (it does not support LUTs)
Well according to those links the browser on my kindle fire is fully colour managed 8) .
-
Chrome now (at least on Windows 10) is fully colour managed.
Chrome became fully color managed for both matrix and LUT profiles sometime earlier this year.
Do figures 3 and 4 here (https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/) look about equally bright to you with your browser of choice? They should but they don't with my default Chrome setup in W10. Figure 3 is encoded with sRGB gamma and 4 with linear gamma, both properly tagged via Photoshop (v2). Amusingly, when editing the page in Chrome under WordPress, WP properly color manages both images and displays them correctly at about the same brightness. But once they are published, they are just in Chrome's hands and it apparently does not know what to do with the tags.
Jack
-
Do figures 3 and 4 here (https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/) look about equally bright to you with your browser of choice? They should but they don't with my default Chrome setup in W10. Figure 3 is encoded with sRGB gamma and 4 with linear gamma, both properly tagged via Photoshop (v2). Amusingly, when editing the page in Chrome under WordPress, WP properly color manages both images and displays them correctly at about the same brightness. But once they are published, they are just in Chrome's hands and it apparently does not know what to do with the tags.
Jack
Interesting, Figure 3 and 4 in your link match in Firefox and MS Edge and MS IE 11. Not in Chrome or Opera. In Windows 10
-
Figure 3 is encoded with sRGB gamma and 4 with linear gamma, both properly tagged via Photoshop (v2).
You need to explain further: what does "encoded" en "properly tagged" mean?
If fig 3 is linear data tagged as sRGB, i would interpret that to mean that the darker reproduction is correct.
-
In my experience there is still something wrong with Edge, colours look too saturated in wide gamut displays.
Agreed as that is what I see as well too saturated Edge and IE 11. However, they appear to match and look "correct" in Firefox, Chrome and Opera
http://www.gballard.net/firefox/
I tend to only use Firefox reverting if necessary to others for those websites that do not play nice
-
Images appear identical in chrome on Win 10. All flags to default.
-
Images appear identical in chrome on Win 10. All flags to default.
Why am I seeing a difference with Chrome with all flags default? Windows 10. Attached Firefox on left Chrome (Version 71.0.3578.98 (Official Build) (64-bit))
-
Why am I seeing a difference with Chrome with all flags default? Windows 10. Attached Firefox on left Chrome (Version 71.0.3578.98 (Official Build) (64-bit))
There seems to be something wrong with the images. I see the difference in Chrome too, but Photoshop CS 2019 reports that there is an issue with the embedded profile and discards them. In addition, they apear to be in color mode: B&W with a color icc profile, something that is not allowed, at least in recent versions of photoshop.
Extracting the ICC profile with exiftool, changing the color mode to RGB and assigning the profile in photoshop shows the image correctly, so I would say it is not Chrome to blame in this instance.
-
Something definitely strange with how Chrome. I get the dark image on my laptop and three other workstations. Identical images on my main desktop. The only difference that I can tell is the number of monitors hanging off the computer.
Good detective work Francisco! That could well be the issue. Invalid use of profiles.
-
There seems to be something wrong with the images. I see the difference in Chrome too, but Photoshop CS 2019 reports that there is an issue with the embedded profile and discards them. In addition, they apear to be in color mode: B&W with a color icc profile, something that is not allowed, at least in recent versions of photoshop.
Extracting the ICC profile with exiftool, changing the color mode to RGB and assigning the profile in photoshop shows the image correctly, so I would say it is not Chrome to blame in this instance.
Hmm, the image represented grayscale data, was recognized as Gray by PS CS5 at the time (this was a couple of years ago) and as I recall was then assigned a 'Gray Gamma 1.0' ICC profile. The profile was created and assigned in PS CS5 by modifying the built-in Gray Gamma 2.2 profile to linear. I believe this is all standard stuff so it should work, and in fact it does work (some of the time)*.
However obviously things have progressed since then because I see that CC2019 now complains when opening the relative file. When the image is downloaded from the web page and opened in CC 2019, PS still recognizes it as Gray but marks it as untagged, saying that the ICC profile is invalid. Plus, while the image still appears dark on the web page viewed via Chrome, if I point Chrome directly to the downloaded file it shows it at the correct brightness. Weird, let's assume it is a 'old' profile issue.
I'll replace the old image in the article with the same with a Gray Gamma 1.0 profile assigned in CC2019, that should do it (for now:-). Let me know if it fixes it for y'all.
[Edit: I see in fact that it does not fix it, at least via Chrome on my 3 Win 10 computers and two Android phones. On the other hand now CC2019 no longer complains when opening it - back to the Color Management drawing board, Chrome. BTW, Photos hangs on either version, while File Explorer W10 displays the old file correctly but not the new ones. This CM stuff is a hoot!].
Thanks for the feedback, learn something new every day
Jack
*Incidentally, for those of us that don't do this every day, when PS opens an untagged image it tries to figure out its type (RGB, CMYK, Gray, etc.) and displays it as is. It's up to you to then tell it how to deal with its tones by assigning a suitable profile.
-
There seems to be something wrong with the images. I see the difference in Chrome too, but Photoshop CS 2019 reports that there is an issue with the embedded profile and discards them. In addition, they apear to be in color mode: B&W with a color icc profile, something that is not allowed, at least in recent versions of photoshop.
Extracting the ICC profile with exiftool, changing the color mode to RGB and assigning the profile in photoshop shows the image correctly, so I would say it is not Chrome to blame in this instance.
Yes, the embedded profile seems to be the big issue, good investigation Francisco :)
-
[Edit: I see in fact that it does not fix it, at least via Chrome on my 3 Win 10 computers and two Android phones. On the other hand now CC2019 no longer complains when opening it - back to the Color Management drawing board, Chrome. BTW, Photos hangs on either version, while File Explorer W10 displays the old file correctly but not the new ones. This CM stuff is a hoot!].
Right, the issue is still there, maybe CM in Chrome works only for RGB images.
-
I use the internet downloadable and free Irfanview when handling photos either from email attachments, or from other sources. It's fast and I don;t need to open my photo editing program like Lightroom or Elements. It handles cropping, resizing and many other simple functions quickly. I don;t use it for serious editing however. Get the plugin as well from them.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&ei=opoeXJrnKsbH5gLN_4jgAQ&q=irfanview+download&oq=irfanview&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.35i39l2j0l8.4270.7568..11027...0.0..0.138.1119.0j9......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i10i67j0i67j0i10j0i20i263.o_WBN9p80OY
-
Useful thread as I learned that as of recently Chrome is color managed, at least with RGB files. That means that we can now browse the web with Chrome on wide gamut monitors without all the garish colors. That was not the case until earlier this year - and it is the only reason why in my two monitor setup one monitor is not wide gamut (couldn't stand the tones). With this additional knowledge when I replace it, it will be wide gamut as well.
Jack
-
Chrome now (at least on Windows 10) is fully colour managed.
Here a couple of links for testing:
The following link from color.org will let you test if your browser supports v2 & v4 profiles (in firefox you need to change the default configuration to fully support v4)
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
The following link lets you test your browser for profiles with LUTs:
http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/ (http://displaycal.net/icc-color-management-test/)
Based on the previous links, Chrome and Firefox fully support colour management while Edge does it partially (it does not support LUTs)
Edge understands embedded colour profiles in images but assumes the monitor is sRGB. It is not properly colour managed. On wide gamut monitors images will look oversaturated.