Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: brntoki on August 12, 2013, 12:36:06 am
-
I hope this is enough information to quickly identify the problem:
I used save for web, after already converting to sRGB from a camera profile (Nikon Adobe RGB). All looks right, with minor color shift from a space as big or bigger than ProPhoto. When I save for web, everything looks fine. Original preview pane is set to show embedded color, while optimized preview is set to show internet colors: Looks great.
Upon upload, the colors become overly saturated in Firefox with color management on. Disabling color management does not change the colors. I've tried both embedding and not embedding the sRGB profile in the web image: It makes no difference.
Looking at the image back in Photoshop CS5, proofing with the monitor profile shows the image exactly as it appears in Firefox; it shifts and becomes overly saturated.
I'm guessing someone here will know immediately what this is, or very nearly. I'm on WinXP x64, and am profiling an old IPS panel with an old Spyder and Dispcal/Argyll (not ideal by any means, but the issue I'm seeing should be avoidable still).
-
This isn't a bump. I just realized this was actually my first post here and I didn't introduce myself at all. I've been lurking for a while and honestly thought I had posted at least a few times already.
At any rate, I tried to be short and to the point in my original because I know that many here are so knowledgeable about color management issues I thought it better not to waste their (your) time. I now see that my post may have left a flavor of "your forum is for nothing but helping me, so just do it already", in your mouth. I apologize if that seemed to be the case.
So, I've been lurking here and have gained a lot of understanding, but unfortunately it hasn't been enough to avoid whatever issue I'm having.
To un-short-and-to-the-point my original . . . I'm processing a DSLR captured image, after editing with CNX2 and outputting a TIFF with the original Nikon Adobe RGB profile (which Photoshop can use as the profile is also on my machine), further tweaked in Photoshop CS5, converted to sRGB with a small shift in some saturated colors that I can live with, and then saved for web. Everything seems to be fine. The previews look right in the Save For Web and Devices dialogue, with the original showing preview based on the embedded (at that point already sRGB) profile, while the optimized output file is set to preview with the internet standard (what a web browser should show me). Except . . . it isn't what I actually get.
What I can do to emulate perfectly what I get in Firefox is to do a softproof using the Monitor RGB option. This should tell me the problem, I think, but I don't get it still.
I'm wondering if it is an issue of having a v4 profile (if that is indeed what I have) vs. v2. I don't know how to check or figure out which I have, though.
-
I'm processing a DSLR captured image, after editing with CNX2 and outputting a TIFF with the original Nikon Adobe RGB profile (which Photoshop can use as the profile is also on my machine), further tweaked in Photoshop CS5, converted to sRGB with a small shift in some saturated colors that I can live with, and then saved for web. Everything seems to be fine. The previews look right in the Save For Web and Devices dialogue, with the original showing preview based on the embedded (at that point already sRGB) profile, while the optimized output file is set to preview with the internet standard (what a web browser should show me). Except . . . it isn't what I actually get.
Having none of your stuff, I can only offer a theoretical reply:
Your saturated rendering is what would happen if a file had been converted (i.e. the pixel RGB values got changed in the file from Adobe 1998 RGB values to sRGB values) but, somehow, the embedded profile remained as or got changed back to Adobe 1998 RGB - a color-managed viewer would apply more saturation. That would be the opposite of viewing an aRGB image with a non color-managed view, i.e. IE 6.
I'm wondering if it is an issue of having a v4 profile (if that is indeed what I have) vs. v2. I don't know how to check or figure out which I have, though.
Although V4 is not respected by some, it shouldn't be that bad. There's a free tool on the Web called ExifToolGUI. Using it, you can check the profile (if embedded) by using the "ALL" tab and scrolling all the way down. Or buy ColorThink which can Inspect embedded profiles.
If you would post your sRGB file as an attachment here, I'd be happy to inspect it for you.
-
If you are uploading the photos to a Flash web site and looking at the photos on a wide gamut monitor, the photos will always look oversaturated. No way around it today, AFAIK.
-
Thank you, xpat.
I downloaded ExifTool (thought I had done that before), but cannot get it to work for some reason.
In the meantime, if you could check the file for me I'd appreciate it.
Otherwise, I cannot think of a scenario for the profile to not get switched (or unswitched) from sRGB once done. I've recalibrated and profiled my setup and will see what that gets me.
-
Thanks, hcubell.
No, that isn't my case, however.
-
To add to this, and ask, if you will, to copy and paste the image into Photoshop. The profile isn't embedded, browsers just assume sRGB, so when you get it to Photoshop it will look wonky until you apply the sRGB profile. Please then check to see if it matches what your browser shows you, and if not, whether soft proofing with Monitor RGB gives you a match.
'Twood be interesting to know if this is an issue on my end only, or if the file really has gotten butchered somehow.
Thanks.
-
The profile isn't embedded, browsers just assume sRGB,
Not necessarily, it depends on how they are configured and which OS you use (OSX behaves differently than Windows).
In Firefox, you should check the value of the parameter "gfx.color_management.mode" (type about:config in the URL bar to get to the configuration)
The default is 2 which applies color management to images that have embedded profiles and leaves untagged images unmanaged. Try to change it to 1 to see if it fixes the issue.
Regards
-
I downloaded ExifTool (thought I had done that before), but cannot get it to work for some reason.
Not sure why ExifTool doesn't work, but there's an online exif checker at http://regex.info/exif.cgi (http://regex.info/exif.cgi). You can use it to look at files on your PC.
-
Thanks, Simon.
I've bookmarked that. Don't know the issue with ExifTool on my machine. Probably an easy fix, but for now it isn't working. I'll download it from another source and try again, I think.
Thanks, FranciscoDisilvestro.
Helpful information to know. I usually embed profiles, but just tried without to see if it fixed the issue. It didn't. I've also played with enabling and disabling color management in FF. I had not yet tried 1, however, I don't think. There was no difference between off (0) and 2, however, so I'm thinking this isn't it. Oh! Wait. I lied. I'm running on option 1 right now. Forgot about switching to that last night before zonking.
So, is it recommended to always embed, then? I read an opinion that it may be safer not to as some browsers may stuff it up, but that may have been outdated info.
And further notes . . . It appears I'm a bit of an idiot. The image I posted doesn't have an embedded profile, making it rather tough to see what version it may be :-[
-
Here is the same image with an embedded sRGB profile via save for web.
-
Thank you, xpat.
In the meantime, if you could check the file for me I'd appreciate it.
Hi Brent,
Your [previous] file has no embedded profile, as you said above while I was still typing. Your later image looks the same to me and the following comments still apply.
In PSE and my other viewers it seems quite saturated.
However, in ColorThink V2.3, the blues and cyans are heavily color-clipped to the sRGB gamut boundary indicating less-than-perfect conversions from your NEF file on it's way to the sRGB color space. Such clipping is usually caused by relative colorimetric rendering intent - over which you have little control **, unless you are using something other than the 'standard' sRGB profile. There is quite a hue twist in the sky hues which may, or may not, have been in the original scene - hard to say.
The way for me has been to convert a wide-gamut RAW scene capture initially into the ProPhoto RGB working space. Then reduce the image saturation. Then, and only then, convert the image straight to sRGB. Make final adjustment to saturation. Also, going from ProPhoto to sRGB in one hop can give a color shift, so a hue adjustment might be needed. Then save, for web if you prefer, but make sure a profile is applied however your stuff does that. In Elements, there is a checkbox.
** selecting "perpetual" in PhotoShop does nothing if the target profile has no look-up tables in it, it says nothing and applies relative colorimetric whether you like it or not.
Would you be able to attach the RAW file in your next post if you need further comments? [scratch that - there's a 4kB limit]. Could you upload it somewhere, e.g. Google Drive or other free on-line storage site?
-
Thanks again, xpat.
Yes, there are many issue with the file, and I thank you for your suggestions about how to convert "down" to sRGB from a much larger space. For now, I really need to focus on the specific issue regarding why an sRGB file looks different in Photoshop than in FF, or Chrome.
I've tested a file by creating a gradient (attached will be from ProPhoto profile, but I tried with sRGB original also) file, fresh, and then saving for web.
When optimized preview window is set to show internet standard color, the images match mostly (keep in mind this is being converted in the same step from ProPhoto to sRGB, so there is some slight change perhaps). Hitting the browser preview option brings the image into FF and the shift and saturation is showing; the preview doesn't match. What the preview shows is definitely not what I get.
On the other hand, with the very same image, changing the optimized preview to Monitor Color shows me exactly what I actually get.
(I don't know if these attachments are going to work properly)
-
And here is the Monitor Color preview, again, which is accurate with my browser rendition.
-
Seems hard to believe, but it just seems that PS isn't showing me accurate colors. I verified that the correct profile is being seen by Photoshop and that my color settings don't have any funky checkmarks like desaturate colors or anything. Weird.
-
Thanks again, xpat.
Yes, there are many issue with the file, and I thank you for your suggestions about how to convert "down" to sRGB from a much larger space. For now, I really need to focus on the specific issue regarding why an sRGB file looks different in Photoshop than in FF, or Chrome.
OK, I get it now. If I understand correctly, any sRGB image looks different between PS, FF, and Chrome on your machine.
Others need to step in here because I only have PSE 6 and urban stuff like RawTherapee, FastStone Viewer, etc. Last time I used Chrome, it had no color management at all but that was over a year ago.
I did run a screen color picker over the thumbnails you just posted, and the right-hand pane is more saturated than the left in the second image. Getting confused, because that's the one, the monitor preview, you said was OK?
-
OK, I get it now. If I understand correctly, any sRGB image looks different between PS, FF, and Chrome on your machine.
Others need to step in here because I only have PSE 6 and urban stuff like RawTherapee, FastStone Viewer, etc. Last time I used Chrome, it had no color management at all but that was over a year ago.
I did run a screen color picker over the thumbnails you just posted, and the right-hand pane in the second image is more saturated than the left. Getting confused, because that's the one, the monitor preview, you said was OK?
Well, OK only in the sense that it is accurate to what my browser will show. The problem is that previewing the image with internet standard color is what should give me an accurate rendering (the first image). I am otherwise editing blind.
-
Well, OK only in the sense that it is accurate to what my browser will show. The problem is that previewing the image with internet standard color is what should give me an accurate rendering (the first image). I am otherwise editing blind.
Hello again,
I understand.
As I said earlier, it's time for others (e.g. knowledgeable CS 5.1 users) to step in and help you.
To paraphrase, I am assisting blind ;) . . .
Good luck,
Ted.
-
I very much appreciate your help, Ted.
I have a bad feeling this will turn out how my recent 4 day search for my duster and dustpan turned out. I looked everywhere, and almost called my friend to see if he hadn't mistakenly put it in his car after using it or something. In the end, it was only two feet from where I always keep it! If I'd have bent down a little further it would have been a four second search. :-[
-
I haven't ingested the whole thread, but there are some clues in the original post:
Looking at the image back in Photoshop CS5, proofing with the monitor profile shows the image exactly as it appears in Firefox; it shifts and becomes overly saturated.
When you proof to the monitor profile in Photoshop, that effectively turns display color management off (source profile is identical to destination profile, so no change). It's a quick way to check what the image looks like without color management (on that particular system only, of course).
So if that's what you see in Firefox, that means Firefox isn't color managing the image. That can only happen if Firefox is set to mode 2 and there is no embedded profile. Since there is no source profile, there is nothing to convert to the monitor profile from.
However, in mode 1, Firefox assigns sRGB to any untagged material (although Flash galleries may be an exception; I don't know). This allows the color management chain to operate. With a wide gamut monitor, this is the only way to go to avoid oversaturation. No other browser can be configured this way.
As for why the document profile isn't embedded, Save For Web will strip the profile at default settings. You need to check "Embed Color Profile". Many websites will also strip the profile even if it is embedded (this is down to website coding).
-
Thanks, D Fosse.
Good information in your post. It doesn't explain my situation, however, in that there is no change in Firefox in any mode, 0, 1, 2, with restarts to make sure it takes effect. I'm currently on setting 1. I get the same look with or without an embedded profile, which is as it should be as long as the file is an sRGB image (with or without embedding).
My question would be: Does your setup show you a shift when you proof with Monitor RGB option? It would seem it shouldn't, but it does. If color management is operating properly, then my, say, ProPhoto image is being interpreted through filters to show properly on my display. When proofed, the image is shown as if it were converted to the display profile, correct? If so, there should be no change. Yet . . . there is a change.
To check this, I opened the jpg with an sRGB profile, and converted to my monitor profile: No change. I then went back to sRGB and did a proof, this time going into custom and manually choosing my monitor profile: It shifts. BUT! Only if preserve RGB numbers is checked. Unchecked, I get the image unshifted. That seems to make perfect sense, but that implies that when I save for web, the conversion is doing something wrong: It shows the correct preview, but the actual conversion is as if "preserve RGB numbers" is checked somewhere. I don't even think there is that option in save for web, and I'd know better to turn it off if it did.
-
Does your setup show you a shift when you proof with Monitor RGB option?
Yes, it does, and it should, since it turns display color management off. Saturation increase from an sRGB file, minimal change from Adobe RGB, and desaturation from a ProPhoto file. This is all as expected. All this is on a wide gamut display.
As for the proof options: Preserve numbers checked is equivalent to "assign profile", while Preserve numbers unchecked is equivalent to "convert to profile". Those two options are drastically different:
Assign profile will show a color shift, since the numbers in the file are interpreted differently. This is an "expert" option that you normally don't use, except when a profile is missing, or to correct outright mistakes.
Convert to profile keeps the appearance unchanged (as far as possible), and changes the RGB numbers to achieve that. This is the normal color management operation that takes place when an image is sent to the display: the embedded document profile is converted to the monitor profile, by the application on the fly, thus preserving the correct appearance.
What really happens when you proof is that color management goes an extra round: Instead of the normal document profile > monitor profile, it goes document profile > proof profile > monitor profile. The first transformation can be either an assign or a convert - that's the checked/unchecked option. The extra round in either case limits the gamut to the proof profile, and that's what you see on screen. But the second transformation is always a convert.
To sum up, think of it this way: Color management always requires two profiles, a source and a destination. If only one is present in the equation, nothing happens. And if the two profiles are identical (by whatever route), again nothing happens and color management is effectively turned off.
Anyway, that's the theory. In your case, if you have Firefox set to mode 1 and you still see oversaturation, something's not working as it should. That setting should take care of any missing profile by assigning sRGB to it (this is of course all under the assumption that the file has sRGB numbers). I have a wide gamut monitor and Firefox at mode 1, and I never see oversaturation anywhere, with or without embedded profiles. Flash possibly excluded.
In fact that setting displays everything strictly correctly, fully color managed even if there is no embedded profile (since sRGB is assigned). The "normal" situation is that the monitor's native color space is assumed to be "close enough" to sRGB. And with a standard gamut display it usually is, but it's not a perfect match. There will always be slight color and tonal shifts.
Perhaps it's time to run through normal troubleshooting procedures, reset preferences and so on. There is a way to reset Save For Web preferences separately from Photoshop, but I can't recall what it was. For Photoshop it's the standard "three finger salute" on startup. For Firefox maybe a full reinstall and cleanup of user account folders. And recalibrate while you're at it.
Oh, BTW: The preview options in Save For Web are just that - proof options. They don't affect the exported file.
-
Thank you very much for the detail, D Fosse.
Alright, there were a few misconceptions I had that I think are cleared up now. All, unfortunately, except the one issue, whatever it is, that's causing my problem :(
I have been going into more standard troubleshooting mode as you suggest. I was considering a reinstall, yet another recalibration (with old inadequate software, but generally serviceable), and have already tried disabling my firewall which can be pretty strict in what communication is allowed between programs and services, etc. I started up Photoshop on my Admin account, which I never do, and so all the settings were at their defaults, but I have the same issue. I think I'll do the three finger salute, reprofile, and reinstall in that order to see if it helps.
Thanks a lot for your ideas and time.
-
It was the monitor profile. For some reason, between Firefox and my monitor, something wasn't getting done correctly. I guess Firefox couldn't use the profile for some strange reason. Everything is now acting as expected.
Thanks a ton everyone for helping me try to fix this. I figured it was something more easily identifiable, like a simple PS setting.
-
Ah. It was the butler once again... ;D
-
Ah. It was the butler once again... ;D
This time with a puck!
-
However, in mode 1, Firefox assigns sRGB to any untagged material (although Flash galleries may be an exception; I don't know).
Depends on the version of Flash among other items. Best to ignore Flash, it's inconsistent and a PITA in terms of color management.
-
Depends on the version of Flash among other items. Best to ignore Flash, it's inconsistent and a PITA in terms of color management.
I seem to recall that is reason #128 for me not liking Adobe anymore. ;D