Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: AS1 on September 04, 2009, 11:28:58 am
-
I have the NEC 2690 display; it looks fantastic in PS and Bridge. I calibrated it using the included Spectravision calibrator (6500, 140, 2.2 and I'm using a Mac).
When I look at websites the color looks oversaturated, especially reds; I thought that Firefox and Safari were color managed browsers and so even on a wide gamut display, they would give more accurate color? Is this true.
Is there a way around this, besides going to the NEC menu and changing it to sRGB for looking at web stuff, or making an sRGB display profile that I can switch back and forth from in the Apple System Preferences?
Does Snow Leopard fix any of these issues with wide gamut displays?
Thanks for any insight!
Alan.
-
Safari only manages colors of tagget content
Firefox can manage colors of all graphic content, but you must activate CMM at first:
- write "abuot:config" in adress bar, and press enter, click ok.
- gfx.color_management.enabled = true (enables CMM)
- gfx.color_management.mode = 1 (enables color management for all graphic content)
-
Note that Firefox 3.5's color management has some rather significant flaws, but at least it's better than IE or other browsers.
- ICC-v4 profiles are not supported
- LUT-base ICC-v2 profiles are not supported in original 3.5 release, make sure you update to 3.5.2
- If you set color mgmt to '2' only tagged content will be color managed, untagged content such as HTML backgrounds will still be over-saturated.
- If you set color mgmt to '1' everything gets managed, but un-tagged content such as HTML backgrounds will look wrong on wide-gamut displays (hue will be off, but at least the colors won't be over-saturated)
-
I’m using Firefox version 3.5.2 and Windows XP Pro. After entering "abuot:config" in address bar, pressing enter, and clicking ok, under “gfx.color” I get the following:
Preference Name .......................................... Status ..... Type ..... Value
gfx.color_management.display_profile ............... default ..... string
gfx.color_management.mode; ........................ user set ...... integer ..... 1
gfx.color_management.rendering_intent ........... default ..... integer ..... 0
Am I correct that I have Firefox set to manage tagged and un-tagged content? I don’t see “gfx.color_management.enabled = true” like Czornyi indicates. As far as I can tell, and by looking at a test image, I think I’m all set.
Dean
-
Am I correct that I have Firefox set to manage tagged and un-tagged content? I don’t see “gfx.color_management.enabled = true” like Czornyi indicates. As far as I can tell, and by looking at a test image, I think I’m all set.
That's correct. The "gfx.color_management.enabled" preference had to be set as "true" in previous FF versions.
-
That's correct. The "gfx.color_management.enabled" preference had to be set as "true" in previous FF versions.
I have tried the changes to Firefox but it doesn't seem to make a difference on my display (web color is still over saturated). Are you using a wide gamut display?
(if I select a Jpeg image in Bridge, and then preview it in Adobe Media Gallery (Browser Preview) the color is dramatically oversaturated).
Do I need to create a separate profile for viewing the web with this monitor?
Thanks for any help,
Alan.
-
I have tried the changes to Firefox but it doesn't seem to make a difference on my display (web color is still over saturated).
It could be that you have an ICCv4 profile for your monitor. Check your profling software and see if it gives you the choice of v2 or v4 (unfortunately, some don't).
(if I select a Jpeg image in Bridge, and then preview it in Adobe Media Gallery (Browser Preview) the color is dramatically oversaturated).
AMG could be using IE instead of Firefox, maybe? I don't know how AMG works but I'm not sure if FireFox can be embedded within other apps the way IE can.
-
I have the same monitor as you, and I had a similar problem with Firefox v. 3.5.0 on Windows XP. After installing v. 3.5.2, and setting "gfx.color_management.mode; ........................ user set ...... integer ..... 1", sRGB images (whether tagged or untagged) display normally, and look like they do in Photoshop. I'm right-clicking on the file name, and choosing "Open with Firefox". If I choose "Open withe IE", or another unmanaged browser, then I get the same oversaturated results you do.
-
It could be that you have an ICCv4 profile for your monitor. Check your profling software and see if it gives you the choice of v2 or v4 (unfortunately, some don't).
AMG could be using IE instead of Firefox, maybe? I don't know how AMG works but I'm not sure if FireFox can be embedded within other apps the way IE can.
Well, according to this test I must be unable to use v4 profiles......
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
I'll see if there's an option in the Spectravision Calibration software to make a v2 profile? Does that make sense?
Thanks,
Alan.
-
Well, according to this test I must be unable to use v4 profiles......
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
I'll see if there's an option in the Spectravision Calibration software to make a v2 profile? Does that make sense?
Alan, the ICC test is for the color management system and not your monitor profile. Namely if you CMS is capable processing v4 and v2 profile you will see the image without color inversion if only v2 supported you will see the bottom part without colorinversion.
I thought (I might be wrong because I don't use Mac) there is a way to check the version of the profile. However, I'm pretty much sure it is v2 by default. V4 is not yet widely enough supported to put it as default.
-
I'm using Spectraview II v.1.1.00, and color management is working in Firefox; so the default monitor profile it generates does not seem to be a problem, at least on Windows XP. And I don't see an option in Spectraview to select the version of the profile it generates.
Are you sure you are using the latest version of Firefox, v. 3.5.2? Some color management problems were addressed in the latest release.
-
In Spectraview Profiler 4 there's a choice between v.2 and v.4 type profile, so it might be an issue.
-
In Spectraview Profiler 4 there's a choice between v.2 and v.4 type profile, so it might be an issue.
I'm using the Spectra View II (latest version 1.1.03), but I don't see any option to select between v2 and v4 profiles (I'm using a Mac Pro, OS 10.5.8 .... and I have Firefox 3.5.2). Could this be only for Windows?
Appreciate the help though.
Alan.
-
I'm using the Spectra View II (latest version 1.1.03), but I don't see any option to select between v2 and v4 profiles (I'm using a Mac Pro, OS 10.5.8 .... and I have Firefox 3.5.2). Could this be only for Windows?
Appreciate the help though.
Alan.
In the target settings area you can select SRGB emulation from the drop down box. You need to re-calibrate for this mode - but once you have done so you can flick between your normal Wide gamut calibration and SRGB Emulation pretty easily.
Mac OSX Snow Leopard / Mac Pro / 2690 Wuxi / SpectraView V. 1.1.03
-
Well, according to this test I must be unable to use v4 profiles......
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter)
This test doesn't tell you anything about your monitor profile, but it does show that FireFox doesn't support v4 profiles.
I'll see if there's an option in the Spectravision Calibration software to make a v2 profile? Does that make sense?
It does make sense, but the software may or may not give you the option. I use an Eizo display and its ColorNavigator software only generates v4 profiles.
-
In the target settings area you can select SRGB emulation from the drop down box. You need to re-calibrate for this mode - but once you have done so you can flick between your normal Wide gamut calibration and SRGB Emulation pretty easily.
Mac OSX Snow Leopard / Mac Pro / 2690 Wuxi / SpectraView V. 1.1.03
Josh,
are you flicking back and forth using the menu on the side of the NEC display, or the System Preferences > Displays > Color etc?
Also, have you noticed any improvement using Snow Leopard?
Thanks,
Alan.
-
Josh,
are you flicking back and forth using the menu on the side of the NEC display, or the System Preferences > Displays > Color etc?
Also, have you noticed any improvement using Snow Leopard?
Thanks,
Alan.
You change back and forth in the SpectraView II software.
Snow Leopard is faster than Leopard by a good deal.
-
Josh, since you're on a Mac and have essentially the same setup as the OP (other than Snow Leopard), do you see the same problem of overly saturated colors when you are not in sRGB emulation mode? I'm not having the problem on Windows XP, so I assume the Spectraview software is not generating v.4 profiles, at least with this operating system.
-
Looking back at some web references I had bookmarked some months ago, I see that Mac operating systems have some additional issues with web color management. This site goes into great detail on web browser color management: Web Browser Color Management (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html). I didn't reread the whole thing, but you might see if the Mac issues it discusses apply to your case. Since some users (like me) are reporting that Firefox v. 3.5.2 fixed their browser color management problem, but it didn't help others, maybe the difference is based on operating systems?
-
Looking back at some web references I had bookmarked some months ago, I see that Mac operating systems have some additional issues with web color management. This site goes into great detail on web browser color management: Web Browser Color Management (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html). I didn't reread the whole thing, but you might see if the Mac issues it discusses apply to your case. Since some users (like me) are reporting that Firefox v. 3.5.2 fixed their browser color management problem, but it didn't help others, maybe the difference is based on operating systems?
For anyone still willing to endure the torture....
Here's an example of what I'm seeing in two different set ups 1.Eizo display and 2.NEC 2690 WUXi
[attachment=16487:Eizo.jpg]
[attachment=16488:NEC.jpg]
The image is the same file, a jpeg, sRGB.
From left to right: Image on my own web site viewed in Firefox or Safari; then same image in PS CS4; then same image where I just dragged it onto the Safari icon to open it using Safari
The Eizo display shows all images looking pretty much the same. That's fine, what you'd expect.
The NEC (wide gamut display) shows the PS version AND oddly the version I just dragged onto the Firefox icon the same, as I'd expect. The "live" website version is very saturated, especially red and green.
Could this be a Flash issue (I think my website from Livebooks uses Flash)? Could the oversaturated color I'm seeing on web sites be from content created using Flash?
Alan.
-
I think the answer to your problem is in the link I gave you in my last reply, if you read it carefully. Here's what I think is going on.
The example image on your computer is in sRGB, and it is TAGGED. Firefox 3.5.2, and Safari, are color managed browsers that recognize the tag--and just like Photoshop, they display it correctly on any monitor.
That same example image in sRGB was stripped of its tag when it was uploaded to the web, so it is now UNTAGGED. The Windows operating system assumes untagged images are in sRGB space, so they display correctly in a color managed browser. But the Mac operating system assumes untagged images are in your monitor's color space, and assigns your monitor's profile--in the case of your calibrated wide-gamut monitor, close to Adobe RGB 1998. The browser displays them as if you had (incorrectly) assigned an aRGB tag.
You can test this by opening your example image in PS, then saving a JPEG version in which you uncheck the box beside "ICC profile: sRGB...", so that the tag is stripped. Now drag that untagged image onto your Firefox or Safari icon; it will probably look the same as the version on your web site: oversaturated.
If this is indeed the case, there seems currently to be no solution. Images that are in sRGB but are untagged will display incorrectly on wide gamut monitors under the Mac operating system. You can make sure that images on your own web site look OK by always keeping them tagged. But you can't control what others do, and most web images are untagged, so they won't look right in your browser on your monitor.
-
If this is indeed the case, there seems currently to be no solution.
You are correct, it is indeed the case and there's no solution. Its too bad Apple didn't change the behavior in Snow Leopard of using the display profile as the untagged assumption or better, like older versions of the OS, allowed us to set via the ColorSync utility what assumption we wish to use.
-
One solution would be to utilize a wide gamut monitor capable of switching between calibrated profiles. Then you could use sRGB for web viewing and get accurate colors.
-
One solution would be to utilize a wide gamut monitor capable of switching between calibrated profiles. Then you could use sRGB for web viewing and get accurate colors.
I meant there's no solution that would provide a complete fix, i.e., while using the monitor in wide-gamut mode. But yes, with an sRGB-profiled monitor, untagged sRGB images would appear closer to the way they do in PS. That may be the best approach for those using a Mac, until Apple possibly changes the way untagged images are handled in some future release of the OS. But if you do a lot of work both on the web and in PS, rather than going through the pain of frequent switching between monitor profiles, it might be better to just have two monitors--one standard gamut, one wide gamut--like I believe Andrew does.
-
If this is indeed the case, there seems currently to be no solution. Images that are in sRGB but are untagged will display incorrectly on wide gamut monitors under the Mac operating system. You can make sure that images on your own web site look OK by always keeping them tagged. But you can't control what others do, and most web images are untagged, so they won't look right in your browser on your monitor.
There is a simple solution. All untagged colors on the web should be treated as if they were tagged sRGB. This is the only thing that makes sense, and I can't fathom why browsers would do anything else. Any untagged content on the web almost certainly started out as sRGB but lost its tag/profile somewhere along the way, or was generated in non-CM-aware application in which case it should also be treated as sRGB since that's essentially what happens when it gets viewed on a tradition display without color management. This would provide better consistency between wide-gamut and normal displays, and would avoid the "oversaturated colors" problem with wide-gamut displays.
-
There is a simple solution. All untagged colors on the web should be treated as if they were tagged sRGB. This is the only thing that makes sense, and I can't fathom why browsers would do anything else.
Its not the browser, its the OS.
-
I think the answer to your problem is in the link I gave you in my last reply, if you read it carefully. Here's what I think is going on.
The example image on your computer is in sRGB, and it is TAGGED. Firefox 3.5.2, and Safari, are color managed browsers that recognize the tag--and just like Photoshop, they display it correctly on any monitor.
That same example image in sRGB was stripped of its tag when it was uploaded to the web, so it is now UNTAGGED. The Windows operating system assumes untagged images are in sRGB space, so they display correctly in a color managed browser. But the Mac operating system assumes untagged images are in your monitor's color space, and assigns your monitor's profile--in the case of your calibrated wide-gamut monitor, close to Adobe RGB 1998. The browser displays them as if you had (incorrectly) assigned an aRGB tag.
You can test this by opening your example image in PS, then saving a JPEG version in which you uncheck the box beside "ICC profile: sRGB...", so that the tag is stripped. Now drag that untagged image onto your Firefox or Safari icon; it will probably look the same as the version on your web site: oversaturated.
If this is indeed the case, there seems currently to be no solution. Images that are in sRGB but are untagged will display incorrectly on wide gamut monitors under the Mac operating system. You can make sure that images on your own web site look OK by always keeping them tagged. But you can't control what others do, and most web images are untagged, so they won't look right in your browser on your monitor.
Yes, thanks Arlen.
Everything you say is true. It also seems for me that my web site is using Flash and this is inherently stripping out the icc profile so even though my images are "tagged" as sRGB (because I've clicked the "icc" box in "save for web" in PS) in the flash website they look oversaturated.
I tried making a html web gallery and comparing it to a flash gallery on my wide gamut display. The goal was to see if "tagging" the images with sRGB would allow them to display properly on a wide gamut display, assuming a colormanaged browser....
I used Adobe Media Gallery to make the web galleries.
One of the garden images has no icc profile, the other has sRGB profile. The odd thing is that on Safari all the images were oversaturated looking (both Flash site and html site) but in Firefox the html site looked good and only the flash site was oversaturated. (You will ONLY see this on a wide gamut display) and on all versions there was no difference between the image that had no profile, and the image with sRGB embedded.....! Open can, dump worms on table!
http://www.alanshortall.com/data/web/AMGht...tent/index.html (http://www.alanshortall.com/data/web/AMGhtml/content/index.html)
http://www.alanshortall.com/data/web/AMGflash/index.html (http://www.alanshortall.com/data/web/AMGflash/index.html)
Anyway, it seems the ultimate solution is to just view web stuff on a different (non wide gamut) display (or buy a PC). But eventually, as more people use the wider gamut displays, it seems like Apple will have to address this issue in a serious way.
Alan.
-
There is a simple solution. All untagged colors on the web should be treated as if they were tagged sRGB. This is the only thing that makes sense, and I can't fathom why browsers would do anything else.
A couple of reasons:
1. Browser speed - Color transforms take up a lot of CPU cycles. Browser wars are all about how fast a page can be rendered. A browser that defaults to full color management would score much lower in speed comparison tests.
2. Broken profiles - There are a lot of broken display profiles out there either by profiles that were shipped with the monitor, or by monitors that have incorrect color information programmed into their EDID identifier data. A broken profile with color management can end up making colors look worse than having no color management. Basic sanity checks on the color parameters should be a way around this.
-
Yes, this IS a flash issue. I have your exact hardware setup. I went through all this crap a while ago and traced it down to flash. Although flash v10 supports ICC profiles you have to code your flash content (actionscript 3 code only) to activate Color Management. The blurb is here - http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quicksta...correction_as3/ (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quickstart/color_correction_as3/)
Since you use LiveBooks, you can't do this as everything is done automatically via templates / themes.
If I were you I'd ask LiveBooks for an answer as to when ICC profiles will be understood by their gallery engine.
-Nik
Could this be a Flash issue (I think my website from Livebooks uses Flash)? Could the oversaturated color I'm seeing on web sites be from content created using Flash?
Alan.
-
A couple of reasons:
1. Browser speed - Color transforms take up a lot of CPU cycles. Browser wars are all about how fast a page can be rendered. A browser that defaults to full color management would score much lower in speed comparison tests.
2. Broken profiles - There are a lot of broken display profiles out there either by profiles that were shipped with the monitor, or by monitors that have incorrect color information programmed into their EDID identifier data. A broken profile with color management can end up making colors look worse than having no color management. Basic sanity checks on the color parameters should be a way around this.
I think the issue is the Mac OS (see post above). Browsers such as Firefox and Safari are color managed already.
Alan.
-
Yes, this IS a flash issue. I have your exact hardware setup. I went through all this crap a while ago and traced it down to flash. Although flash v10 supports ICC profiles you have to code your flash content (actionscript 3 code only) to activate Color Management. The blurb is here - http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quicksta...correction_as3/ (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quickstart/color_correction_as3/)
Since you use LiveBooks, you can't do this as everything is done automatically via templates / themes.
If I were you I'd ask LiveBooks for an answer as to when ICC profiles will be understood by their gallery engine.
-Nik
Yes, this is definitely a good point. It's frustrating to take so much care to make sure the images are tagged sRGB, only to have Flash disregard the profile.
Thanks for the input all,
Alan.
-
A couple of reasons:
1. Browser speed - Color transforms take up a lot of CPU cycles. Browser wars are all about how fast a page can be rendered. A browser that defaults to full color management would score much lower in speed comparison tests.
I was speaking in the context of browers that are already doing full color management (eg FireFox with color_management set to '1').
2. Broken profiles - There are a lot of broken display profiles out there either by profiles that were shipped with the monitor, or by monitors that have incorrect color information programmed into their EDID identifier data. A broken profile with color management can end up making colors look worse than having no color management. Basic sanity checks on the color parameters should be a way around this.
Again, this seems like a straw-man argument. These browsers are already doing color management, they're just treating untagged colors in a stupid way. How good or bad somebody's monitor profile might be is completely beside the point.
-
Its not the browser, its the OS.
I'm not Mac guru, but this seems unlikely to me. Are you saying applications have no control over color management in Mac-land, and that it's entirely up to the OS? That's certainly not the case in Windows. How could Photoshop behave correctly on Macs if that were true?
-
I'm not Mac guru, but this seems unlikely to me. Are you saying applications have no control over color management in Mac-land, and that it's entirely up to the OS? That's certainly not the case in Windows. How could Photoshop behave correctly on Macs if that were true?
For an untagged image, Photoshop accepts the OS default. Under Windows, the default is the sRGB profile. Under the Mac OS, the default is the monitor profile. Only untagged images are affected by this situation. An image has to be tagged to be color-managed by PS (or other similar programs, like a color-managed browser), and then it will be displayed similarly under either OS.
-
For an untagged image, Photoshop accepts the OS default. Under Windows, the default is the sRGB profile. Under the Mac OS, the default is the monitor profile. Only untagged images are affected by this situation. An image has to be tagged to be color-managed by PS (or other similar programs), and then it will be displayed similarly under either OS.
When I open an untagged image in Photoshop, it asks me how to treat it and I choose the appropriate option. But regardless, it's up to the application what to do. Firefox is not using the OS default, at least not under Windows. If it did treat untagged colors as sRGB I would be happy; but it doesn't.
-
Firefox is not using the OS default, at least not under Windows. If it did treat untagged colors as sRGB I would be happy; but it doesn't.
It does for me, Jeff. I'm using Windows XP, with the LCD2690 wide gamut monitor, and version 3.5.3 of Firefox, with gfx.color_management.mode =1. An image in the sRGB color space looks the same in Firefox whether it is tagged or untagged, and the same as the tagged version does in PS. On the other hand, an image in Adobe RGB displays correctly in Firefox when it is tagged, but not when it is untagged, as expected for a color-managed browser that is using sRGB as its default.
However, I misspoke (mistyped?) when I said that PS accepts the OS default. Instead, it assumes that an image is in the color space that you picked in the Color Settings/Working Spaces menu for your default working space. So when you open an untagged image in PS, and check "Leave as is (don't color manage)", PS will assume it is in ProPhoto RGB, if that is your selected working space; or that it is in sRGB, if that is your working space; etc.
-
I'm not Mac guru, but this seems unlikely to me. Are you saying applications have no control over color management in Mac-land, and that it's entirely up to the OS? That's certainly not the case in Windows. How could Photoshop behave correctly on Macs if that were true?
With untagged documents, something somewhere has to assume the color space of the data in color managed applications. In Photoshop you set your working space as that color space to use for the assumption of the current untagged numbers. In this OS, it assumes your display profile.