Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Isaac on October 28, 2014, 07:59:31 pm
-
No -- Glencoe, California (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Home_Page_Images/HP2-PA250143-Scotland-2012-viv-wcr-no-cr.jpg) ;-)
-
No -- Glencoe, California (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Home_Page_Images/HP2-PA250143-Scotland-2012-viv-wcr-no-cr.jpg) ;-)
Glencoe, Mars, as far as I can guess. Certainly no resemblance to any Scottish landscape I have ever seen.
-
I like the composition, with the flow of the water going and the autumnal leaves. I find the saturation a bit too much for my taste, but landscape photography is not about capturing fidelity, it is about artistic vision.
Well done Kevin.
-
No -- Glencoe, California (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Home_Page_Images/HP2-PA250143-Scotland-2012-viv-wcr-no-cr.jpg) ;-)
Could use a bit more vibrancy… ;)
-
Reminds me of the ginger wigs the locals wear!
But isn't it the same problem (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=91420.0) Kevin had a few months ago? Either he's not preparing the image correctly in Photoshop, or he's relying on WordPress to resize the image but it's also stripping the colour profile.
Ideally install the ImageMagickEngine WordPress plugin, or in the short term upload JPEGs at precisely the size that they will be displayed on the page, so WordPress's resizing isn't invoked.
-
javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);javascript:void(0);
-
Either he's…
Or wondered how the scene would look through the eyes of The Orange County Register.
-
No -- Glencoe, California (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/KWR_Home_Page_Images/HP2-PA250143-Scotland-2012-viv-wcr-no-cr.jpg) ;-)
A refreshing change from Isaac: a sense of humor! :)
-
Always god to see a discussion going. First, the last thing I wanted was someone to say this image was Raberized. It was this yellow and orange. We were in Glencoe for a workshop and we had a few spectacular days. The only thing I did was recover some detail in the shadow areas. I am hoping for some new images as I explore Isle Of Skye for the next 9 days. The image was saved using Save For Web in PS. Not sure what color issue you amy be seeing. Nothing was done in wordpress.
I have arrived in Isle Of Skye after 25 hours of travel. Lost a bag along the way but hopefully it will be here tomorrow. Looking forward to shooting for two days with joe Cornish and Steve Gosling.
Kevin
-
You have the most extraordinary luck. I have been to Glencoe more times than I can remember and I have never seen such bright yellow and orange vegetation or such cyan skies.
-
You need to have a look at the picture on other peoples' computers, Kevin, because I can't believe you intended it to look quite so garish.
If you uploaded it to WordPress, that counts as doing something to the image. WordPress will have prepared alternative size JPEGs as part of its upload process, and it would have stripped the ICC profile and sRGB tag. That's why I point whoever is responsible at LL to the ImageMagickEngine WordPress plugin, which preserves the profile and tag.
-
How about posting the actual Focal Length for the shot not just the lens' fl. Thanks
-
Kevin, it looks like what you get when you display a photo that's tagged with ProPhotoRGB in the sRGB color space without converting it first. Perhaps the "convert to sRGB" box was left unchecked when you ran Save For Web.
-
I am traveling now so it is hard to go back and look at what the settings were. I'll double check those as there haven't been any other color issues raised recently.
My blog works in WordPress but LuLa is not a WordPress site. I'll look at the mentioned plug in though for my site.
I have been doing a lot in BW and did a conversion to BW and now have posted that. Hopefully in the next week I'll have other Scotland images to post as I am in Scotland now.
Kevin
-
Kevin, enjoy your trip, I am eager to see more photos from it.
The B&W version works very well too.
-
It is quite obvious that Kevin intended the image to look the way it is. His vision. So why all the palaver about word press and save for Web? ::)
-
It is quite obvious that Kevin intended the image to look the way it is. His vision. So why all the palaver about word press and save for Web? ::)
I guess it's general disbelief on the part of those who are familiar with the subtle beauty of the Scottish landscape that anyone would deliberately wish to depict it in that way.
-
Why is hard to believe it was not the way it was shown. I was leading workshop and a dozen plus other people saw he same thing. It was yellow and gold and big blue sky. It was a stand out week as far as weather. Of course I am here in Isle Of Skye now and it is gray and rainy.
Kevin
-
I guess it's general disbelief on the part of those who are familiar with the subtle beauty of the Scottish landscape that anyone would deliberately wish to depict it in that way.
As a resident of Scotland I find that the beauty of Scotland is imo harsh and rugged and mostly not subtle. :)
-
Why is hard to believe it was not the way it was shown?
Because how it looks on our screens is so far beyond believable that it doesn't appear realistic or deliberate.
-
Because how it looks on our screens is so far beyond believable that it doesn't appear realistic or deliberate.
For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland
-
I will ask again, could you please state the focal length of the shot not just the zoom range of the lens.
Thank you.
-
For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland
Did you post the wrong image? Compositionally I don't see any comparison between your image and Kevin's. You would have to be standing next to him and trip the shutter at the same time using the same camera etc etc for any comparison to be valid. Then there is the photographer's post processing vision to take into account?
-
Did you post the wrong image? Compositionally I don't see any comparison between your image and Kevin's. You would have to be standing next to him and trip the shutter at the same time using the same camera etc etc for any comparison to be valid. Then there is the photographer's post processing vision to take into account?
It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing - by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!
-
It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing - by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!
Correct. A few months back I made the suggestion in a thread that it could be possible to post more than one rendering of the same image for the members to make up there own minds about the veracity of a posted image. I was shot down by another member who stated a photographer should have their "vision" of an image that suits them and post only that "vision". In hindsight he was correct. A member who has been on here for a while knows Kevin likes to "enhance" his images in a certain way. It is worth pointing out Kevin didn't post the image in the forum for critique. Isaac did to stir things up. I think some of the remarks aimed at Kevin is unjustified. :(
-
Doh. Let's pretend a simple post processing mistake is "vision"....
-
Well, I like this B+W rendering.
-
… It was yellow and gold and big blue sky. …
In my understanding, whenever knowing the colours actually matters, we make use of independent reference systems rather than memory; for example: soil color charts (http://munsell.com/color-products/color-communications-products/environmental-color-communication/munsell-soil-color-charts/), painting the bathroom (http://www.benjaminmoore.com/en-ca/for-architects-and-designers/order-colour-strips).
As a child in Scotland, the first time I saw a local bus with the destination "California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California,_Falkirk)" was confusing :-)
-
For all of those that have trouble about the "garish" and "unbelievable" rendition of Kevin's shot:
1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.
2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?
-
For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland
Well, I guess what's "very significantly different" is rather subjective, as I do not see it as such. What I see, in the example you linked, is a slightly overexposed, cooler white balance with an unskilled overuse of Clarity.
In other words, use a warmer white balance, reduce slightly exposure, reduce Clarity and you'd end up with pretty much Kevin's version.
Besides, it is not about what was in front of Kevin's eyes, as measured by Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips. It is about how Kevin saw it. You (rhetorical "you") may or may not like it, it is your prerogative, just as it is Kevin's prerogative to present it the way he saw it.
-
I will ask again, could you please state the focal length of the shot not just the zoom range of the lens.
Thank you.
Hmmm... that sounds rather polite, in spite of being actually rude. It's been less than 24 hours since your initial request; Kevin is traveling and leading a workshop as we speak; he may (or not) have reasons for not posting what you want - insisting on it is not going to change that. Your first post was sufficient.
-
It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing - by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!
I don't think you can judge an image in the strip with what it was in reality. In LR there might have been an auto tone preset applied. The default setting in LR is different as to an image straight from a card reader.
-
For all of those that have trouble about the "garish" and "unbelievable" rendition of Kevin's shot:
1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.
2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?
Of course, believability is important in a photograph. That doesn't mean it should be faithful or an accurate 2D reproduction of the original scene, but eventually manipulation (or a processing error) can compromise believability and produce something that's no longer a photograph. What is it? It depends - it might be a "graphic", illustration, photomontage etc - or a processing mistake.
B&W isn't a faithful or accurate reproduction of the landscape, but here it remains perfectly believable. What's your point?
-
Besides, it is not about what was in front of Kevin's eyes, as measured by Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips. It is about how Kevin saw it.
When a color strip is next to foliage and that's the best visual match you can find, that is how you saw it at the time (pace luminous / reflected color); and that might be different to color checker measurements.
In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable?
If the photographer intends (http://erikjohanssonphoto.com/work/painting-real/) the picture to be believable, yes ;-)
-
When a color strip is next to foliage and that's the best visual match you can find, that is how you saw it at the time (pace luminous / reflected color); and that might be different to color checker measurements...
Note to self: bring along Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips next time I go out shooting ;)
-
The colours this Autumn in Sheffield have been pretty impressive, so I can see the Autumnal aspect being possible in the picture. However the sky is more cyan than blue, which indicates something may be off. If image is intended to be realistic that is, if not, does it matter?
-
1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.
I'm with Isaac on this one…if your intent is to be believable then there are norms you need to be aware of and follow. Otherwise anything goes.
2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?
Yes, but not because it's more believable or faithful in any objective sense. Rather, b&w photography has a long history and over time we've decided on what constitutues believability in a monochrome rendering. Ultimately believability and faithfulness are subjective determinations anyway.
-Dave-
-
… a long history and over time we've decided on what constitutes believability in a monochrome rendering.
We believe what we see -- unless something causes us to disbelieve.
B&W provides less data, there's less to-cause-us to disbelieve.
-
Note to self: bring along Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips next time I go out shooting ;)
Isn't it commonplace for artists to make a colour sketch - to mix and paint blocks of colour that match what they can see - so they can reproduce those colours in their composition?
(No serious photographer uses Benjamin Moore color strips -- Behr color strips are vastly superior.)
-
Denbell, I always post the focal length if I have it. With this image the meta data just recorded the lens used. Sorry, it was probably on the wider side of the focal length.
Kevin
-
Thanks Kevin.
BTW, I asked again only because I thought you may have not seen the original post since you had commented on something else later on. As far as being rude, I think Mr. Blagojevic is the one being "rude".
-
Thanks Kevin.
BTW, I asked again only because I thought you may have not seen the original post since you had commented on something else later on. As far as being rude, I think Mr. Blagojevic is the one being "rude".
The image was shot at a focal length of 35mm according to the meta data.
How to find this out for yourself on a Windoze machine at least - save the image to your desktop with a right click and then 'save as' etc, then right click the image in file view and select 'Properties' from the drop down menu that appears, now select the 'Details' tab in the dialogue box that opens up and look down the list to the 'Camera' section and for this particular image it says that the focal length was 35mm ;)
Kevin, welcome to Skye and yes the weather today was about as flat and overcast as it could possibly be and so it will be again tomorrow according to the weather forecast - so if that is the case and you and your people are stuck for something to do, then why not take them out for a nice hike out to Coral Beach to take some shots of the coral and pretty coloured shell details you will find there, it would be a nice day out in any weather and you can also visit and photograph Dunvegan Castle on your return and then finish off at Waternish for a sunset shoot and if there isn't going to be a sunset then there is a pub for you all to drown your sorrows with a few wee drams :D
I am not saying Kevin's colour rendition of that particular shot of a well known Scottish landmark is correct or otherwise, but I will say in his defence, that you do indeed get some amazingly garish colours up here in autumn, especially the ferns as they are right now, which really do turn a sort of teeth grating carroty orange, much like the colour of the wigs that John refers to.
Dave
-
Thanks for the tip but I believe that "35mm focal length" is referring to the 35mm equivalent and actually no info is present.
-
Of course, believability is important in a photograph. That doesn't mean it should be faithful or an accurate 2D reproduction of the original scene, but eventually manipulation (or a processing error) can compromise believability and produce something that's no longer a photograph. What is it? It depends - it might be a "graphic", illustration, photomontage etc - or a processing mistake.
B&W isn't a faithful or accurate reproduction of the landscape, but here it remains perfectly believable. What's your point?
My point is that what constitutes "believable" or "faithful" in a photo reproduction of a scene is entirely subjective. I have never been to Scotland, so I don't know what is, or is not, believable. But other posters have already stated that the photo reproduces what sometimes happens in that location in Autumn.
I was just contrasting "garish colours" vs. B&W, after all, both are valid artistic interpretations of a scene. Just because B&W has been around for 100 years, it does not make it more or less believable, or faithful, than overdone colour. We may be more used to it, but faithful it is not, for sure.
I guess some people around here do not like overdone colour, I like it (not always), when it suits the subject (in this case an autumnal Scottish landscape).
-
While there is lots of room for subjective judgement, "believable" or "faithful" is not entirely subjective - at the extreme it becomes substantially objective. But you just can't equate the B&W to the garish versions, Paulo. We believe the B&W image not because we are accustomed to accept B&W but because Kevin has produced greyscale tones which correspond to the ranges of brightness we expect in such scenes. He could easily have created a B&W version that was just as unbelievable as his garish colours.
And knowing Scotland and that type of terrain, I just roll my eyes in amazement at anyone claiming that picture reproduces what sometimes happens there. You just have to compare the garish image with the one Jeremy mentioned (4th one here (http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland)) - its colours are a bit overdone, but they are roughly believable. And what's the key difference? It's that this other picture is sRGB tagged and has its colour profile intact. We've got to get away from excusing an simple post processing error with "valid artistic interpretation".
-
Thanks Kevin.
BTW, I asked again only because I thought you may have not seen the original post since you had commented on something else later on. As far as being rude, I think Mr. Blagojevic is the one being "rude".
I blocked his posts some time back as he's possibly the rudest, nastiest person that's ever posted on LuLa. Along with some very morally questionable stuff he has posted, I find his continued presence here baffling when others have been censured for far, far less.
-
I was just contrasting "garish colours" vs. B&W, after all, both are valid artistic interpretations of a scene. Just because B&W has been around for 100 years, it does not make it more or less believable, or faithful, than overdone colour. We may be more used to it, but faithful it is not, for sure.
Absolutely. This is a pet peeve of mine particularly in photojournalism where reducing or boosting colour slightly will get all kinds of hate directed at you for altering reality, yet B+W which is nothing at all like reality is apparently perfectly OK for depicting news stories.
I guess some people around here do not like overdone colour, I like it (not always), when it suits the subject (in this case an autumnal Scottish landscape).
It's personal taste really, though in the case of this shot, the sky being more cyan than blue is the thing that looks 'wrong' to me. If shot is meant to be 'realistic' that is. If not, that's fine if it pleases the photographer.
-
While there is lots of room for subjective judgement, "believable" or "faithful" is not entirely subjective - at the extreme it becomes substantially objective. But you just can't equate the B&W to the garish versions, Paulo. We believe the B&W image not because we are accustomed to accept B&W but because Kevin has produced greyscale tones which correspond to the ranges of brightness we expect in such scenes. He could easily have created a B&W version that was just as unbelievable as his garish colours.
And knowing Scotland and that type of terrain, I just roll my eyes in amazement at anyone claiming that picture reproduces what sometimes happens there. You just have to compare the garish image with the one Jeremy mentioned (4th one here (http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland)) - its colours are a bit overdone, but they are roughly believable. And what's the key difference? It's that this other picture is sRGB tagged and has its colour profile intact. We've got to get away from excusing an simple post processing error with "valid artistic interpretation".
While there is lots of room for subjective judgement, "believable" or "faithful" is not entirely subjective - at the extreme it becomes substantially objective. But you just can't equate the B&W to the garish versions, Paulo. We believe the B&W image not because we are accustomed to accept B&W but because Kevin has produced greyscale tones which correspond to the ranges of brightness we expect in such scenes. He could easily have created a B&W version that was just as unbelievable as his garish colours.
quote Dave
I am not saying Kevin's colour rendition of that particular shot of a well known Scottish landmark is correct or otherwise, but I will say in his defence, that you do indeed get some amazingly garish colours up here in autumn, especially the ferns as they are right now, which really do turn a sort of teeth grating carroty orange, much like the colour of the wigs that John refers to.
Dave
I think Dave's judgement is more reliable? He lives in the area Kevin was shooting. :)
-
Well, Dave lives on the island of Skye, not Glencoe, and in the highlands each glen has its own micro-climate. From what attention I pay to Scotland's weather, this year one does expect richer autumn colours and maybe some new growth. You see that reflected in the other photographer's pictures, but a simple post processing mistake has made Kevin's version unbelievable.
-
Note that these photos were taken in 2012. Maybe the bracken was orange that autumn, but I doubt it was the same orange as the trees and the heather. And the rocks for that matter.
-
Note that these photos were taken in 2012. Maybe the bracken was orange that autumn, but I doubt it was the same orange as the trees and the heather. And the rocks for that matter.
Thanks for that important correction! I was looking at the picture - not the big white text beneath it ;)
-
I am not saying Kevin's colour rendition of that particular shot of a well known Scottish landmark is correct or otherwise, but I will say in his defence, that you do indeed get some amazingly garish colours up here in autumn, especially the ferns as they are right now, which really do turn a sort of teeth grating carroty orange, much like the colour of the wigs that John refers to.
One of our Acers goes from green to leafless within a week with a few transitional days of luminous/garish orange.
.
-
One of our Acers goes from green to leafless within a week with a few transitional days of luminous/garish orange.
.
The stuff you learn on LuLa ;D
-
Thanks for that important correction! I was looking at the picture - not the big white text beneath it ;)
Note that these photos were taken in 2012. Maybe the bracken was orange that autumn, but I doubt it was the same orange as the trees and the heather. And the rocks for that matter.
[/quote
So unless you were there you can't be certain? Therefore Kevin should get the benefit of doubt....assuming you aren't doubting his honesty?
-
I hadn't realised that this is a court of law. But if you insist ...
I have 2 photos of what I am assuming to be the same scene, taken within minutes of each other.
I have visited this area on countless occasions and have a general idea what to expect.
One of the pictures depicts a scene that is in accord with my expectations.
The other picture depicts a scene that grossly violates my expectations, with regard to the colour of the vegetation, the rocks and the sky.
The latter photograph is made by a person with a known predilection for driving with his foot on the saturation pedal.
My conclusion is that Kevin's photo is unrealistic. I am not making a moral judgement, or questioning his honesty. Kevin can create, enjoy, and post whatever pictures he pleases - it's his site, after all.
-
"With respect to the requirement of art, the probable impossible is always preferable to the improbable possible."
and
"Poetry does not tolerate the improbable, but can tolerate the impossible, provided the impossible is also believable."
Aristotle
Dave :)
-
No one's doubting Kevin's honesty (you're the one who mentioned it, Stamper) and I'm not questioning his artistic judgement. Just how hard is it to understand the colours are unbelievable not because of creative choices or nature - but because of a simple post processing error?
-
I'll tell you what. When I get back from the damp and wet Scotland trip I am presently on I will pull the original raw and do a small article on it. The image I used was tiff file I made a while back. Let's look at the file and see where the color really was. Yes, I do saturate sometimes but my recollection is that this scene didn't need much saturation. I opened the shadows in the rocks and foreground. Let's all take a step back and I'll be happy to go to the original RAW and go from there. So, be patient for a week or so until I get back. I can tell you though the color was pretty overwhelming.
I am sitting with Joe Cornish and Steve Gosling who are well known for photography in this region. Their feeling is that the yellows are acurate but maybe the way I opened the shadows is causing some illusion. Their suggestions is to pull the saturation in the shadows. But the garish yellow everyone is claiming to be inaccurate is looking correct based on bright sun and the time of year it was shot.
So, I will revisit this and ask Joe and Steve to contribute to the article with me. As they both tell me, here in Scotland color and light go from one extreme to the other. I will ask each of them to process the same file in their way.
How about that as an idea?
Kevin
-
Sounds like a great idea, Kevin. That will be very instructive - thanks.
-
But doesn't Steve Goslin mainly go for the really dark mono grungy look and Joe Cornish is/was an ardent fan of the super saturated velvia colour film look? - Hmm, could be an interesting article about the appropriate use of colour in photography methinks :) I am not against either of their styles or work BTW, just wondering how their processing methods would fit into a discussion about colour correction?
Looking out of my window in Kyleakin (Skye) right now at the weather you guys are having to work under today and I am not envious, not envious at all, it is truly atrocious out there. Sorry Skye is being so cruel to you all, but hey, that is what Scotland is all about, active weather and stunning scenery, trouble is, when you get too much active weather, you can't actually see any of the stunning scenery - but I do wish you all the best of luck guys for the rest of your stay and that things do get better for you and as I said in my earlier post above, a few wee drams in the pub tonight might help the situation ;)
Dave
-
You're missing the point, Kevin. What is causing the problem is not nature's colours or any saturation adjustments. The scene may well have contained amazing yellows and oranges, but the absence of the colour profile is sending those colours way beyond believability. You need to review your Save for Web process and ensure you embed the profile.
-
I'll tell you what. When I get back from the damp and wet Scotland trip I am presently on I will pull the original raw and do a small article on it. The image I used was tiff file I made a while back. Let's look at the file and see where the color really was. Yes, I do saturate sometimes but my recollection is that this scene didn't need much saturation. I opened the shadows in the rocks and foreground. Let's all take a step back and I'll be happy to go to the original RAW and go from there. So, be patient for a week or so until I get back. I can tell you though the color was pretty overwhelming.
The colour of the foliage was fine to me, well within what I've seen. The sky however seemed a bit cyan rather than blue, which may be a profile issue as John thinks.
Overall the image looks a bit HDR as shadows as you mention below have been opened up. But that's simply personal taste as to whether folks like that style. You do which is fine, other's don't, equally fine.
I am sitting with Joe Cornish and Steve Gosling who are well known for photography in this region. Their feeling is that the yellows are acurate but maybe the way I opened the shadows is causing some illusion. Their suggestions is to pull the saturation in the shadows. But the garish yellow everyone is claiming to be inaccurate is looking correct based on bright sun and the time of year it was shot.
So, I will revisit this and ask Joe and Steve to contribute to the article with me. As they both tell me, here in Scotland color and light go from one extreme to the other. I will ask each of them to process the same file in their way.
How about that as an idea?
Should be illuminating.
-
So unless you were there you can't be certain?
You seem to think that people have accurate memory and recall of colour.
However --
"In many cases, significant memory shifts have been found (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/col.1034/abstract). Considering only one type of object (sky or skin or plant), memory shifts turned out to be systematic in the sense that they were directed toward specific intervals of hue, chroma, and lightness. This tendency was more explicit for photos than for standalone colour patches."
Unless you recorded the colours when you were there you can't be certain. (If you could, Dulux wouldn't waste money on colour strips.)
-
No one's doubting Kevin's honesty (you're the one who mentioned it, Stamper) and I'm not questioning his artistic judgement. Just how hard is it to understand the colours are unbelievable not because of creative choices or nature - but because of a simple post processing error?
You and Jeremy should rethink your posts because imo you both are in danger of looking as if you are making this personal? Kevin has explained his position clearly yet both of continue to disbelieve him. Calling his process an error is personal? If you remember correctly he didn't put the image up for critique. :(
-
You and Jeremy should rethink your posts because imo you both are in danger of looking as if you are making this personal? Kevin has explained his position clearly yet both of continue to disbelieve him. Calling his process an error is personal? If you remember correctly he didn't put the image up for critique. :(
There's nothing remotely personal in any comment I have made. and I feel sure the same is true for John. Reasonable people can vigorously disagree without making it a personal issue.
-
Quote
Glencoe, Mars, as far as I can guess. Certainly no resemblance to any Scottish landscape I have ever seen.
My conclusion is that Kevin's photo is unrealistic. I am not making a moral judgement, or questioning his honesty. Kevin can create, enjoy, and post whatever pictures he pleases - it's his site, after all.
unquote
The last sentence sums it up nicely except that it is Michael's site....unless he has lost it to Kevin in a poker game? ;) :)
-
You and Jeremy should rethink your posts because imo you both are in danger of looking as if you are making this personal? Kevin has explained his position clearly yet both of continue to disbelieve him. Calling his process an error is personal? If you remember correctly he didn't put the image up for critique. :(
Huh? You are the only one who has brought up questions of honesty or tried to make criticism personal. Stop trolling, and just shut up if you've nothing sensible to say.
-
In defence of Skye and Scotland in general and just to let everyone on this thread know, that Scotland is NOT constantly under low lying cloud and torrential rain, nor is it midge infested for most of the year, and even though the colours can be very bright on occasion, they are never unbelievably so. So here is one of my shots of the old bridge in Glen Sligachan on Skye, taken just a few days ago and before these awful storms came barrelling through and making it difficult for Kevin and his team.
Just thought I should stand up for the place where I live, so please forgive me for feeling the need to show you all a recent picture of just how photographic this island can be. :)
Dave
-
In defence of Skye and Scotland in general and just to let everyone on this thread know, that Scotland is NOT constantly under low lying cloud and torrential rain, nor is it midge infested for most of the year, and even though the colours can be very bright on occasion, they are never unbelievable so.
... and there's only one Stamper there, people don't all have ginger hair or wigs, and photos of Scotland can have sRGB profiles (at least on days when it's not blowing a hoolie).
Just thought I should stand up for the place where I live, so please forgive me for feeling the need to show you all a recent picture of just how photographic this little island can be. :)
Quite right too, Dave!
John
-
Huh? You are the only one who has brought up questions of honesty or tried to make criticism personal. Stop trolling, and just shut up if you've nothing sensible to say.
Resorted to type John? I think the members can make up their minds as to your comments regarding Kevin.
-
John and Robert, we need to keep things cool here, because all you are doing is letting all the other people on this site think, that we who live in this beautiful country of Scotland, do nothing but bicker with each other on this forum, to the point where the thread ends up being locked by Chris.
You have both said your piece, so let's move along quietly shall we, or this will become yet another dead thread. ;)
Dave
-
Resorted to type John? I think the members can make up their minds as to your comments regarding Kevin.
Quit stalking me, will you? You've done it in this and a number of other threads.
To repeat, you are the one who raised questions about Kevin's honesty, not me. I have simply said that his colours are unbelievable because of a simple post processing mistake and pointed out exactly what it was. Now if I had wanted to criticise him, maybe I would have used "stupid" or "simple minded" - but no, I just referred to a simple post processing mistake. That is not hard to understand, is it?
-
John and Robert, we need to keep things cool here, because all you are doing is letting all the other people on this site think, that we who live in this beautiful country of Scotland, do nothing but bicker with each other on this forum, to the point where the thread ends up being locked by Chris.
You have both said your piece, so let's move along quietly shall we, or this will become yet another dead thread. ;)
Dave
Quit stalking me, will you? You've done it in this and a number of other threads.
To repeat, you are the one who raised questions about Kevin's honesty, not me. I have simply said that his colours are unbelievable because of a simple post processing mistake and pointed out exactly what it was. Now if I had wanted to criticise him, maybe I would have used "stupid" or "simple minded" - but no, I just referred to a simple post processing mistake. That is not hard to understand, is it?
Well that obviously fell on deaf ears didn't it ::)
Dave
-
Well that obviously fell on deaf ears didn't it ::)
Well, Dave, it looks like this discussion has become as subtle as the Scottish landscape.Both seem to be in a torrential phase currently ;)
-
In defence of Skye and Scotland in general and just to let everyone on this thread know, that Scotland is NOT constantly under low lying cloud and torrential rain, nor is it midge infested for most of the year, and even though the colours can be very bright on occasion, they are never unbelievably so. So here is one of my shots of the old bridge in Glen Sligachan on Skye, taken just a few days ago and before these awful storms came barrelling through and making it difficult for Kevin and his team.
Just thought I should stand up for the place where I live, so please forgive me for feeling the need to show you all a recent picture of just how photographic this island can be. :)
Dave
Dave,
You don't need to make apologies for Scotland and Isle of Skye :) This shot was taken this morning https://www.flickr.com/photos/hkruse/15681874125/
Since I came on wednesday it has been raining a lot and it has been very windy (as you know) but I guess this is how it can be at this time of year. I have a few days left and I have booked to stay in Glencoe on my way back :) Then maybe I will see what colors there are ;)
-
Well that obviously fell on deaf ears didn't it ::)
Dave
To some extent, Dave, yes. But am I really so wrong to label Stamper as a troll for trying to cause an argument with silly ideas about Jeremy and I questioning someone's honesty and making personal attacks? Neither of us has done anything of the kind - we have made aesthetic and technical points, based on factual evidence (examine Kevin's original image and you'll see that, unlike yours, it has no sRGB profile). After observing his contributions to threads where I participate, I don't think it's unfair of me to accuse Stamper of something close to stalking. I just wish he would add me to his ignore list - sadly when others quote his comments directed at me, I end up reading his half-witted drivel (you see, I can give compliments too).
-
I have a few days left and I have booked to stay in Glencoe on my way back :) Then maybe I will see what colors there are ;)
Take your sunglasses, Hans ;D
-
Really guys! I think I have already suggested a way to look at this and evaluate the image. Why not wait and let a few of us show you what we do with this particular image. I explained myself and the image. And, the image was properly posted for the web. We are not a WordPress site. The color and profile is fine. As the artist I have the right to do what I please with my images. If you don't like them fine. There are no rules as far as how we present an image as long as it is the way we want to present it. I post plenty of my images and will continue to do so. I enjoy working my images as much as I do taking them. If you don't like them fine. As far as color and all goes I have had this happen with images of icebergs and folks saying there can't be a blue like is shown in some images but those that have seen these icebergs know they are that blue. Every artist is free to manipulate or work their images they want. Folks using iPhone do it all the time. Folks that like HDR do it all the time. BW artists do it all the time. Are they wrong because they have changed the image in any way? Not in my book. Two photographer I respect a lot Seth Resnick and JP Caponigro work their images all the time as well as dozens more photographers that you an I know. Are they wrong? In my book they aren't.
So, let's be patient and wait until I get home and can do as suggested earlier in this thread. And, I'll include Michael now too. We'll do an article on how each of work the image. You might be surprised though as the colors I presented in my image were pretty true, garish or not.
Kevin
-
Great response Kevin! I was wondering when this conversation would finally come to some understanding/conclusion as you have now stated. Not being sexist but, this was sounding like a bunch of women, like that TV program "The View".
-
And, the image was properly posted for the web..... The color and profile is fine.
Kevin, that's just not the case. Your original picture may have a profile and its colours may be as you intended, but the JPEG that you posted does not have any profile. As a result, the colours are way beyond believability - even more saturated than I think you intend. It's exactly the same problem as a few months ago (link earlier in thread).
To see this, download the JPEG to your desktop, examine it in Bridge, and you will see no colour profile. As you pointed out before, we can't blame WordPress, so you've probably overlooked the Embed Profile checkbox in Photoshop's Save for Web - a simple enough mistake. So go back into Photoshop, Save for Web again and check that Embed box. Post the properly-tagged JPEG and you'll see a big colour difference in the browser.
-
Not being sexist but, this was sounding like a bunch of women, like that TV program "The View".
How can that comment not be sexist and intended to be insulting?
-
"When you are wrong and you shut up, you are smart. When you are right and you shut up, you are ... married."
Either way, wright or wrong, some people just can't shut up.
-
Not being sexist but, this was sounding like a bunch of women".
"Not being sexist "? Too funny. What the hell else is that? What other way is there to construe that comment?
-
Hey, I'm not the producer or director of "The View". It's a group of lady's that talk over each other and go on and on. That was why I was stating not being sexist. If there had been a male program of that sort of would have referred to it instead.
-
"Kevin, that's just not the case. Your original picture may have a profile and its colours may be as you intended, but the JPEG that you posted does not have any profile. As a result, the colours are way beyond believability - even more saturated than I think you intend."
Also, and this directed to John, how do you know what Kevin intended??? What makes you think what he posted is not what he intended? That seems to me to be quite an assumption.
OK, I got to get out of this conversation or I might get hired to be on "The View".
-
As the artist I have the right to do what I please with my images.
Of course, the "artist" has the right to do what he wants, as indeed does the humble photographer. That only leaves the burden for said "artist" of explaining - to himself if to nobody else - why he chooses to portray a scene in a certain way.
-
Hey, I'm not the producer or director of "The View". It's a group of lady's that talk over each other and go on and on. That was why I was stating not being sexist. If there had been a male program of that sort of would have referred to it instead.
If you were not sexist, you could easily have said something like "this was sounding like the characters on that TV program "The View".
But you didn't.
-
"Kevin, that's just not the case. Your original picture may have a profile and its colours may be as you intended, but the JPEG that you posted does not have any profile. As a result, the colours are way beyond believability - even more saturated than I think you intend."
Also, and this directed to John, how do you know what Kevin intended??? What makes you think what he posted is not what he intended? That seems to me to be quite an assumption.
OK, I got to get out of this conversation or I might get hired to be on "The View".
He doesn't know what Kevin intended, which is why he wrote "even more saturated than I think you intend."
As for why he thinks that, he already explained that several times.
-
"Kevin, that's just not the case. Your original picture may have a profile and its colours may be as you intended, but the JPEG that you posted does not have any profile. As a result, the colours are way beyond believability - even more saturated than I think you intend."
Also, and this directed to John, how do you know what Kevin intended??? What makes you think what he posted is not what he intended? That seems to me to be quite an assumption.
OK, I got to get out of this conversation or I might get hired to be on "The View".
Well, obviously I cannot know exactly what he intended. But the lack of the colour profile tells me that the appearance of the JPEG in the browser simply doesn't correspond to those intentions, whatever they may have been.
That's not an assumption but how colour management works on the web. Can we agree that, whether Kevin wants highly-saturated colours or Dave wants more subdued colours, we all want the viewer to see those colours displayed as closely as possible to the image on our colour managed monitor? Fair? So you ensure that the JPEG is exported with the colour profile embedded, meaning your or my colour managed browser can then figure out how best to display the JPEG. If you don't embed that profile, it's a crap shoot (whatever one of those may be) on the other end. Here, for some reason Kevin's profile has been stripped out of the JPEG, and we're seeing the typical increased saturation in the reds.
So the very absence of the profile tells us the JPEG isn't what he intended, and in this case it's exaggerated by what we are told about the actual colours (lots of reds), and maybe by Kevin's liking for saturated images. See, that was painless, wasn't it?
-
Well, obviously I cannot know exactly what he intended. But the lack of the colour profile tells me that the appearance of the JPEG in the browser simply doesn't correspond to those intentions, whatever they may have been.
That's not an assumption but how colour management works on the web. Can we agree that, whether Kevin wants highly-saturated colours or Dave wants more subdued colours, we all want the viewer to see those colours displayed as closely as possible to the image on our colour managed monitor? Fair? So you ensure that the JPEG is exported with the colour profile embedded, meaning your or my colour managed browser can then figure out how best to display the JPEG. If you don't embed that profile, it's a crap shoot (whatever one of those may be) on the other end. Here, for some reason Kevin's profile has been stripped out of the JPEG, and we're seeing the typical increased saturation in the reds.
So the very absence of the profile tells us the JPEG isn't what he intended, and in this case it's exaggerated by what we are told about the actual colours (lots of reds), and maybe by Kevin's liking for saturated images. See, that was painless, wasn't it?
As far as I know the default browser action is to assume sRGB if there is no ICC profile embedded in the JPG. If I download this JPG from the LuLa website and open in Photoshop and assign an sRGB profile it looks the same as in Safari on my MBP. If I assign another profile like Prophoto RGB then it get's way more saturated.
So I don't see that a missing profile is the explanation. I believe the reason is that the picture looks like Kevin wanted it to look. Many can disagree in his taste in post processing, but I see that he is pretty consistent in what he does. Not my cup of tea, but that does not matter at all.
-
As far as I know the default browser action is to assume sRGB if there is no ICC profile embedded in the JPG. If I download this JPG from the LuLa website and open in Photoshop and assign an sRGB profile it looks the same as in Safari on my MBP. If I assign another profile like Prophoto RGB then it get's way more saturated.
Hans, that is because you have merely applied your profile to an untagged image. If Kevin had embedded his colour profile, you would see a difference.
To test this, open in Photoshop a photo with lots of reds, and do two Save for Webs. In the first, embed the colour profile. In the second, don't do so. Open both images in Safari. See the difference?
John
-
Testing:
(Do not see the difference in Safari)
-
Let's try with oranges and blues, more like Kevin's image:
Still no difference in Safari.
-
Hans, that is because you have merely applied your profile to an untagged image. If Kevin had embedded his colour profile, you would see a difference.
To test this, open in Photoshop a photo with lots of reds, and do two Save for Webs. In the first, embed the colour profile. In the second, don't do so. Open both images in Safari. See the difference?
John
What do you mean by my profile? I assigned a sRGB profile which is standard and there was no difference.
-
Let's try with oranges and blues, more like Kevin's image:
Still no difference in Safari.
And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7678369/SNAG-0004.png)
John
-
What do you mean by my profile? I assigned a sRGB profile which is standard and there was no difference.
Probably easiest if I post the relevant area of the Save for Web dialog. There's the generic sRGB and your monitor profile which will then be applied by the viewer's browser if it is colour managed.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7678369/SNAG-0006.png)
-
Hopefully after Kevin's last post people will accept what he has stated and talk of trolling and stalking will cease? :)
-
Hopefully after Kevin's last post people will accept what he has stated and talk of trolling and stalking will cease? :)
You have a fresh start with every post.
-
Well that obviously fell on deaf ears didn't it Roll Eyes
Dave
It looks as if you are going to pursue Kevin regardless of what not only myself and others have said? :(
-
Thanks for this explanation, John. It seems incredible that in 2014 it is even an issue at all, and even more incredible that it is an issue in a relatively knowledgeable population !!
-
It looks as if you are going to pursue Kevin regardless of what not only myself and others have said? :(
Look, no-one is "pursuing" Kevin. Only in your imagination, so stop trying to create an argument.
-
Thanks for this explanation, John. It seems incredible that in 2014 it is even an issue at all, and even more incredible that it is an issue in a relatively knowledgeable population !!
I'm less surprised, Jeremy. We can't generally see our pictures appearance on a stranger's screen and maybe we just don't think about the underlying problems as much as when we make a print. As browser colour management has spread, it's also been a moving target! What's worse is when you have added the profile (or just left it to Lightroom) and a web service strips it out - and dumps other metadata. Lots of them do so.
-
Probably easiest if I post the relevant area of the Save for Web dialog. There's the generic sRGB and your monitor profile which will then be applied by the viewer's browser if it is colour managed.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7678369/SNAG-0006.png)
The generic sRGB profile is what I assigned to Kevins picture and which is the default in the Safari (and Firefox) web browser. The monitor profile is not included. The monitor profile is only relevant on your particular machine and monitor. Are you intending to say that the monitor profile is included in the saved profile? If you are, this is wrong. Like in Lightroom when exporting you specify the color space for the exported file and the relevant ICC profile is embedded in the exported file. If sRGB is chosen the profile is the generic (standard) sRGB profile and nothing else. When another person is displaying the picture on his calibrated system using a color managed browser like Safari the file will be displayed using the monitor profile on that system. Are you in disagreement on this as it seems you are?
-
Sorry, I wasn't thinking there. Isn't the identical appearance because you're just adding the profile, the sRGB conversion having already been done?
-
Sorry, I wasn't thinking there. Isn't the identical appearance because you're just adding the profile, the sRGB conversion having already been done?
My assumption is that Kevin did save as JPG in sRGB. If I assign a different profile like Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB then the picture becomes much more saturated so therefore my assumption is that it is correctly converted to sRGB as the even more saturated colors does not make sense. But that is an assumption ;D
But in general I think it is bad practice to strip the profile even though web browsers do assume sRGB, so if the file is in sRGB it will work just fine.
-
And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari)...
John,
How do you then explain the difference? If we are both seeing them in color-managed browsers (Safari and Firefox), how come there is a difference between what you see and what I see?
Note to others reading this thread: please report how you see it in your browsers.
The only way I can see such de-saturated oranges (as in your screenshot of my bottom image) is if I DO NOT convert to sRGB and DO NOT embed a profile (my workspace is ProPhoto).
Even in NON-color managed browser, like IE 7, I do not see a significant difference. The pair on the left is IE 7, on the right Safari:
-
This is amazing.... we have been saving images this way for LuLa and other web pages with no issues. We have never embedded a color profile. It is not even recommended from several experts. Maybe they will decide to chime in here at some point but it really doesn't matter. The image is converted to sRGB and sized for the web using save for web dialog. You can even go to http://tv.adobe.com/watch/understanding-adobe-photoshop-cs6/save-for-web/ and watch a tutorial and they don't touch the embed color profile. Why is it needed. It is being converted to an sRGB optimized for web image. No embedding of profile is needed.
So, once again, wait until we have time to do the whole image as I already posted. In the meantime we will talk to our Adobe friends and make sure we have been doing it correctly but we have been told we are. And, I think Hans and Slobodan have illustrated such.
Kevin
-
Also, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL0DwX7dnto This person explains the embed color profile box and pretty much says it is useless.
Any questions....
Kevin
-
Also, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL0DwX7dnto This person explains the embed color profile box and pretty much says it is useless.
Well, that's not at all what he says. He says its useless if the browser doesn't understand profiles, and if peoples' screens aren't calibrated.
-
John,
How do you then explain the difference? If we are both seeing them in color-managed browsers (Safari and Firefox), how come there is a difference between what you see and what I see?
Note to others reading this thread: please report how you see it in your browsers.
The only way I can see such de-saturated oranges (as in your screenshot of my bottom image) is if I DO NOT convert to sRGB and DO NOT embed a profile (my workspace is ProPhoto).
Even in NON-color managed browser, like IE 7, I do not see a significant difference. The pair on the left is IE 7, on the right Safari:
I see the four images with the same saturation. I am using the latest version of Firefox.
-
The four images look the same to me in color managed firefox
-
Thanks, Stamper and Les.
I think I shall note that if by the "four images" you have in mind the four Yellowstone (predominantly orange) shots I posted in the reply #106, it is fair to say that they should look identical to you, simply because they are a single png screenshot, converted to jpeg (to reduce file size), and as such can not possibly show the difference. As a single shot, you therefore can not differentiate between embedded and non-ebedded versions.
If, however, by the "four shots" you have in mind the two of the red sky photos (post #92), plus the two of the Yellowstone ones (post #93), than you would be in the position to compare them, as each pair contains one embedded and one non-embedded jpegs, directly coming from PS Save for Web.
-
This is amazing.... we have been saving images this way for LuLa and other web pages with no issues.
That's not so. A few months ago (see link earlier in thread) there was the same issue with another of your pictures which contained similar colours.
We have never embedded a color profile.
You haven't, Kevin, but check out Alan's article here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/contributors/vision_12_photographic_competitions.shtml). All his images seem to include the profile.
Before most browsers were colour managed, there was less point embedding the profile, and people seemed to worry about the small increase in file size. Nowadays the file size doesn't matter nearly so much, so you may as well embed - especially when the viewers are more likely to have colour managed systems. It gives the viewer the best chance of seeing colours that approximate to those on one's own screen. Is not that worthwhile?
-
Thanks, Stamper and Les.
I think I shall note that if by the "four images" you have in mind the four Yellowstone (predominantly orange) shots I posted in the reply #106, it is fair to say that they should look identical to you, simply because they are a single png screenshot, converted to jpeg (to reduce file size), and as such can not possibly show the difference. As a single shot, you therefore can not differentiate between embedded and non-ebedded versions.
If, however, by the "four shots" you have in mind the two of the red sky photos (post #92), plus the two of the Yellowstone ones (post #93), than you would be in the position to compare them, as each pair contains one embedded and one non-embedded jpegs, directly coming from PS Save for Web.
I am referring to Reply #106
-
That's not so. A few months ago (see link earlier in thread) there was the same issue with another of your pictures which contained similar colours.
You haven't, Kevin, but check out Alan's article here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/contributors/vision_12_photographic_competitions.shtml). All his images seem to include the profile.
Before most browsers were colour managed, there was less point embedding the profile, and people seemed to worry about the small increase in file size. Nowadays the file size doesn't matter nearly so much, so you may as well embed - especially when the viewers are more likely to have colour managed systems. It gives the viewer the best chance of seeing colours that approximate to those on one's own screen. Is not that worthwhile?
John,
Kevin might have forgotten to click the convert to sRGB on occasion, but this is not the case this time. As long as he posts sRGB there is no issue at all and a color managed browser will display the image according to the calibrated monitor profile. There is only an issue if an image is posted which is in another color space and it has no embedded profile.
-
I am referring to Reply #106
The four images in reply #106 serve to show that it does not really matter if the browser is color managed or not, or if the profile is embedded or not, as long as the files are in sRGB space. That is why all four look practically identical. And that is what Hans and I are trying to say.
I am still waiting for John to explain how he got one of my files (the bottom one from post #93) so de-saturated. Could it be that he has an AdobeRGB monitor (I am just speculating here)?
-
And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7678369/SNAG-0004.png)
John
The problem here is another one. The screen shots from Slobodan has embedded his monitor profile since that's the way a Mac does screen shots. Otherwise you would not see the screen shots correctly on your system. When you strip the profile you will see the picture without the profile correction and this is a quite different situation that what we are discussing. You can check the profile and it shows a profile from an iMac.
-
The four images in reply #106 serve to show that it does not really matter if the browser is color managed or not, or if the profile is embedded or not, as long as the files are in sRGB space. That is why all four look practically identical. And that is what Hans and I are trying to say.
I am still waiting for John to explain how he got one of my files (the bottom one from post #93) so de-saturated. Could it be that he has an AdobeRGB monitor (I am just speculating here)?
You just got the explanation ;D
-
Kevin might have forgotten to click the convert to sRGB on occasion, but this is not the case this time. As long as he posts sRGB there is no issue at all and a color managed browser will display the image according to the calibrated monitor profile. There is only an issue if an image is posted which is in another color space and it has no embedded profile.
Hans, I assume Kevin consistently converts the images to sRGB and has done so this time. So "as long as he posts sRGB there is no issue". Not quite - you missed out "tagged". He's posting untagged images (review this in Bridge), which leads browsers to make their best guesses. Usually it's not obvious, but we're dealing with a scene that was already highly red-saturated.
Talk of other colour spaces isn't relevant here.
-
I'm looking at your images in posts 92 and 93
-
Photoshop Save for Web - Embed Color Profile or not ? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72187.0) is relevant.
-
This whole discussion about Kevin's image has been mostly interesting and confusing. It would really be nice if someone how really understands the whole get images one the web and color and non-color managed browsers would write a clear article to end the confusion. I would like the article to cover the paths such as export to jpg from lightroom, make a web gallery from lightroom, edit image in photoshop then save as jpg, and edit in photoshop and save for web. Where does profile get embedded, what profile is embedded and what happens once the image hits the web are all questions that should be addressed.
Or if there is such an article, can someone post links.
Right now, even a group as knowledgeable as LuLa seems to be unclear as to best practice.
-
The problem here is another one. The screen shots from Slobodan has embedded his monitor profile...
Hans, in my post #92 and #93, these are not screen shots, but jpegs generated as John suggested in post #91, i.e., moved from LR to PS and then saved for web. After that, they are uploaded to LuLa. So, no screenshots in the whole process.
-
Hans, I assume Kevin consistently converts the images to sRGB and has done so this time. So "as long as he posts sRGB there is no issue". Not quite - you missed out "tagged". He's posting untagged images (review this in Bridge), which leads browsers to make their best guesses. Usually it's not obvious, but we're dealing with a scene that was already highly red-saturated.
Talk of other colour spaces isn't relevant here.
So what guess will browsers do for a taggeed and for an untagged sRGB JPG file with no embedded profile?
Please note in which context I was referring to other color spaces.
-
This whole discussion about Kevin's image has been mostly interesting and confusing. It would really be nice if someone how really understands the whole get images one the web and color and non-color managed browsers would write a clear article to end the confusion. I would like the article to cover the paths such as export to jpg from lightroom, make a web gallery from lightroom, edit image in photoshop then save as jpg, and edit in photoshop and save for web. Where does profile get embedded, what profile is embedded and what happens once the image hits the web are all questions that should be addressed.
Or if there is such an article, can someone post links.
Right now, even a group as knowledgeable as LuLa seems to be unclear as to best practice.
Not an article, but a summary:
1. Lightroom just does it. Whenever you export JPEGs, it always adds the profile. Choose sRGB if there's any option.
2. Photoshop. Always use Save for Web, tick Convert to sRGB and Embed Color Profile.
This ensures that the visitor, colour managed browser or not, sees colours that are as close as possible to those on your screen.
-
It is worth noting one particular moment:
In John's reposting of my orange images (his post #95), the bottom one, the one that differs significantly, and is less saturated (at least for orange) is the EMBEDDED one. So, this whole talk about how only embedding profiles (for converted to sRGB files) files can guarantee the photographer's original intention does not seem to make sense. It shall be noted that the more saturated orange image, the top one in John's reposting, is my intention. It appears that embedding profile made is significantly worse than my intention was.
-
Hans, in my post #92 and #93, these are not screen shots, but jpegs generated as John suggested in post #91, i.e., moved from LR to PS and then saved for web. After that, they are uploaded to LuLa. So, no screenshots in the whole process.
Thanks, my mistake. I was looking at your last post with the screen shots and thought the others were too which, of course, they were not.
I don't see a difference in your posted images that you refer too and right now I have no theory of why John sees this differently. I'm sitting here in Scotland using my MacBook which is a sRGB device and not my wide gamut screen at home. So if there are cases where the monitor profile is not used I would likely not see it.
-
It is worth noting one particular moment:
In John's reposting of my orange images (his post #95), the bottom one, the one that differs significantly, and is less saturated (at least for orange) is the EMBEDDED one. So, this whole talk about how only embedding profiles (for converted to sRGB files) files can guarantee the photographer's original intention does not seem to make sense. It shall be noted that the more saturated orange image, the top one in John's reposting, is my intention. It appears that embedding profile made is significantly worse than my intention was.
You should read those two versions in relative terms - if you don't embed, the reds get boosted. So let's say your intention is indeed a highly saturated image that looks like the top one. You would prepare it accordingly and then SFW, Embed, Convert to sRGB. I would then see those colours. But if you failed to embed the profile, I would see even-more saturated colour.
-
You should read those two versions in relative terms - if you don't embed, the reds get boosted. So let's say your intention is indeed a highly saturated image that looks like the top one. You would prepare it accordingly and then SFW, Embed, Convert to sRGB. I would then see those colours. But if you failed to embed the profile, I would see even-more saturated colour.
Not according to what you saw on your screen and reposted in #95.
In the top one, non-embedded one, the reds did NOT get boosted, they stayed as I intended, not "even more saturated."
-
You should read those two versions in relative terms - if you don't embed, the reds get boosted. So let's say your intention is indeed a highly saturated image that looks like the top one. You would prepare it accordingly and then SFW, Embed, Convert to sRGB. I would then see those colours. But if you failed to embed the profile, I would see even-more saturated colour.
If I work in say Adobe RGB and don't convert to sRGB, and I don't embed the profile, then surely the browser will display my image as a more muted version? This is certainly my observation.
-
If I work in say Adobe RGB and don't convert to sRGB, and I don't embed the profile, then surely the browser will display my image as a more muted version? This is certainly my observation.
Absolutely correct and easily tested.
-
fwiw...I was beginning to think the gentlemen here were manifesting the male colour challenges as on my travel laptop all of the "non embedded" images "as viewed on LULA site" were not only clearly more saturated but the shadows were blocked up as well. OK, so it's blues and yellows and oranges and men I said to self.(probably why Eric M has not weighed in ;) . Been now home while I see the same, I also note that if I copy the jpegs, and also screen capture the images, then open to view in Bridge or open to manage in ACR they are identical. embedded or not (though they are not tagged)...no help I'm sure, but just sayin'
-
Kevin might have forgotten to click the convert to sRGB on occasion, but this is not the case this time. As long as he posts sRGB there is no issue at all and a color managed browser will display the image according to the calibrated monitor profile. There is only an issue if an image is posted which is in another color space and it has no embedded profile.
Actually, I think I've determined what the issue is...I suspect those people who are seeings wide differences in a browser between tagged & untagged images are prolly using a wide gamut display. On my main workstation, I'm running at about 98% of Adobe RGB. i'm pretty sure that color managed browsers when encountering untagged images assume the monitor display. Which is fine for untagged sRGB images on a display that is near sRGB. But if the untagged images are on a display whose profile is essentially Adobe RGB, then it's a profile mismatch–your looking at an sRGB image when assuming Adobe RGB.
Kevin is doing nothing wrong...stripping the profile from sRGB images is an accepted practice for posting images online. It's how I post online unless there's a specific reason not to (such as posting Adobe or ProPhoto RGB for comparisons).
But, that brings up an interesting point...should a web site catering to photographers–which is the target market for wide gamut displays–consider changing the "practice"?
I can see an argument on both sides. On one hand, the vast majority of the web assumes people are using displays that mimic sRGB. One the other hand, somebody with a wide gamut display will be viewing sRGB as though they are Adobe RGB and thus, the image displayed will be over-amped.
So, I'm not suggesting that LuLa go back through all the images posted on the web site since, what, 2001? and tag them all with sRGB. But I do think that perhaps now, Michael and Kevin consider keeping the sRGB profile embedded when processing for main home images and articles.
I give Kevin a lot of crap about Raberizing, but in this case, it's not Kevin's "fault". He's just doing what we've all been taught. And no, this is a different issue regarding what I wrote about before. In that case, Kev was posting ProPhoto RGB images that would fail to view correctly in non-color managed browsers.
-
Jeff, that is what I speculated as well (i.e., wide-gamut monitors). However, there is one remainig puzzle: John sees on his presumably wide-gamut monitor one of my images as rather different, i.e., worse than I intended, and that picture is with the profile embedded, not stripped. Turns out, at least in John's case, that non-tagged image looks both as-intended and the same on ordinary and wide-gamut monitors.
-
Jeff - that looks like a plausible explanation. Going forward, is there any downside to always keeping the tag intact?
-
No wide-gamut screen here - I've always thought they're more trouble than they're worth (half-kidding)! I also don't think we should dig too far into your images, Slobodan. My presumption was that the lower, profile-embedded image represented the colours you intended, and I was quietly speculating that you may not have noticed the difference between your JPEGs because your system might not be colour managed (but surely it is).
Kevin is doing nothing wrong...stripping the profile from sRGB images is an accepted practice for posting images online. It's how I post online unless there's a specific reason not to (such as posting Adobe or ProPhoto RGB for comparisons).
But, that brings up an interesting point...should a web site catering to photographers–which is the target market for wide gamut displays–consider changing the "practice"?
A suggestion I've repeated - ad nauseam. To me it's merely a "simple post processing mistake", "simple" because it's understandable and carries no blame, but a "mistake" because I think it is so in 2014 and has been so for a few years.
An interesting example is Lightroom. Since it was first released, it has included profiles in all JPEGs exported from its regular export function and from the Web module, including those for Flash-based web galleries. Consider the new Mobile and particularly Lightroom Web which initially didn't include the profile, but someone (!) complained and Adobe now embed the sRGB profile in all JPEGs served from LR Web.
I'm not saying anyone should just do what Lightroom does, but Aperture does the exactly same thing, and it seems instructive that two apps "catering to photographers" take the same view about how to post images online.
No-one would suggest going back over existing LL images, not least because only two pictures have raised questions over their colours. But going forward, is the extra 2-3k file size that big a deal when people are going to see colours as close as possible to those you intend?
John
-
No-one would suggest going back over existing LL images, not least because only two pictures have raised questions over their colours. But going forward, is the extra 2-3k file size that big a deal when people are going to see colours as close as possible to those you intend?
Not adding the tag seems pointless, there is no downside re the extra few kb now that dial up is a distant memory and positives for the popular browsers that are colour managed.
-
Absolutely correct and easily tested.
Which leaves the conundrum still - if Kevin worked on his image in a wide gamut and then it was saved as SRGB, with no profile, then my browser (Safari on MBPR) should be seeing a muted version of his original, meaning that his original, according to this hypothesis, must be hideous even beyond the realms of Raberization !!
-
John, something you mentioned back on page 1 about the ImageMagickEngine WordPress plugin, I just checked it out and saw this. Thought you might want to know. (Presented strictly for information, no agitation intended, really).
-
Probably worth while to read this http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
In Safari and Firefox (mode 1 which I have used for a long time) on my MBP retina version, I see no difference between tagged and untagged sRGB. As I remember it this is also the case on my wide gamut display at home. According to this link both Mac Safari and Firefox mode 1 does use the monitor profile to display also untagged sRGB so there is no difference between tagged and untagged sRGB.
But notice the differences between browsers depending on using Windows and Mac.
-
Jeff, that is what I speculated as well (i.e., wide-gamut monitors). However, there is one remainig puzzle: John sees on his presumably wide-gamut monitor one of my images as rather different, i.e., worse than I intended, and that picture is with the profile embedded, not stripped. Turns out, at least in John's case, that non-tagged image looks both as-intended and the same on ordinary and wide-gamut monitors.
Still no explanation. As mentioned Safari and Firefox (mode 1) on the Mac does display untagged and tagged sRGB identical no matter wide gamut display or not.
-
John, something you mentioned back on page 1 about the ImageMagickEngine WordPress plugin, I just checked it out and saw this. Thought you might want to know. (Presented strictly for information, no agitation intended, really).
I'm not that touchy! :) In fact, it hasn't required any updates and works on the latest WordPress. I've been working on something that uses it, so I was in touch with its authors only a couple of months ago. It's still live, and I actually contributed some code to add a watermarking feature to the project.
-
http://www.kurtay.eu/?collection-11=landscapes#p243
Glencoe for me is monochrome. Last year, visited both Glencoe and Isle of Skye (also includes photos above link). Grey, grey, grey, leaves me with one option monochrome. :) Having said that, I got to love it in photography since living in UK for over 25 years. My ethnic origin is sunny and colourful (Turkey). I do love the colours, also needs to look realistic though, over saturating and contrast on any form of tool used, for me, becomes a digital art not photograph. I used, negatives, slides in colour in almost all formats, Fuji Velvia 50 was the highest saturated colour film, yet still never looked unrealistic in any photographs as digital photos today be be produced by some. Sometimes we need to put a break to those post-production tools to keep the photographs as close as possible to what they are supposed to be like. In reality, one never see colours in scenery such as the example was attached on the first page. So, trying making the images close to reality requires a discipline. Hard I know but, resistance is important, otherwise photography is no longer as we know it. My preference would be film but digital is a handy tool, cameras such as Canon, Nikon both produces realistic colouring in standard, needing to boost the colours to extreme...well, it is once choice I suppose but not mine. :)
-
Lovely pictures, Kurtay - but don't give up on colour in the UK. Hans Kruse has made some wonderful images in the rain over the last few days!
-
http://www.kurtay.eu/?collection-11=landscapes#p243
Glencoe for me is monochrome. Last year, visited both Glencoe and Isle of Skye (also includes photos above link). Grey, grey, grey, leaves me with one option monochrome. :) Having said that, I got to love it in photography since living in UK for over 25 years. My ethnic origin is sunny and colourful (Turkey). I do love the colours, also needs to look realistic though, over saturating and contrast on any form of tool used, for me, becomes a digital art not photograph. I used, negatives, slides in colour in almost all formats, Fuji Velvia 50 was the highest saturated colour film, yet still never looked unrealistic in any photographs as digital photos today be be produced by some. Sometimes we need to put a break to those post-production tools to keep the photographs as close as possible to what they are supposed to be like. In reality, one never see colours in scenery such as the example was attached on the first page. So, trying making the images close to reality requires a discipline. Hard I know but, resistance is important, otherwise photography is no longer as we know it. My preference would be film but digital is a handy tool, cameras such as Canon, Nikon both produces realistic colouring in standard, needing to boost the colours to extreme...well, it is once choice I suppose but not mine. :)
I certainly like b&w but most of my photography is in color. Here are some of the shots I got from this trip to Isle of Skye so far https://www.flickr.com/photos/hkruse/sets/72157649048328546
and I also post on my Facebook page. I don't think my pictures are too far away from film Velvia, but judge that :)
PS: They are all edited on my MacBook Pro retina and will check editing when I'm back home. Quite some time to edit btw. during the showers :)
-
Spectacular to say the least! A wonderful set that you can be proud of and hung on a wall would be a fine sight. :)
-
I certainly like b&w but most of my photography is in color. Here are some of the shots I got from this trip to Isle of Skye so far https://www.flickr.com/photos/hkruse/sets/72157649048328546
Here's a local lad riding his bike in some of those those stunning locations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA). Some sections are not for those wary of heights.
-
Here's a local lad riding his bike in some of those those stunning locations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_IQS3VKjA). Some sections are not for those wary of heights.
That's seriously mental :-) Still - Hans can do that with a tripod in his backpack!
-
That's seriously mental :-)
And that's not even Dany M's craziest riding BTW.
Still - Hans can do that with a tripod in his backpack!
Imagine the kit the film crew had to carry though.
-
That's seriously mental :-) Still - Hans can do that with a tripod in his backpack!
A bit of practice and should be ok :) Ah, maybe a smaller tripod though.
-
A bit of practice and should be ok :) Ah, maybe a smaller tripod though.
You may need two for balance though....
-
Actually, I think I've determined what the issue is...I suspect those people who are seeings wide differences in a browser between tagged & untagged images are prolly using a wide gamut display. On my main workstation, I'm running at about 98% of Adobe RGB. i'm pretty sure that color managed browsers when encountering untagged images assume the monitor display. Which is fine for untagged sRGB images on a display that is near sRGB. But if the untagged images are on a display whose profile is essentially Adobe RGB, then it's a profile mismatch–your looking at an sRGB image when assuming Adobe RGB.
Kevin is doing nothing wrong...stripping the profile from sRGB images is an accepted practice for posting images online. It's how I post online unless there's a specific reason not to (such as posting Adobe or ProPhoto RGB for comparisons).
But, that brings up an interesting point...should a web site catering to photographers–which is the target market for wide gamut displays–consider changing the "practice"?
I can see an argument on both sides. On one hand, the vast majority of the web assumes people are using displays that mimic sRGB. One the other hand, somebody with a wide gamut display will be viewing sRGB as though they are Adobe RGB and thus, the image displayed will be over-amped.
So, I'm not suggesting that LuLa go back through all the images posted on the web site since, what, 2001? and tag them all with sRGB. But I do think that perhaps now, Michael and Kevin consider keeping the sRGB profile embedded when processing for main home images and articles.
I give Kevin a lot of crap about Raberizing, but in this case, it's not Kevin's "fault". He's just doing what we've all been taught. And no, this is a different issue regarding what I wrote about before. In that case, Kev was posting ProPhoto RGB images that would fail to view correctly in non-color managed browsers.
This argument assumes a "smart" monitor, though, that will respond to different file color spaces, including untagged - by throwing in it's own changes- "profile" - on top of the color-aware application's amping up or down. Then PPRGB, aRGB, and sRGB would all display differently within their common color gamut in PS. And equivalent to the classic printing workflow mistake of double profiling.
IMHO, to be of any practical use a monitor has to remain passive and simply reflect the applications' color-aware changes to the entire file, while possibly adding the benefit of more visible gamut.
Pete
-
And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari).
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7678369/SNAG-0004.png)
John
Sorry to ask you again on this. Was this run on a Mac or on a PC with windows? Were you using a recent version of Firefox mode 1 (gfx_color_management_mode=1) for color management?
When I display the posting #93 I see the same in both the tagged and untagged and the same in Safari and in Firefox on my MBP. It would be interesting to know how you get your result.
-
Windows 7 PC, calibrated, not a wide gamut monitor, Firefox 31, and with colour management enabled via about:config. I simply clicked the thumbnails, saw the difference, and did the screenshot. On the same machine Safari produced the same difference.
-
Windows PC, Firefox, and with colour management enabled via about:config. I simply clicked the thumbnails, saw the difference, and did the screenshot. On the same machine Safari produced the same difference.
It would be useful to see if anybody else (reading this thread) can replicate that difference?
-
Windows 7 PC, calibrated, not a wide gamut monitor, Firefox 31, and with colour management enabled via about:config. I simply clicked the thumbnails, saw the difference, and did the screenshot. On the same machine Safari produced the same difference.
Sorry to be explicit: Was it mode 1 in Firefox? Not set to 2 which is default? On the PC Safari does not display untagged sRGB using the monitor profile.
According to G. Ballard:
My observations (late 2012) concluded that Windows only does "half" or limited color management — meaning color managed Web browsers on Windows only Convert tagged elements to sRGB.
Firefox with Value 1 is an exception: Firefox Assigns sRGB to all untagged elements, honors embedded profiles in tagged elements, and Converts them to the default monitor profile the same as Photoshop.
Your screen shot did not have the monitor profile embedded as it should for correct display so how can we judge the screen shot from you? Does Windows not embed the monitor profile in screen shots? The Mac does this and this is the correct way to do it, otherwise screen shots can be way off when displayed on another machine and monitor.
-
It would be useful to see if anybody else (reading this thread) can replicate that difference?
Slobodan - Here is what I am pretty sure is happening with John's viewing of your images:
John just did a screen print capture of what he was seeing in the thread. When he did that he captured the image in his monitor's color space.
Good practice in these types of cases is to bring the screen print into Photoshop and convert from the monitor profile to sRGB but I doubt that he did that. Photoshop actually makes this pretty easy if you just drag and drop the image from the browser to an empty Photshop desktop. Photoshop allows you to specify the monitor profile and it will even give you the option of converting to a standard color space in one step.
Since the conversion was presumably not done, you are looking at an image in John's monitor color space and since he did it as a PNG with no embedded profile, you are seeing it incorrectly as sRGB (or in YOUR monitor's color space if you're using a browser that doesn't assume sRGB for untagged images). Since John has a wide-gamut monitor, the differences are significant.
This means that for John, the bottom image was the one that displayed correctly and the top image was even more saturated to him than what you are seeing in his screen shot.
-
Slobodan - Here is what I am pretty sure is happening with John's viewing of your images:
John just did a screen print capture of what he was seeing in the thread. When he did that he captured the image in his monitor's color space.
Good practice in these types of cases is to bring the screen print into Photoshop and convert from the monitor profile to sRGB but I doubt that he did that. Photoshop actually makes this pretty easy if you just drag and drop the image from the browser to an empty Photshop desktop. Photoshop allows you to specify the monitor profile and it will even give you the option of converting to a standard color space in one step.
Since the conversion was presumably not done, you are looking at an image in John's monitor color space and since he did it as a PNG with no embedded profile, you are seeing it incorrectly as sRGB (or in YOUR monitor's color space if you're using a browser that doesn't assume sRGB for untagged images). Since John has a wide-gamut monitor, the differences are significant.
This means that for John, the bottom image was the one that displayed correctly and the top image was even more saturated to him than what you are seeing in his screen shot.
Well, that was what my last post was about :) Clearly there was no profile attached and had the monitor profile been embedded in the screen shots as it is on the Mac automatically then it would display correctly.
I'm some times wondering why people don't seem to read recent posts ???
-
... Since John has a wide-gamut monitor, the differences are significant....
He is saying he does not have a wide-gamut monitor.
-
Well, that was what my last post was about :) Clearly there was no profile attached and had the monitor profile been embedded in the screen shots as it is on the Mac automatically then it would display correctly.
I'm some times wondering why people don't seem to read recent posts ???
I read your posts, Hans, and I saw you were trying to get this across. I meant to support you, not ignore you.
It looks like John may have used 3rd-party software for the screen grab (SnagIt maybe, not sure) and that may or may not pick up the monitor profile. He also saved the grab as a PNG and I'm not even sure PNGs support embedded profiles or if they do, it may not be a commonly used feature.
-
He is saying he does not have a wide-gamut monitor.
It would be interesting to know what make and model of monitor he has.
Still, I believe that the lack of monitor profile in his screen grab is the culprit. Even with sRGB-like gamut on his monitor, the monitor profile can still differ from standard sRGB. That is, in fact, the reason we even bother to do calibration and profiling in the first place.
-
... Still, I believe that the lack of monitor profile in his screen grab is the culprit...
Whatever John did or didn't do with that screen shot (and, incidentally, it was taken with SnagIt), here is the end result: the top image (my UNtagged one) is displaying correctly, as I intended, in spite of all the travel (i.e., starting from my monitor, traveling to his, returning to mine). It is the embedded one that ends up wrong.
Andrew (digitaldog), over at a new thread with a very similar question (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94828.msg774743#msg774743) provided a link, WEB BROWSER COLOR MANAGEMENT TUTORIAL (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html). In that tutorial, the author says the following (emphasis mine):
Un-tagged sRGB (arguably the Web's default color space):
Most people will be able to compare the top, most popular color spaces side-by-side and clearly see the untagged sRGB displays most closely to the 'True Color' (in the left box).
-
Yes, mode 1. Oops, it was set to 2 which explains the difference here.
UPDATED - However, whatever my setup or screenshot software is really quite beside the point - that failing to include the profile means you can't rely on the viewer seeing the colours you intend, and in 2014 you should embed it. /UPDATED
I didn't intend anyone to try accurately judging colour from that (SnagIt) screenshot. Rather, I posted it just to show the issue resulting from not including the profile in JPEGs.
-
"Un-tagged sRGB (arguably the Web's default color space):
Most people will be able to compare the top, most popular color spaces side-by-side and clearly see the untagged sRGB displays most closely to the 'True Color' (in the left box)."
In that sentence he is referring to a specific example, and in any case he does not give any valid reason for stripping the profile which is relevant for a photography website in 2014.
-
... In that sentence he is referring to a specific example...
And I provided another specific example. In the case of mine, the response so far on this thread is:
1. There is no difference between tagged (embedded) and untagged profiles if the file is first converted to sRGB
2, If there is a difference, it is in favor of the UN-tagged file
Anyone else here is encouraged to provide their own examples. I do not have a horse in this race, and I do not vehemently support any particular side of the debate, just trying to empirically "expand my horizons" when it comes to color management.
Once again, anyone else is welcome to provide opposite examples. We all know the theory, demonstrate it in practice.*
* Unless one subscribes to Hegel's "If facts contradict theory, then so much worse for the facts." ;)
-
And I provided another specific example. In the case of mine, the response so far on this thread is:
1. There is no difference between tagged (embedded) and untagged profiles if the file is first converted to sRGB
2, If there is a difference, it is in favor of the UN-tagged file
Anyone else here is encouraged to provide their own examples. I do not have a horse in this race, and I do not vehemently support any particular side of the debate, just trying to empirically "expand my horizons" when it comes to color management.
Once again, anyone else is welcome to provide opposite examples. We all know the theory, demonstrate it in practice.
In response 1 - I think this is the expected behaviour - that the browser assumes the untagged image to SRGB, or else assigns the monitor profile, which also usually happens to be SRGB.
In response 2 - I think we don't yet know how John got the results he did.
Likewise, I am just trying to figure out what the facts are!
-
1. There is no difference between tagged (embedded) and untagged profiles if the file is first converted to sRGB
2, If there is a difference, it is in favor of the UN-tagged file
1. This depends on what browser is being used and how it is configured.
2. Incorrect. You are apparently basing this conclusion on what you saw from John and as we are trying to explain, that is not a good example. For anyone with a wide-gamut monitor who is using a browser that does not assume sRGB for untagged files, they will see a very garish and over-saturated image from the untagged file.
I'll see if I can do an example but my monitor is not wide-gamut and it is very close to sRGB and requires little adjustment in the monitor profile. The difference will likely be hard to see.
-
I read your posts, Hans, and I saw you were trying to get this across. I meant to support you, not ignore you.
It looks like John may have used 3rd-party software for the screen grab (SnagIt maybe, not sure) and that may or may not pick up the monitor profile. He also saved the grab as a PNG and I'm not even sure PNGs support embedded profiles or if they do, it may not be a commonly used feature.
Thanks, on the Mac PNG files have an embedded monitor profile when doing a screen shot.
-
Yes, mode 1. Oops, it was set to 2 which explains the difference here.
UPDATED - However, whatever my setup or screenshot software is really quite beside the point - that failing to include the profile means you can't rely on the viewer seeing the colours you intend, and in 2014 you should embed it. /UPDATED
I didn't intend anyone to try accurately judging colour from that (SnagIt) screenshot. Rather, I posted it just to show the issue resulting from not including the profile in JPEGs.
Thanks John, and sorry to be so anal about this, but does this mean that you now don't see a difference between the two but still see a difference in Safari (as expected)?
-
Yes, mode 1. Oops, it was set to 2 which explains the difference here.
UPDATED - However, whatever my setup or screenshot software is really quite beside the point - that failing to include the profile means you can't rely on the viewer seeing the colours you intend, and in 2014 you should embed it. /UPDATED
I didn't intend anyone to try accurately judging colour from that (SnagIt) screenshot. Rather, I posted it just to show the issue resulting from not including the profile in JPEGs.
John - I am not beating up on you; just trying to "close the circle" for Slobodan so he understands what is happening.
What is the make and model of you monitor, by the way? It looks like it is, at least to some extent, wide gamut. Either that or it requires significant adjustment during calibration and profiling.
Again, I'm not trying to beat you up. It just seems like you might like to know if your monitor is wide-gamut.
Getting back to the origin of all this controversy, I think Kevin's image is probably what he intended. If he was working in a wide-gamut color space like ProPhoto or AdobeRGB and forgot to convert to sRGB, the untagged image would look LESS saturated than intended, not more - at least for anyone using a browser that assumed it to be sRGB or someone having an sRGB-like monitor. Even someone with a wide-gamut monitor and seeing the image in their monitor color space would probably see it as "normal" or slightly less saturated.
-
In response 1 - I think this is the expected behaviour - that the browser assumes the untagged image to SRGB, or else assigns the monitor profile, which also usually happens to be SRGB.
In response 2 - I think we don't yet know how John got the results he did.
Likewise, I am just trying to figure out what the facts are!
I believe the facts are well written here http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
Yes, the browsers are moving on and I don't know for a fact it is on the Windows side since I'm not using Windows any more (whisper .... and I'm so happy about that ;D)
On the Mac at least Firefox using mode 1 and Safari works as full color management and also assume sRGB when untagged (=no profile present) and use the monitor profile to display the file as it would for tagged sRGB (or any other color space).
-
John - I am not beating up on you; just trying to "close the circle" for Slobodan so he understands what is happening.
What is the make and model of you monitor, by the way? It looks like it is, at least to some extent, wide gamut. Either that or it requires significant adjustment during calibration and profiling.
Again, I'm not trying to beat you up. It just seems like you might like to know if your monitor is wide-gamut.
Getting back to the origin of all this controversy, I think Kevin's image is probably what he intended. If he was working in a wide-gamut color space like ProPhoto or AdobeRGB and forgot to convert to sRGB, the untagged image would look LESS saturated than intended, not more - at least for anyone using a browser that assumed it to be sRGB or someone having an sRGB-like monitor. Even someone with a wide-gamut monitor and seeing the image in their monitor color space would probably see it as "normal" or slightly less saturated.
I think we are about to close the circle and let's hear what John has to say :)
As I see it there are two issues:
1) He had mode = 2 rather mode =1 in Firefox and the is using a PC so Safari will display differently than Firefox (unless this has been fixed recently).
2) No profile with the screen shot (or did not assign the monitor profile to the screen shot in Photoshop before uploading).
-
. . . Safari works as full color management and also assume sRGB when untagged . . .
I'm not trying to be anal, either, Hans :) but how are you determining that Safari is assuming sRGB for untagged images?
Are you doing it visually?
Do YOU have a wide-gamut monitor?
The reason I ask is that for a long time Safari did NOT assume sRGB for untagged images.
I'm not really questioning your word because I do seem to recollect reading in the last 6-12 months that Safari maybe changed this behavior. I'm just looking for a little confirmation. :)
-
I'm not trying to be anal, either, Hans :) but how are you determining that Safari is assuming sRGB for untagged images?
Are you doing it visually?
Do YOU have a wide-gamut monitor?
The reason I ask is that for a long time Safari did NOT assume sRGB for untagged images.
I'm not really questioning your word because I do seem to recollect reading in the last 6-12 months that Safari maybe changed this behavior. I'm just looking for a little confirmation. :)
Thats't OK :) As I mentioned I use a Mac and on the Mac it works like that and I have a wide gamut monitor and it is also what G. Ballard is writing in his article which I have linked to several times and I will do this again for completeness http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
On the PC using Windows as mentioned I do no longer use a PC so there I can only refer to what G. Ballard says.
-
Thats't OK :) As I mentioned I use a Mac and on the Mac it works like that and I have a wide gamut monitor and it is also what G. Ballard is writing in his article which I have linked to several times and I will do this again for completeness http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
I like G. Ballards site, too, and have referenced it several times in the past. I do find that page, however, a little confusing/ambiguous regarding whether Safari on the Mac actually assumes sRGB for untagged images or not. He does not really come out and say that clearly and farther down the page in the blue section titled "Full Color Management", he implies that that is NOT the case.
I was not going to be too surprised if the Safari folks decided to never assume sRGB for untagged images. I was always under the impression is that the Safari team always felt that that was a "feature", not a "bug". My understanding for why they took that stance was to cater to web-site developers. While color management is great for us photographers, it can be kind of a pain for web designers who want image colors to match other web-page elements like CSS.
-
Yes, mode 1. Oops, it was set to 2 which explains the difference here.
UPDATED - However, whatever my setup or screenshot software is really quite beside the point - that failing to include the profile means you can't rely on the viewer seeing the colours you intend, and in 2014 you should embed it. /UPDATED...
You keep repeating this advice from the beginning of this thread. However, it is contrary to:
1. The tests posted in this thread so far
2. Claims in the article referenced by Hans, Andrew (digitaldog) and me more than three times in this thread
In other words, in your example, you were using a non-color managed browser, in which case UN-tagged file was displayed correctly, not the embedded one.
-
You keep repeating this advice from the beginning of this thread. However, it is contrary to:
1. The tests posted in this thread so far
2. Claims in the article referenced by Hans, Andrew (digitaldog) and me more than three times in this thread
1. The "test", don't you mean? The "test" that some of us are trying to tell you is invalid?
2. You are misreading that statement on that page (and Jeremy tried to correct you on this, too.) You are reading it with the emphasis on the word "untagged". GBallard, however, is meaning to put the emphasis on "sRGB". In other words, he is saying that of the 3 untagged examples in sRGB, AdobeRGB, and AppleRGB, the untagged sRGB image will be the closest to the properly color-managed image on the left for MOST PEOPLE. The reason he says "MOST PEOPLE" is because those with wide-gamut monitors (or with monitor profiles that have heavy corrections) will NOT see them as the same.
John and others in this thread have made a valid point. It is good practice to embed the profile and this will be only more important in the future as more and more people have monitors that deviate from the sRGB gamut. As far as I know, the only rationale for NOT embedding is to save a few kb of file size but that is no longer a big deal unless you are doing some kind of application where you have 1,000s of very small images (like icons, for example).
-
Can we get back to photography? I'll review LuLa's image posting on my return to the office next week. Meanwhile maybe you'd like to see an image made yesterday in some very severe Isle Of Skye weather. The light and conditions change in a heartbeat here. I'm leading a workshop in Isle Of Skye and we are making some incredible images. Here is the link to one... http://kevinraber.com/2014/11/03/isle-of-skye/
Kevin
-
1. The "test", don't you mean? The "test" that some of us are trying to tell you is invalid?
2. You are misreading that statement on that page (and Jeremy tried to correct you on this, too.) You are reading it with the emphasis on the word "untagged". GBallard, however, is meaning to put the emphasis on "sRGB". In other words, he is saying that of the 3 untagged examples in sRGB, AdobeRGB, and AppleRGB, the untagged sRGB image will be the closest to the properly color-managed image on the left for MOST PEOPLE. The reason he says "MOST PEOPLE" is because those with wide-gamut monitors (or with monitor profiles that have heavy corrections) will NOT see them as the same.
John and others in this thread have made a valid point. It is good practice to embed the profile and this will be only more important in the future as more and more people have monitors that deviate from the sRGB gamut. As far as I know, the only rationale for NOT embedding is to save a few kb of file size but that is no longer a big deal unless you are doing some kind of application where you have 1,000s of very small images (like icons, for example).
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.
I agree rereading it that he is not crystal clear on how Safari does on it on the Mac. And now I do not have a wide gamut display with me since I'm travelling with me MBP. But from memory checking this on my wide gamut display at home Safari did the same, but I cannot retest this until I get home.
I believe that for real photos assigning a profile is the right thing to do.
-
Can we get back to photography?
Err .. we are talking about photography. We are making progress on understanding how to present our images so our viewers see them the way we intend.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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 ;D ::)
And I was not referring to Slobodans post at all in what I wrote about G. Ballard!
-
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!?
-
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 ;D ;D
Anyway - time for sleep for those of us with jobs. And for those with a drive to Buachaille Etive Mhor tomorrow !!
-
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 ;D ;D
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.
-
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.
-
... no need to show anything, as it's quite clear...
Wow! Seriously! After 10 pages of "quite clear"!?
-
Wow! Seriously! After 10 pages of "quite clear"!?
Of course, if you snip the context nothing is clear.
Anyway, sov godt.
-
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).
-
Ah,Kevin, how can dedicated and enthusiastic scribes concentrate on intricate typing if you introduce the distraction of a photograph!!!
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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???????????????????????????
(http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12145446/SlobodanIsStubborn.jpg)
-
... 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
-
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".
-
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.
-
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 :) )?
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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 :) )?
Well, what can I say. I think what you said was confusing and not that clear. Anyway, if you agree with me that what John posted was a screeen shot of Firefox in mode 2 and not 1 then we agree.
I'm now home and did a screen shot Slobodans example using Safari and Firefox in mode 1 and mode 2 on my Dell U3014 wide gamut monitor attached to my MacBook Pro. And since the screen shots were done on the Mac the monitor profile is embedded.
As you can see the Safari and Firefox mode 1 shots are identical (to my eyes at least) so my memory was correct as what I posted while I was on my trip.
-
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 !
Jeremy,
See my last post including screen shots from my Dell wide gamut monitor. I don't see there should be a problem for you to get a wide gamut monitor other than the financial one ;D and especially since you are using the same MBP as me.
The only problem is people who post wildly edited pictures ;D
-
Well, what can I say. I think what you said was confusing and not that clear. Anyway, if you agree with me that what John posted was a screeen shot of Firefox in mode 2 and not 1 then we agree.
I'm now home and did a screen shot Slobodans example using Safari and Firefox in mode 1 and mode 2 on my Dell U3014 wide gamut monitor attached to my MacBook Pro. And since the screen shots were done on the Mac the monitor profile is embedded.
As you can see the Safari and Firefox mode 1 shots are identical (to my eyes at least) so my memory was correct as what I posted while I was on my trip.
Thanks for taking the time to do that, Hans.
What you posted is what I was expecting to see and is not far off from the simulation that I did earlier.
My conclusions from everything that has been presented are as follows:
- John either has a wide-gamut monitor or his monitor profile is making significant adjustments (like maybe using the profile to correct for monitor white point and/or gamma instead of making those adjustments on the monitor during calibration). This is based on his screen-grab evidence, which shows a major difference between the color-managed sRGB image and the non-color-managed image.
- Kevin's image is likely in sRGB and as he intended. If he had inadvertently exported the image in ProPhoto or AdobeRGB, his untagged image would look LESS saturated for people using normal-gamut monitors (and/or browsers that assume sRGB for untagged images), not MORE.
- John very likely did see Kevin's image MORE saturated than what Kevin intended (and what most of the rest of us are seeing). This is because of the characteristics of his monitor/monitor profile as I mentioned in the first bullet and the likelihood that he was using a browser that views untagged images in the monitor color space (Firefox mode 2, for example).
-
Thanks for taking the time to do that, Hans.
What you posted is what I was expecting to see and is not far off from the simulation that I did earlier.
My conclusions from everything that has been presented are as follows:
- John either has a wide-gamut monitor or his monitor profile is making significant adjustments (like maybe using the profile to correct for monitor white point and/or gamma instead of making those adjustments on the monitor during calibration). This is based on his screen-grab evidence, which shows a major difference between the color-managed sRGB image and the non-color-managed image.
- Kevin's image is likely in sRGB and as he intended. If he had inadvertently exported the image in ProPhoto or AdobeRGB, his untagged image would look LESS saturated for people using normal-gamut monitors (and/or browsers that assume sRGB for untagged images), not MORE.
- John very likely did see Kevin's image MORE saturated than what Kevin intended (and what most of the rest of us are seeing). This is because of the characteristics of his monitor/monitor profile as I mentioned in the first bullet and the likelihood that he was using a browser that views untagged images in the monitor color space (Firefox mode 2, for example).
From my side it is cleared up and what John might have done I really don't want to spend time on unless he cooperates in this thread. Otherwise it is waste of time. I don't have a Windows PC that I can hook up to my Dell monitor so unless someone else will do the same as I did under Windows and using both Safari and Firefox in mode 1 and 2, I'll let the case rest here.
What Kevin has done he should come back on as he indicated.
-
From my side it is cleared up and what John might have done I really don't want to spend time on unless he cooperates in this thread. Otherwise it is waste of time. I don't have a Windows PC that I can hook up to my Dell monitor so unless someone else will do the same as I did under Windows and using both Safari and Firefox in mode 1 and 2, I'll let the case rest here.
What Kevin has done he should come back on as he indicated.
I was just attempting to "close the circle" and show how all the pieces fit together.
And as I said to Slobodan, I don't consider it just wild-assed speculation. It's looking at the evidence provided in the thread and relating that to the way color management in browsers works.
Since different people were seeing different things, I thought it worthwhile to offer an explanation of why.
Since the thread has went on for 10 pages, I also thought a little informative closure would be nice.
I'm certainly open to correction, including verification from Kevin if he has the time and desire to provide it.
-
From my side it is cleared up [...]
Yes, practice is demonstrated to correspond to theory, which is always a relief.
What is also demonstrated is that posting an image without the profile just leads to trouble, for no benefit except a trivial saving in file size.
What remains to be shown is how foliage turns back from yellow to green in the space of a couple of weeks, but let the jury wait in patience for that.
(As for the monitors, as you know - or can guess - my interest is in the Apple thunderbolt display :-) )
-
I was at the same location as Kevin yesterday afternoon on my way back from Isle of Skye and there is my take which also can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/hkruse/15532144069/in/photostream/
-
I was just attempting to "close the circle" and show how all the pieces fit together.
And as I said to Slobodan, I don't consider it just wild-assed speculation. It's looking at the evidence provided in the thread and relating that to the way color management in browsers works.
Since different people were seeing different things, I thought it worthwhile to offer an explanation of why.
Since the thread has went on for 10 pages, I also thought a little informative closure would be nice.
I'm certainly open to correction, including verification from Kevin if he has the time and desire to provide it.
Too many speculations that I find it worth while discussing further.
-
I was at the same location as Kevin yesterday afternoon on my way back from Isle of Skye and there is my take which also can be seen here https://www.flickr.com/photos/hkruse/15532144069/in/photostream/
As I said elsewhere, that is a lovely picture - you can almost taste the Talisker. Well, I will as soon as I open this bottle ... hic!
-
Yes, practice is demonstrated to correspond to theory, which is always a relief.
What is also demonstrated is that posting an image without the profile just leads to trouble, for no benefit except a trivial saving in file size.
What remains to be shown is how foliage turns back from yellow to green in the space of a couple of weeks, but let the jury wait in patience for that.
(As for the monitors, as you know - or can guess - my interest is in the Apple thunderbolt display :-) )
My wife has one and I have looked at it and calibrated before I bought the new Dell U3014. The Apple display has the glass plate that gives too many reflections and I like the bigger 30" display. The Dell display is very nice and nicer than the Apple 27" in my opinion and it is not more expensive. But what I suggested you to look at was 4K displays.... and you can get them in rather different prices where the Dell 24" is very nicely priced and quite a bit lower than the 27" Apple. See a review here http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/DellUP2414Q.html
-
As I said elsewhere, that is a lovely picture - you can almost taste the Talisker. Well, I will as soon as I open this bottle ... hic!
Thanks, I had a couple Talisker last evening to celebrate the week in Scotland. Certainly to be repeated. It was wonderful despite all the rain.
-
Kevin,
When I get back from the damp and wet Scotland trip I am presently on I will pull the original raw and do a small article on it.
I will revisit this and ask Joe and Steve to contribute to the article with me...I will ask each of them to process the same file in their way.
...wait and let a few of us show you what we do with this particular image.
Was a follow-up article ever published?
-
Thanks, I had a couple Talisker last evening to celebrate the week in Scotland. Certainly to be repeated. It was wonderful despite all the rain.
Talisker makes the rain all the more bearable, so long as you don't get too much rain in the glass
-
I had a Talisker Storm last night. Very nice. My first malt of the evening was a Smokehead. Now that is a smoky malt! :)
-
Kevin,
Was a follow-up article ever published?
Not that I saw.