ICC V4 profiles - any progress in acceptance?

[xpatUSA]

I shoot flowers, 'mongst other things and often some captured colors are well out-of-gamut as far as sRGB is concerned. I shoot with Sigma DSLRs and use the SPP > 16bit ProPhoto TIFF > RawTherapee > JPEG workflow. RawTherapee can save in Perceptual Intent but, like Adobe, that selection does no good if the selected output profile is a simple matrix job.

I have just downloaded ICC's V4 display class profile which has CLUTs - but was warned off that here, a year or so ago. Has the situation changed? Do all the common browsers support V4 now?

Are there any other display class profiles that are good for perceptual? I had one but it disappeared in my last computer crash.

P.S. only interested in monitor viewing, I don't print . . .

Ted

[digitaldog]

The benefit here would be converting TO sRGB using a perceptual table in that profile from a larger color space. Have you tried that?

[xpatUSA]

The benefit here would be converting TO sRGB using a perceptual table in that profile from a larger color space. Have you tried that?

Yes, I believe that's what I do, effectively. I open the raw X3F file in Sigma Photo Pro (SPP) using ProPhoto working space. Then I export from SPP to RawTherapee (RT) via 16bit ProPhoto TIFF. I leave RT's working space at it's default ProPhoto. So I have, up to this point, remained in your "larger color space" with few, if any, out-of-gamut colors. From there, I can go two ways: a) change to sRGB working space and reduce saturation as needed, then 'save as' with a regular IEC sRGB output profile, or b) stay in ProPhoto and 'save as' perceptual intent with a truly perceptual output profile - is that what you meant by " sRGB using a perceptual table in that profile"?

So, is V4 sRGB currently more acceptable to browsers than it was, or would you still recommend sticking with V2? If so, are you aware of any display class V2 sRGB profiles that can provide true perceptual intent?

[digitaldog]

From there, I can go two ways: a) change to sRGB working space and reduce saturation as needed, then 'save as' with a regular IEC sRGB output profile, or b) stay in ProPhoto and 'save as' perceptual intent with a truly perceptual output profile - is that what you meant by " sRGB using a perceptual table in that profile"?

Yes, not that just having that new table will do a lot for you, depending on the image.

So, is V4 sRGB currently more acceptable to browsers than it was, or would you still recommend sticking with V2? If so, are you aware of any display class V2 sRGB profiles that can provide true perceptual intent?

I don't understand how it would have an bearing on a web browser.

[xpatUSA]

Yes, not that just having that new table will do a lot for you, depending on the image.

I had mentioned flowers earlier. from a scene-related POV, the petals can have large out-of-sRGB-gamut areas that will get clipped to the sRGB gamut boundary during conversion from scene-related space thru converter working space to sRGB, do you not agree? For example, with a purple flower, highly saturated purples will get crammed up on the sRGB "purple line" and any green RGB components will likely get forced to zero. Many folks don't notice, thinking how colorful their flower image is, but not having that over-saturation in my images does a lot for me.

I don't understand how it would have an bearing on a web browser.

I meant that if a browser (even if 'color-managed') won't recognize a V4 profile but instead reverts to it's standard matrix-based sRGB, I will have wasted my time. Hence my original question, as yet unanswered.

[Schewe]

Are there any other display class profiles that are good for perceptual? I had one but it disappeared in my last computer crash.

Are you thinking of this: sRGB Appearance profile. This is the only sRGB profile I know of that can use perceptual rendering...otherwise it's always only RelCol with clipping.

[xpatUSA]

Are you thinking of this: sRGB Appearance profile. This is the only sRGB profile I know of that can use perceptual rendering...otherwise it's always only RelCol with clipping.

Thanks but no, I've already downloaded that one, that is the V4 I've been going on about - in your link, it says "This profile is a v4 replacement for commonly used sRGB v2 profiles.".

I used to have a V2 display class profile which had the necessary A2B etc tables for perceptual rendition but I lost it. It was by one of those guys with no life who spends all their time working up obscure profiles for people like me

[digitaldog]

I meant that if a browser (even if 'color-managed') won't recognize a V4 profile but instead reverts to it's standard matrix-based sRGB, I will have wasted my time. Hence my original question, as yet unanswered.

Again, I don't see how the browser is pertinent. Converting to sRGB could be! Your browser is either color managed or it's not. And what other's see? Huge crap shoot. So you can try converting to sRGB with the sRGB profile that has a perceptual table, but it's not going to solve a lot of the issues with sRGB in general, it's just one extra option. Soft proof, try both tables, pick the one that looks best (they may both look like crap).

[xpatUSA]

Thank you for your helpful response which caused me to go do some digging. I now realize that my questions weren't put correctly, judging by the response.

Again, I don't see how the browser is pertinent. Converting to sRGB could be! Your browser is either color managed or it's not.

I'm glad at least that it's that simple and answers my title question. From that I now understand that if a browser is color managed it will accept and display an image with a V4 embedded profile correctly. Thank you.

And what other's see? Huge crap shoot.

Yes, that is well understood by most, even me.

So you can try converting to sRGB with the sRGB profile that has a perceptual table, but it's not going to solve a lot of the issues with sRGB in general, it's just one extra option.

I do not wish to solve all the issues with sRGB and, here, I'm trying to concentrate one subject. Further reading suggests to me that, by using "sRGB", I have confused the issue. What I am still looking for is a V2 display class profile that has the six tables and is similar enough to sRGB  e.g. same or similar primaries, white point, black point, illuminant, blah-di-blah.

Same question as in the OP: Does anybody here know of one? If so, please post a link.

Soft proof, try both tables, pick the one that looks best

Picking "the one that looks best" was not my intent but I think I get what you mean.

(they may both look like crap).

LOL. With my shooting skills, very likely.

[digitaldog]

Thank you for your helpful response which caused me to go do some digging. I now realize that my questions weren't put correctly, judging by the response.

I'm glad at least that it's that simple and answers my title question. From that I now understand that if a browser is color managed it will accept and display an image with a V4 embedded profile correctly. Thank you.

Trust but verify:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

[xpatUSA]

Trust but verify:
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

Yes, did that a couple years ago on my XP machine.

Just did it again on my Windows 7 machine and all is not well in FireFox  

Result says it's good for V2 only. Therefore, FireFox (out-of-the-box) is not as color-managed as we would like it to be.

[edit] Chrome did the same [/edit]

I seem to recall that FireFox can be made V4-compliant by going in and changing some prefs but I can't be bothered with that and few other folks could either, I imagine.

So the grail for me reverts to a V2 display class profile with all the tables . . .

TTFN.

[xpatUSA]

So the grail for me reverts to a V2 display class profile with all the tables . . .

After more digging, I found what I needed right here in this Forum, courtesy of Robert Ardill:

http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/LL/ppRGB-sRGB.icm

Thank you, Robert!

Such a pity that it crashes RawTherapee, though.

Always the same when trying to something a little differently . . .

[digitaldog]

Result says it's good for V2 only. Therefore, FireFox (out-of-the-box) is not as color-managed as we would like it to be.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html