Calibration brightness level

[digitaldog]

I agree.  I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print.

Again, we hear from someone who never lets complete ignorance of a subject (calibration, resolution, converting color spaces, the color space of 'the web' being sRGB) get in the way of having strong opinions about it.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139472.msg1228445#msg1228445

If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB? 

I fully accept that you don't know. Others here do, maybe type less, read more? And the color space you're struggling to describe is called Adobe RGB (1998).

This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.

That would make perfect sense if you suspend all rational thought.

[ghostwind]

I agree.  I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print.  If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB?   This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.

Exactly - it's not that complicated.

[digitaldog]

Exactly - it's not that complicated.

Exactly wrong, but no matter. The idea that "the web which is sRGB" is rubbish.

[ghostwind]

That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision? Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors? Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.
"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.

Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Yeah, so what ICC profile should I export my photos with for web if not sRGB? sRGB guarantees all monitors can handle it. Should I export with Adobe 98? Nope. Some Display P3 variant because Apple devices use that now? Nope! So yeah, sRGB is still the best option.

100nits is good enough to edit in - I know the spec says 80 with 64lux ennvironment, but are people measuring their ambient light? Not really. 100 (like for REC 709) is good for a dim envorinment editing so you can see details. More than that is up to you, but this is what I've found works when later viewiing my images on a variety of devices with britghness cranked way up, etc.

[ghostwind]

Exactly wrong, but no matter. The idea that "the web which is sRGB" is rubbish.

Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display, so you know if you worked in that colorspace and you embedd the ICC profile for said colorspace, most people will see what you intended colorspace-wise. And that colorspace is sRGB. Not only that, but for apps that are not color managed, they assume sRGB. So yeah, sRGB is still the best, even if the gamut is smaller and late 90s

[ghostwind]

That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision? Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors? Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.
"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.

Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html

Again, work in the smallest colorspace you need to. Of course RAW will clip when exporting, but if you are calibrated for sRGB and working on a file and you edit colors in that space, any clipping will not be an issue because you didn't edit colors that are are out of gamut, as you can's see them if you are calibrated for that gamut. Make sense now? It's simple really.

[jrsforums]

I agree.  I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print.  If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB?   This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.

If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB).  Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated).  What matters is that you exit with the image exported to a RGB jpeg.

[Alan Klein]

If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB).  Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated).  What matters is that you exit with the image exported to a RGB jpeg.

I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB.  So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?

[digitaldog]

Yeah, so what ICC profile should I export my photos with for web if not sRGB?

Makes ZERO difference if your browser is color managed. ProPhoto RGB is fine, Adobe RGB (1998) is fine. Without a color managed browser, sRGB is meaningless. sRGB in such a case isn't fine because there is no color management. Color management is color space agnostic; any color space on the web or in Photoshop is fair game.

sRGB guarantees all monitors can handle it.

Absurd. Handle it? ANY display can with with color management if the user calibrates and profiles it, then uses a color managed application.

Should I export with Adobe 98? Nope.

The color space is called Adobe RGB (1998), and yes, you can with a color managed browser use it and any RGB Working Space tagged with the image.

Some Display P3 variant because Apple devices use that now? Nope!

Yes, you can with a color managed browser us it and any RGB Working Space tagged with the image.

100nits is good enough to edit in

It doesn't matter. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

- I know the spec says 80 with 64lux ennvironment, but are people measuring their ambient light? Not really. 100 (like for REC 709) is good for a dim envorinment editing so you can see details. More than that is up to you, but this is what I've found works when later viewiing my images on a variety of devices with britghness cranked way up, etc.

It doesn't matter. Are you under the silly impression that everyone viewing images on the web, even using sRGB gamut displays are all using 80 Cd/m2? They are not.
You also don't seem to understand that viewing images in a color managed application involves FAR more than just the color gamut of a Working Space!

Again, work in the smallest colorspace you need to.

For what, for whom using what display gamut, display calibration aim point? You can't answer that. And in the end, it doesn't matter.

Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display

That's just nonsense. Again, there are millions of wide gamut displays just in mobile devices. Thankfully, most being driven with OS color management and browser color management.
The web has no color space. The web is composed of data represented by numbers. The numbers used to define an image either have a scale (a color space) and that's used for previews or it doesn't and all bets are off. The web, using a color managed browser will preview a tagged image exactly like Photoshop or Lightroom or C1 etc. Because they are color managed. They ALL match on YOUR system. Anyone else viewing your images? All bets are off. We (you) can't control what browser they are using that may not be color managed, or the condition of their display, or the profile if one exists of that display.   

Make sense now? It's simple really.

To those that don't understand basic color management it seems.
Worth mentioning once again: ”The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it!” - The Digital Dog
You and Alan should stop sharing. PLEASE.

[simon.garrett@iee.org]

Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display, so you know if you worked in that colorspace and you embedd the ICC profile for said colorspace, most people will see what you intended colorspace-wise. And that colorspace is sRGB.

Not really.  If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile.  If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space. 

But if they're not using colour management...

Not only that, but for apps that are not color managed, they assume sRGB. So yeah, sRGB is still the best, even if the gamut is smaller and late 90s

... then this isn't right either.  Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything.  They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor. 

Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor.  Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly.  However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.

[digitaldog]

I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB.  So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?

Another silly question asked who's correct answer will be ignored. The calibration of your display is UTTERLY divorced with the data you edit and its color space by design.
You edit with Lightroom on a grayscale display, the data doesn't care.
Anyone here can go to your Flickr page and see, in a color managed means, as seen below, that you've got a lot of work to do in terms of showing your 'photography' to others, using sRGB or otherwise. Case in point, color managed screen capture:

[simon.garrett@iee.org]

I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB.  So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?

Lightroom will convert the image from its working space (ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) to sRGB before sending the image data to the monitor. 

That's what happens whenever any image is displayed on a calibrated/profiles monitor by colour managed software.  It doesn't matter what colour space the image is, it will be displayed correctly on the monitor.  The proviso is that pixels with highly saturated colours outside sRGB (and only those pixels) will be mapped to the nearest colour that is in sRGB (depending on the rendering intent - usually relative, I believe).  All other pixels - nearly all pixels in nearly all images - will be displayed identically. 

[digitaldog]

Not really.  If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile.  If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space. 

But if they're not using colour management...

... then this isn't right either.  Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything.  They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor. 

Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor.  Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly.  However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.

And

If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB).  Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated).

Exactly so in total.
It is impossible to puncture the unreality bubble surrounding a fact denier. We can only attempt to sway those with open minds. Certainly one poster here, perhaps two don't have open minds to facts, science (color science and more), and data.

[ghostwind]

To answer some points:

1. How can you say it makes ZERO difference what ICC profile you export your image with when you don't know if the display it's being viewed on cannot fully display Adobe RGB, Display P3, or nevermind ProPhoto RGB... Obvously a color managed browser/app will understand the profile, but what happens to out of gamut colors, colors that the display cannot show? All I know is that just about any display device can cover sRGB's gamut, so then I know that on export I'm ensuring it will be compatible with most devices out there, as opposed to Adobe RGB or larger. What's there to argue about here, I don't get. Absurd? What are you going on about? Just because I CAN export with any ICC profile I want doesn't mean jack if the end user can't see that color gamut. sRGB is the most compatible, so that's what I use for files destined for the web.

2. The 100nit suggestion is a recommnedation based on years of calibrating my monitor to it and then testing how my images look on various devices that may or may not be calibrated and that have the brigthness turned way up or thet other way around. I've found that 80-120nits is a safe area to work in, in that your images will for the most part look right on most devices out there. If you calibrate below 80 they will most likely be too bright, and above 120, too dark. No need to get all worked up about it. You recommend a better number and tell us why.

3. Obviously the web has no color space, but you missed my point. For me, it's not about idealism, but about being pragmatic too. Yeah there are more and more WCG displays out there. So what? See point #1 above. Can they do 100% of Adobe RGB or Display P3? If so, what percent? Again, sRGB is a safer bet. Yeah, in 2021 still, but I'm confident most displays can handle the gamut.

4. I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things, but that doesn't give you the right to make asssumptions and be condescending and rude.

[ghostwind]

Not really.  If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile.  If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space. 

But if they're not using colour management...

... then this isn't right either.  Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything.  They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor. 

Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor.  Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly.  However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.

I posted just before this. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Are you saying all display devices out there can corretly display 100% Adobe RGB or larger colorspaces? That's news to me

OK, maybe "assume" was the wrong word. But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.

[ghostwind]

Lightroom will convert the image from its working space (ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) to sRGB before sending the image data to the monitor. 

That's what happens whenever any image is displayed on a calibrated/profiles monitor by colour managed software.  It doesn't matter what colour space the image is, it will be displayed correctly on the monitor.  The proviso is that pixels with highly saturated colours outside sRGB (and only those pixels) will be mapped to the nearest colour that is in sRGB (depending on the rendering intent - usually relative, I believe).  All other pixels - nearly all pixels in nearly all images - will be displayed identically.

Correct. And I can only edit colors that I can see, would you also agree? I don't understand all this theoretical talk.

[digitaldog]

I posted just before this. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Are you saying all display devices out there can corretly display 100% Adobe RGB or larger colorspaces? That's news to me

OK, maybe "assume" was the wrong word. But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.

You seem rather confused between displays, their possible display calibrations, their color gamuts and how all this is divorced from the working space of the data that also requires a profile.
Perhaps this Adobe white paper will clear this up:
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things

Unlike the few people that you were arguing with, that also provide full transparency of their backgrounds and names and do understand those things...

[simon.garrett@iee.org]

To answer some points:

1. How can you say it makes ZERO difference what ICC profile you export your image with when you don't know if the display it's being viewed on cannot fully display Adobe RGB, Display P3, or nevermind ProPhoto RGB... Obvously a color managed browser/app will understand the profile, but what happens to out of gamut colors, colors that the display cannot show? All I know is that just about any display device can cover sRGB's gamut, so then I know that on export I'm ensuring it will be compatible with most devices out there, as opposed to Adobe RGB or larger. What's there to argue about here, I don't get. Absurd? What are you going on about? Just because I CAN export with any ICC profile I want doesn't mean jack if the end user can't see that color gamut. sRGB is the most compatible, so that's what I use for files destined for the web.

OK, let's go through the possible scenarios in detail.

If the image is in a gamut wider than sRGB, and has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut (that is, highly-saturated colours), then when these are displayed on an sRGB colour-managed monitor, colours outside sRGB will be clipped to the nearest equivalent colour that is inside sRGB. 

This happens either because when you export you convert to sRGB (the clipping occurs then) or because (if you export in a wider colour space), when the viewer at some later point views the image, the colours are clipped by the colour-managed software when rendering the image to view on that sRGB monitor.  There's no difference.  Similarly, if when you edit in a colour-managed program, you are using an sRGB monitor, then out-of-gamut colours are clipped for display.  Again, you see the same image.

Where there might be a difference: if you edit an image in a wide colour space (wider than sRGB), AND the image has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut, AND while you are editing you are using a colour-managed wide-gamut monitor, then you will see these out-of-gamut colours that you won't see if you later view the image on a narrow (sRGB) gamut monitor.  However, it makes no difference whether you export in sRGB, Adobe RGB or any other colour space.  Either the conversion and clipping occurs when you export (if you convert to sRGB) or when you view the exported image on a colour-managed sRGB monitor (if you export in a wider gamut), the result is the same. 

Of course, if you view an image in a wide-gamut colour space on an unmanaged sRGB monitor, the colours will be wrong.  That's why it's a good idea to convert to sRGB on export of images destined for the web.  But there's no real disadvantage in editing in a wide-gamut working space (as Lightroom always does).  You can always use soft proofing if you want to see what colours might be clipped. 

2. The 100nit suggestion is a recommnedation based on years of calibrating my monitor to it and then testing how my images look on various devices that may or may not be calibrated and that have the brigthness turned way up or thet other way around. I've found that 80-120nits is a safe area to work in, in that your images will for the most part look right on most devices out there. If you calibrate below 80 they will most likely be too bright, and above 120, too dark. No need to get all worked up about it. You recommend a better number and tell us why.

3. Obviously the web has no color space, but you missed my point. For me, it's not about idealism, but about being pragmatic too. Yeah there are more and more WCG displays out there. So what? See point #1 above. Can they do 100% of Adobe RGB or Display P3? If so, what percent? Again, sRGB is a safer bet. Yeah, in 2021 still, but I'm confident most displays can handle the gamut.

I don't follow this argument.

I have used at home 3 or 4 different wide-gamut monitors, and all could display colours beyond Adobe RGB.  As my cameras can record colours beyond sRGB, then a wide gamut monitor is clearly the safer bet.  It means that I can see colours beyond sRGB that my printer can print, and it means I'm future-proofing for the time when more people on the web are using wide-gamut monitors. 

sRGB is a safe bet for the choice of colour space for images when they uploaded for the web.  As a colour space for storing, editing, printing or viewing images, it has only disadvantages. 

4. I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things, but that doesn't give you the right to make asssumptions and be condescending and rude.

[ghostwind]

OK, let's go through the possible scenarios in detail.

If the image is in a gamut wider than sRGB, and has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut (that is, highly-saturated colours), then when these are displayed on an sRGB colour-managed monitor, colours outside sRGB will be clipped to the nearest equivalent colour that is inside sRGB. 

This happens either because when you export you convert to sRGB (the clipping occurs then) or because (if you export in a wider colour space), when the viewer at some later point views the image, the colours are clipped by the colour-managed software when rendering the image to view on that sRGB monitor.  There's no difference.  Similarly, if when you edit in a colour-managed program, you are using an sRGB monitor, then out-of-gamut colours are clipped for display.  Again, you see the same image.

Where there might be a difference: if you edit an image in a wide colour space (wider than sRGB), AND the image has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut, AND while you are editing you are using a colour-managed wide-gamut monitor, then you will see these out-of-gamut colours that you won't see if you later view the image on a narrow (sRGB) gamut monitor.  However, it makes no difference whether you export in sRGB, Adobe RGB or any other colour space.  Either the conversion and clipping occurs when you export (if you convert to sRGB) or when you view the exported image on a colour-managed sRGB monitor (if you export in a wider gamut), the result is the same. 

Of course, if you view an image in a wide-gamut colour space on an unmanaged sRGB monitor, the colours will be wrong.  That's why it's a good idea to convert to sRGB on export of images destined for the web.  But there's no real disadvantage in editing in a wide-gamut working space (as Lightroom always does).  You can always use soft proofing if you want to see what colours might be clipped.

Yes, I understand exaactly what you are saying. I'm not disagreeing, because these are facts. But what I'm trying to say is actually simple, though perhaps it's not coming out this way. My goal, for images destined to be only viewed on the web, is to have the utmost consistency. That's all. And all I can control in this consistency is the colorspace of the image I'm exporting. If I edit such an image in say Adobe RGB, tag on export with the Adobe RGB profile, then some with WCG displays that can reproduce Adobe RGB fully will see it as I do (if they are calibrated as well), but most will not - they will have some clipping somewhere as you point out. So all I can do to make sure my images are seen the same for most everyone, is to export as sRGB - as I think we both agree. That's all I'm trying to say here. The lowest common denominator wins.

In terms of editing in a larger space and softproofing, that's time consuming, and doesn't help me all that much if you see my point. It will show me, but it is what it is.

I don't follow this argument.

I have used at home 3 or 4 different wide-gamut monitors, and all could display colours beyond Adobe RGB.  As my cameras can record colours beyond sRGB, then a wide gamut monitor is clearly the safer bet.  It means that I can see colours beyond sRGB that my printer can print, and it means I'm future-proofing for the time when more people on the web are using wide-gamut monitors. 

sRGB is a safe bet for the choice of colour space for images when they uploaded for the web.  As a colour space for storing, editing, printing or viewing images, it has only disadvantages.

Some can, some can't. Not fully either. It depends on the display. Again, I'm talking in this thread about images for web. For images I print or other unique purposes, I use Adobe RGB if the image has colors in ACR that clip in sRGB but not in Adobe RGB for example. My RAW files are always there if I need them in the future, so no worries I don't worry about future proofing - I don't believe in this concept in general. Things change all the time. If I need to revisit, I will alwyas go back to the RAW file.

[ghostwind]

You seem rather confused between displays, their possible display calibrations, their color gamuts aes  and how all this is divorced from the working space of the data that also requires a profile.
Perhaps this Adobe white paper will clear this up:
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

No, not at all cofused. I've understood this since ACR came out in 2003 and Bruce's book came out.

Unlike the few people that you were arguing with, that also provide full transparency of their backgrounds and names and do understand those things...

Again, I'm not "arguing". You are arguing and insulting. And assuming a lot about what others know or don't know. If you like to act this way (and I've seen this from you towards almost anyone posting here), under your real name, and wear that as some badge of honor, more power to you. For me, it would be quite embarassing to behave that way. Be professional...