Glencoe, Scotland

[john beardsworth]

Photoshop Save for Web - Embed Color Profile or not ? is relevant.

[Les Sparks]

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.
 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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 Kruse]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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 Kruse]

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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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."

[jeremyrh]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[Patricia Sheley]

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'

[Schewe]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[jeremyrh]

Jeff - that looks like a plausible explanation. Going forward, is there any downside to always keeping the tag intact?

[john beardsworth]

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

[jjj]

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.

[jeremyrh]

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 !!

[dennbel]

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).

[Hans Kruse]

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.