Glencoe, Scotland

[Hans Kruse]

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 beardsworth]

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.

[kurtay]

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.

[jeremyrh]

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!

[Hans Kruse]

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

[stamper]

Spectacular to say the least! A wonderful set that you can be proud of and hung on a wall would be a fine sight.

[jjj]

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. Some sections are not for those wary of heights.

[jeremyrh]

Here's a local lad riding his bike in some of those those stunning locations. Some sections are not for those wary of heights.

That's seriously mental :-)  Still - Hans can do that with a tripod in his backpack!

[jjj]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[jjj]

A bit of practice and should be ok Ah, maybe a smaller tripod though.

You may need two for balance though....

[Pete Berry]

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

[Hans Kruse]

And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari).



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.

[john beardsworth]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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?

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[Eyeball]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Since John has a wide-gamut monitor, the differences are significant....

He is saying he does not have a wide-gamut monitor.

[Eyeball]

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.