Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Glencoe, Scotland  (Read 30667 times)

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #160 on: November 03, 2014, 02:39:41 pm »

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. 
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #161 on: November 03, 2014, 02:53:33 pm »

...  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 provided a link, WEB BROWSER COLOR MANAGEMENT TUTORIAL. In that tutorial, the author says the following (emphasis mine):

Quote
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).

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #162 on: November 03, 2014, 02:56:07 pm »

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.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 03:11:55 pm by john beardsworth »
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #163 on: November 03, 2014, 03:06:26 pm »


"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.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #164 on: November 03, 2014, 03:17:52 pm »

... 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."  ;)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2014, 03:23:46 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #165 on: November 03, 2014, 03:23:36 pm »

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!
Logged

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #166 on: November 03, 2014, 03:39:48 pm »

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.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #167 on: November 03, 2014, 04:06:33 pm »

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.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #168 on: November 03, 2014, 04:09:31 pm »

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)?

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #169 on: November 03, 2014, 04:10:09 pm »

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.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #170 on: November 03, 2014, 04:16:09 pm »

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).

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #171 on: November 03, 2014, 04:19:50 pm »

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).

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #172 on: November 03, 2014, 04:25:50 pm »

. . . 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. :)
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #173 on: November 03, 2014, 04:32:05 pm »

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.

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #174 on: November 03, 2014, 04:51:14 pm »

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.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #175 on: November 03, 2014, 04:52:27 pm »

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.

Eyeball

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #176 on: November 03, 2014, 05:15:07 pm »

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).
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #177 on: November 03, 2014, 05:21:07 pm »

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
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #178 on: November 03, 2014, 05:31:09 pm »

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.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #179 on: November 03, 2014, 05:32:40 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11   Go Up