Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Do you know that images you post on the web might not be the same thing
that others see? That those vibrant colors you spent that two grand in
order to catch will appear flat? Yes, many here probably already know
this but I had to explain it for someone else and thought this page
would be useful for those who don't know about it.

It also helps you to see where your browser stands on interpreting ICC
Color Profiles. Apple's Safari we browser is the only one that
interprets all six. Opera gives a few amusing results.

Also, most auto gallery makers strip the profile from the image (yes,
even photoshop cs does it) as well.

So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
talking about. I really don't shoot in color film all that much.

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/webcolor/

Image was shot RAW, 300D, AdobeRGB(1998).



--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christian Bonanno <seewebpage@mysig.com> wrote:

> So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
> talking about.

Who says you don't know what you're talking about? You need to convert
to sRGB for web posting, so people who insist on using broken software
can see the images properly.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <11j6iup7k5t8dd1@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> Christian Bonanno <seewebpage@mysig.com> wrote:
>
> > So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
> > talking about.
>
> Who says you don't know what you're talking about?

OH NO! I did not mean that to sound cocky! I really meant that I am not
sure what I am talking about! My apologies!


> You need to convert
> to sRGB for web posting, so people who insist on using broken software
> can see the images properly.

I have an sRGB sample up there and on Explorer and Firefox on my Mac it
does not look like the original. Is it different on the PC?



--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christian Bonanno wrote:

>
> Do you know that images you post on the web might not be the same thing
> that others see?

LOL.. That's for sure.. I doubt 10% of the people who view images
on the web have ever used a color spider or some other method of calibrating
their monitors. I've also heard that some people actually use monitors
that are 5 years old (or even older

Forget color space.. Lack of calibration and worn out monitors will cause
major differences in how images look.


> So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
> talking about. I really don't shoot in color film all that much.
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/webcolor/

There's a difference.. The sRGB looks most natural to me.. Which
makes sense because it's the most commonly used color space.....

I run Firfox under Linux....

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christian Bonanno <seewebpage@mysig.com> wrote:

> I have an sRGB sample up there and on Explorer and Firefox on my Mac it
> does not look like the original. Is it different on the PC?

It depends on your definition of "original". If you take an image that's
in Adobe RGB and just strip the profile, it's still in Adobe RGB, it's just
untagged. A browser that doesn't understand ICC profiles will render it as
sRGB, resulting in under-saturated colors.

In Safari, on your test page, the untagged image is the only one that
doesn't display properly -- because the browser is assuming it's sRGB,
as it's supposed to, but it's not sRGB. All of the profile-tagged
images display properly.

That, of course, won't be the case elsewhere.

You don't need to strip the profile -- you need to *convert* the image
to sRGB for web display. This will usually result in clipped color
channels, but in most cases, the image will look correct anyway,
especially since you're also reducing the size to the point where
the lost detail may not be apparent. In some cases it may cause
color shifts.

An image with no ICC profile is assumed to be sRGB, so if you have an
image with no profile, you need to make sure it really is sRGB, or else
it will display wrong everywhere.

If you want to be really clever, you could program your web server to
return a tagged Adobe RGB image to Safari, and an sRGB one to other
browsers. That option probably isn't available to most people with
personal web sites, of course.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Christian Bonanno wrote:
> Do you know that images you post on the web might not be the same thing
> that others see? That those vibrant colors you spent that two grand in
> order to catch will appear flat? Yes, many here probably already know
> this but I had to explain it for someone else and thought this page
> would be useful for those who don't know about it.
>
> It also helps you to see where your browser stands on interpreting ICC
> Color Profiles. Apple's Safari we browser is the only one that
> interprets all six. Opera gives a few amusing results.
>
> Also, most auto gallery makers strip the profile from the image (yes,
> even photoshop cs does it) as well.
>
> So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
> talking about. I really don't shoot in color film all that much.
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/webcolor/
>
> Image was shot RAW, 300D, AdobeRGB(1998).
>
>
>
It's a relatively well know situation that you have to balance you
system for colour. What is not so well known or understood is that this
is a highly subjective process which is centric to that system.

I have a fairly complex network of PCs, printers and scanners. It took
me many month to eventually arrive at a balance which allows me to
accept images, negatives and photographs from customers and produce
colour correct output with my printers on a wide variety of material.

I happily went along with this colour balanced system for many, many
months until one day I began posting pictures to the Internet. Blown
highlights! Came the cry. Now I use a cheap PC I bought second hand to
process images for the Internet because making a true colour
photographic print or a colour correct digital print, requires a
different colour and contrast balance than one you intend for the
Internet. sRGB is the colour space of a monitor. CMYK is the colour
space of a printer. The twain shall never meet!

The problem is so serious, Microsoft are developing the next generation
of Windows with a GUI to specifically address this problem. Epson, Canon
and a handful of others have all tried their own flavour of colour
correction. None are universal.

Real, dyed in the wool expert Photoshop users will tell you everything
has to have it's own profile. Often the only way a novice can make a
print anywhere near the right colour is to switch off colour management
altogether.

So here is my input to the debate. Don't try to manage colour on someone
else's computer. Simple. Eh? To post an image to the Internet, carries
with it the proposition that you can't possible control how a stranger
has their computer set up... So don't try!

Post images to the Internet composed, altered and balanced for no colour
management at all. Tell me what you think of this image:
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/gal [...] 23-01.html
Watch the wrap!

It has red, blue and green plus black - a component of the green
channel. If you see this image as bright and vivid, then I have
succeeded in what I just outlined above. If it's just a drab picture...
I've failed yet again!

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

[sneep]

>I have a fairly complex network of PCs, printers and scanners. It took
>me many month to eventually arrive at a balance which allows me to
>accept images, negatives and photographs from customers and produce
>colour correct output with my printers on a wide variety of material.
>
>I happily went along with this colour balanced system for many, many
>months until one day I began posting pictures to the Internet. Blown
>highlights! Came the cry. Now I use a cheap PC I bought second hand to
>process images for the Internet because making a true colour
>photographic print or a colour correct digital print, requires a
>different colour and contrast balance than one you intend for the
>Internet. sRGB is the colour space of a monitor. CMYK is the colour
>space of a printer. The twain shall never meet!
>
>The problem is so serious, Microsoft are developing the next generation
>of Windows with a GUI to specifically address this problem. Epson, Canon
>and a handful of others have all tried their own flavour of colour
>correction. None are universal.

[sneep]

Does ACDSee display all images in sRGB?

Elmo Thud

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Elmo Thud wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> [sneep]
>
>
>>I have a fairly complex network of PCs, printers and scanners. It took
>>me many month to eventually arrive at a balance which allows me to
>>accept images, negatives and photographs from customers and produce
>>colour correct output with my printers on a wide variety of material.
>>
>>I happily went along with this colour balanced system for many, many
>>months until one day I began posting pictures to the Internet. Blown
>>highlights! Came the cry. Now I use a cheap PC I bought second hand to
>>process images for the Internet because making a true colour
>>photographic print or a colour correct digital print, requires a
>>different colour and contrast balance than one you intend for the
>>Internet. sRGB is the colour space of a monitor. CMYK is the colour
>>space of a printer. The twain shall never meet!
>>
>>The problem is so serious, Microsoft are developing the next generation
>>of Windows with a GUI to specifically address this problem. Epson, Canon
>>and a handful of others have all tried their own flavour of colour
>>correction. None are universal.
>
>
> [sneep]
>
> Does ACDSee display all images in sRGB?
>
> Elmo Thud

Everything you see on your screen is sRGB. It matters not if a program
attempts to display a CMYK (or whatever) image, when you see it, it is
rendered sRGB. It's a total waste of time attempting to post a non sRGB
image to the Internet.

--
Douglas...
Have gun will travel... Said his card.
I didn't care, I shot him anyway.
1/125th @ f5.6. R.I.P. Mamiya.

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Elmo Thud wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
>> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [sneep]
>>
>>
>>> I have a fairly complex network of PCs, printers and scanners. It took
>>> me many month to eventually arrive at a balance which allows me to
>>> accept images, negatives and photographs from customers and produce
>>> colour correct output with my printers on a wide variety of material.
>>>
>>> I happily went along with this colour balanced system for many, many
>>> months until one day I began posting pictures to the Internet. Blown
>>> highlights! Came the cry. Now I use a cheap PC I bought second hand to
>>> process images for the Internet because making a true colour
>>> photographic print or a colour correct digital print, requires a
>>> different colour and contrast balance than one you intend for the
>>> Internet. sRGB is the colour space of a monitor. CMYK is the colour
>>> space of a printer. The twain shall never meet!
>>>
>>> The problem is so serious, Microsoft are developing the next generation
>>> of Windows with a GUI to specifically address this problem. Epson, Canon
>>> and a handful of others have all tried their own flavour of colour
>>> correction. None are universal.
>>
>>
>> [sneep]
>>
>> Does ACDSee display all images in sRGB?
>>
>> Elmo Thud
>
> Everything you see on your screen is sRGB. It matters not if a program
> attempts to display a CMYK (or whatever) image, when you see it, it is
> rendered sRGB. It's a total waste of time attempting to post a non sRGB
> image to the Internet.


Digital SLR's are sRGB too, so that simplifies it.

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4333aac3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Post images to the Internet composed, altered and balanced for no colour
> management at all. Tell me what you think of this image:
> http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/gal [...] MG_6423-01
> .html
> Watch the wrap!

came through bright and clear. Mozilla ,Mac OS X10.3.8

--
Rap is to music what Etch-a-Sketch is to art.

Bob
in Carmel, CA

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Everything you see on your screen is sRGB.

Please don't listen to Douglas. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Unspam <unspam@mail.com> wrote:

> Digital SLR's are sRGB too, so that simplifies it.

No, they most certainly are not. (Though they may have a setting to force
them to be so.)

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: alt.binaries.photos.original,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4333aac3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Christian Bonanno wrote:
> > Do you know that images you post on the web might not be the same thing
> > that others see? That those vibrant colors you spent that two grand in
> > order to catch will appear flat? Yes, many here probably already know
> > this but I had to explain it for someone else and thought this page
> > would be useful for those who don't know about it.
> >
> > It also helps you to see where your browser stands on interpreting ICC
> > Color Profiles. Apple's Safari we browser is the only one that
> > interprets all six. Opera gives a few amusing results.
> >
> > Also, most auto gallery makers strip the profile from the image (yes,
> > even photoshop cs does it) as well.
> >
> > So see the link below and please tell me where I don't know what I am
> > talking about. I really don't shoot in color film all that much.
> >
> > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/webcolor/
> >
> > Image was shot RAW, 300D, AdobeRGB(1998).
> >
> >
> >
> It's a relatively well know situation that you have to balance you
> system for colour. What is not so well known or understood is that this
> is a highly subjective process which is centric to that system.

Don't professional tools like this http://www.colorvision.com/ take much
of the subjectivity out of it?

But calibrating a monitor, while subjective, is easy and better then
doing nothing from what I have read.

>
> I have a fairly complex network of PCs, printers and scanners. It took
> me many month to eventually arrive at a balance which allows me to
> accept images, negatives and photographs from customers and produce
> colour correct output with my printers on a wide variety of material.
>
> I happily went along with this colour balanced system for many, many
> months until one day I began posting pictures to the Internet. Blown
> highlights! Came the cry. Now I use a cheap PC I bought second hand to
> process images for the Internet because making a true colour
> photographic print or a colour correct digital print, requires a
> different colour and contrast balance than one you intend for the
> Internet. sRGB is the colour space of a monitor. CMYK is the colour
> space of a printer. The twain shall never meet!

I think the internet is a new "output device". There are many devices
(browsers) as there are types of printers. I don't understand why you
trashed a working system because of a new output device as I can't see
you doing that if you got a new printer. It is frustrating as hell
though so that I can understand.

But are you recommending printing from sRGB to CMYK with no color
management?

And you wouldn't have needed that extra PC if you knew how to calibrate
a monitor. Seriously. I can make my mac monitor look like a PC just by
changing the gamma, yes?

>
> The problem is so serious, Microsoft are developing the next generation
> of Windows with a GUI to specifically address this problem.

I don't understand. Apple has had a system for a decade and I have been
using it for at least 5 years.

See The International Color Consortium (ICC) at www.color.org and look
up ColorSync.

> Epson, Canon
> and a handful of others have all tried their own flavour of colour
> correction. None are universal.

I thought they only provide ICC profiles for their devices? That is not
color correction, is it? Each device handles color differently.

>
> Real, dyed in the wool expert Photoshop users will tell you everything
> has to have it's own profile. Often the only way a novice can make a
> print anywhere near the right colour is to switch off colour management
> altogether.

I can't make that make sense to me. You get more consistent color by not
managing color? Maybe that is why I shoot in black and white film so
much. :^)

If you use sRGB you are using some form of color management anyway.

>
> So here is my input to the debate. Don't try to manage colour on someone
> else's computer. Simple. Eh?

Agreed. But because my Mac interpreets color correctly the image would
be correctly interpreted whatever color space you used.

> To post an image to the Internet, carries
> with it the proposition that you can't possible control how a stranger
> has their computer set up... So don't try!
>
> Post images to the Internet composed, altered and balanced for no colour
> management at all. Tell me what you think of this image:
> http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/gal [...] MG_6423-01
> .html
> Watch the wrap!
>
> It has red, blue and green plus black - a component of the green
> channel. If you see this image as bright and vivid, then I have
> succeeded in what I just outlined above. If it's just a drab picture...
> I've failed yet again!


sRGB has a smaller color gamut.

http://www.graphics.com/modules.ph [...] e&artid=15
3

And I advise people not to listen to your last device if you are in
color photography prosumer or better. If you have mac os 10.4 you can
compare them in the colorsync utility and see what I mean.

The point of color management is to save colors by converting or
translating them to the new color space. If you have a large space like
Adobe 1998 and simply cut it down to sRGB you will cut down on color
information and therefore have an more inaccurate translation.

The only real advantage is see to not embedding a profile on web images
is that the images will be smaller. But with photography on the web I
will take a bigger image with more flexibility.

Like all arts you need to know who you are performing for.

Adobe RGB (1998)
Is the largest recommended RGB working space and suited for print
production with a broad range of colors.

sRGB
Is designed to reflect the characteristics of the average PC monitor.
sRGB is suitable for RGB images destined for the Web, but not
recommended for print production work.

And more photographers are moving to prophoto rgb as it becomes
available and as they can afford the monitors that can work in that
space! :^)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] -rgb.shtml


--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/