«

Pix on Canvas <> 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 |

Unspam <> 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 |

In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%>, Unspam <>
wrote:

> > Elmo Thud wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
> >> <> 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.


Not all of them are. The Canon 300D for example can be set for
AdobeRGB(199 and RAW which has no tag but is certainly a bigger gamut
then sRGB.

So that re-complicates that. :^)

--

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

In article <4333aac3$>,
Pix on Canvas <> 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(199.
> >
> >
> >
> 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/galle...005_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.php?...ticle&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 (199
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/tu...hoto-rgb.shtml


--

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

Christian Bonanno <> wrote:

> And I advise people not to listen to your last device if you are in
> color photography prosumer or better.

I advise people not to listen to *anything* he is saying. As is his usual
pattern, he doesn't know what he's talking about but presents himself as
though he does.

> 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! :^)

There are no monitors that can display ProPhoto RGB in its entirety. If
you use it, you have to be careful, and you *have* to use 16-bit-per-
channel color.

However, some printing processes (continuous-tone photographic prints
being one) are able to exceed Adobe RGB's gamut in the deep blues, so
an image with those colors will actually show a color-shift and/or loss
of detail if you use Adobe RGB that can be removed if you use ProPhoto.
(Not many images have those blues, but I have a couple that do, blue
neon lights in particular). ProPhoto is also advantageous for many
other images, but you probably shouldn't use it unless you know what
you're doing and why you're using it.

--
Jeremy |

In article <433455e9$>,
Pix on Canvas <> wrote:

> Elmo Thud wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
> > <> 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.

First, the only thing that gives an image a color profile is it's tag.
If I open it in photoshop and it has no embedded color profile it is not
anything. It might be close to sRGB, but it is not sRGB.

The earlier image of the train someone posted was not sRGB.

Also just because my monitor can display the same sRGB space as yours
does not mean the image will look the same. That is why if you are at
all serious with color photos you should calibrate your monitor. Part of
color management.

The monitor only displays your CALIBRATED or FACTORY APPROXIMATED and
computer chosen sRGB space.

The computer TRANSLATES other color spaces into sRGB if it can. That is
the purpose of color management. With ColorSync (Mac) and ICM 2
(Windows) this is automatically done (More so on the mac). Apple,
Microsoft, and Adobe have different color architecture, but all rely on
CMMs and ICC standard device profiles.

Anyway, a white paper on why the web needs color management.
http://www.color.org/wpaper2.html

And here's a good intro to it all
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_spaces.htm

Funny what he said here: "sRGB is an HP/Microsoft defined color space
that describes the colors visible on a low end monitor."

--

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

> Unspam <> 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.)


So they are then

> In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%>, Unspam <>
> wrote:
>
>>> Elmo Thud wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
>>>> <> 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.
>
>
> Not all of them are. The Canon 300D for example can be set for
> AdobeRGB(199 and RAW which has no tag but is certainly a bigger gamut
> then sRGB.
>
> So that re-complicates that. :^)


Not really, just set the camera to sRGB, that is the default setting.

Unspam wrote:
>
>>Unspam <> 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.)
>
>
>
> So they are then
>
Well, they are and they are not!
Don't you love double sided answers?

AdobeRGB is a relatively wide colour space, used when you need the most
complete rendition of colours possible, such as when sending data to a
CMYK printer or Raster Image Processor (RIP).

sRGB is the colour space of television. Those cameras which default to
sRGB as their factory settings rely on the presumption that you will see
what the photo looks like when you display the image file on your
monitor or TV. Many photo print labs - like the Fuji's, are s RGB too.
Cameras which use Charged Coupled Device (CCD) sensors only capture in
sRGB... Being derived from TV cameras.

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

Pix on Canvas wrote:
>
> Unspam wrote:
> >
> >>Unspam <> 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.)
> >
> >
> >
> > So they are then
> >
> Well, they are and they are not!
> Don't you love double sided answers?
>
> AdobeRGB is a relatively wide colour space, used when you need the most
> complete rendition of colours possible, such as when sending data to a
> CMYK printer or Raster Image Processor (RIP).
>
> sRGB is the colour space of television. Those cameras which default to
> sRGB as their factory settings rely on the presumption that you will see
> what the photo looks like when you display the image file on your
> monitor or TV. Many photo print labs - like the Fuji's, are s RGB too.
> Cameras which use Charged Coupled Device (CCD) sensors only capture in
> sRGB... Being derived from TV cameras.
>
Does that mean then that all Nikon digital cameras are sRGB only, with
no aRGB capability, unlike Canons? I would have thought that the color
space was set by the filters over the sensor, and not inherently a
function of the sensor.

Colin D.