Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images

Reply
Thread Tools

ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images

 
 
Jeremy Nixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Does that mean then that all Nikon digital cameras are sRGB only, with
> no aRGB capability, unlike Canons?


No, it doesn't. Neither Nikon nor Canon DSLRs are limited to sRGB, nor
even Adobe RGB. Please note that almost nothing Douglas said above has
any relation to reality.

> I would have thought that the color space was set by the filters over
> the sensor, and not inherently a function of the sensor.


The filters over the sensor don't have anything to do with it either.
The color gamut of the camera is a property of the sensor, and does not
match up with any of the working spaces we use; the images are mapped
into one of the color spaces at the time of RAW conversion.

--
Jeremy | http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Kramer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005


Unspam wrote:

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


Perhaps you meant to say that digital SLR's 'can be' set for sRGB if
desired.

I know I usually shoot in Adobe RGB (9, process my work in
PhotoShopCS2 in Adobe RGB (9 and change the output to CMYK if my
clients require it. I switch to sRGB only if shooting for the Internet.

Steve Kramer
"PhotoEnvisions" Freelance Photography
Chiang Mai, Thailand
http://www.photoenvisions.com

--
"The voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new horizons, but in seeing
with new eyes." - Marcel Proust
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Christian Bonanno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
In article <BF5AE87E.1DA33%(E-Mail Removed)>, Unspam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> > In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%(E-Mail Removed)>, Unspam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Elmo Thud wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:12:01 +1000, Pix on Canvas
> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


So why have the other RGB profiles in the camera, like Adobe or even RAW
(no color profile)?


--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
Christian Bonanno wrote:
>
> 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.


Just to clarify here, assigning an incorrect color space messes up the
colors, you have to know what space it was created in, convert it and
retain the new tag. sRGB is the only correct color space for web
browsing (on a PC anyways). Most general use programs like ACDsee are
not aware of color space. The only time you would use anything but sRGB
is with Photoshop or other high end programs for printing.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed Ruf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>So why have the other RGB profiles in the camera, like Adobe or even RAW
>(no color profile)?


So those that don't want to shot raw and want the wider gamut of AdobeRGB
can save their jpegs in this color space with the appropriate imbedded
profile. If you shot raw, not of this matters. The color space is chosen by
you at the time of the raw conversion.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
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.


I opened your images in photoshop & they all look about the same except
the unassigned one. They all look different in my browser. The only
difference will be blown colors where the colors are very vivid and
intense beyond the range of sRGB and even that you cannot see on a
computer monitor, only in print because the monitor is limited to sRGB.
If the correct tag is not assigned or the program/browser doesn't know
how to interpret it, the images will be interpreted wrong and look
different.

The other difference is that if you stretch & adjust colors in
photoshop, a wider gamut gives you more playing space, but if the
destination is web use, convert to sRGB as the final step.

Your page says "I have assigned them different color profiles using
photoshop" but actually it should read "converted" not "assigned".
Because the source image was Adobe RGB, the one assigned "none" is bound
to be misinterpreted and should be assigned Adobe RGB.

In photoshop View > Gamut Warning to see where colors are unprintable
according to the current Proof Setup. The default Proof Setup is
probably US Web SWOP which is really crappy offset printing. In your
photo, they are all out of gamut on the guy's left shoulder, red shirt
except the US Web SWOP (my current proof setup) and sRGB has less out of
gamut than the others. The point here is that you can load a custom
profile for your printer and adjust colors to get more visible contrast
in the out of gamut areas. I've tinkered around with this in the past
but have not loaded a proof setup for my new printer yet.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christian Bonanno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Ed Ruf <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >So why have the other RGB profiles in the camera, like Adobe or even RAW
> >(no color profile)?

>
> So those that don't want to shot raw and want the wider gamut of AdobeRGB
> can save their jpegs in this color space with the appropriate imbedded
> profile. If you shot raw, not of this matters. The color space is chosen by
> you at the time of the raw conversion.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html



I knew that. I was asking the other poster. But thanks for telling him.
:^)

--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christian Bonanno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Christian Bonanno wrote:
> >
> > 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.

>
> Just to clarify here, assigning an incorrect color space messes up the
> colors, you have to know what space it was created in, convert it and
> retain the new tag. sRGB is the only correct color space for web
> browsing (on a PC anyways). Most general use programs like ACDsee are
> not aware of color space. The only time you would use anything but sRGB
> is with Photoshop or other high end programs for printing.


There is no "incorrect color space" for the web. Only un- or incorrectly
interpreted ones.

In fact, ASSIGNING a color space for a destination is what you are
supposed to do. It does not change the data, only the tag.

Assign changes the color tag
Convert changes the data

Follow:

rgb data > convert to cmyk > strip profile > cmyk data
rgb > assign cmyk > strip profile > rgb data

sRGB is a small color space. If you have access to a larger color space
like RGB1998 you should use it and save you images in it. If you want to
put something on the web, convert it to sRGB.

See: http://christianbonanno.com/horseshoe.jpg

It is like say that since a monitor can only show 2MP that is all you
should shoot at.



--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://christianbonanno.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christian Bonanno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> I opened your images in photoshop & they all look about the same except
> the unassigned one. They all look different in my browser.


Yes, that was the point. The browsers do not interpret the color
profiles correctly. PS does.


> The only
> difference will be blown colors where the colors are very vivid and
> intense beyond the range of sRGB and even that you cannot see on a
> computer monitor, only in print because the monitor is limited to sRGB.
> If the correct tag is not assigned or the program/browser doesn't know
> how to interpret it, the images will be interpreted wrong and look
> different.



>
> The other difference is that if you stretch & adjust colors in
> photoshop, a wider gamut gives you more playing space, but if the
> destination is web use, convert to sRGB as the final step.


Yes.

>
> Your page says "I have assigned them different color profiles using
> photoshop" but actually it should read "converted" not "assigned".


You are wrong. I know what I did. If I converted them they would look
the same in

> Because the source image was Adobe RGB, the one assigned "none" is bound
> to be misinterpreted and should be assigned Adobe RGB.


Yes, I know, that is the point.

The data in the files "No Color Space" and "Adobe RGB (199" is exactly
the same.

Why do they display differently in the browser? Because the 1998 file
has a tag to tell the browser how to interpret the data in the file. The
no color space file does not have a tag so the browser defaults to sRGB.


>
> In photoshop View > Gamut Warning to see where colors are unprintable
> according to the current Proof Setup. The default Proof Setup is
> probably US Web SWOP which is really crappy offset printing. In your
> photo, they are all out of gamut on the guy's left shoulder, red shirt
> except the US Web SWOP (my current proof setup) and sRGB has less out of
> gamut than the others.


You are not using your gamut warning knowledge correctly.

http://www.pdesigner.net/photoshopcs/1_6_3_1.html

They are all out of gamut because of the color space gamut you are
proofing them in.

out of gamut is just color that cannot be reproduced by the device
currently processing the image file.

It is the job of color management to reproduce those out of gamut colors
correctly.

> The point here is that you can load a custom
> profile for your printer and adjust colors to get more visible contrast
> in the out of gamut areas. I've tinkered around with this in the past
> but have not loaded a proof setup for my new printer yet.




--

Photographs by Christian
http://christianbonanno.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Maak
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2005
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:49:10 -0500, Ed Ruf wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> So why have the other RGB profiles in the camera, like Adobe or even RAW
>> (no color profile)?

>
> So those that don't want to shot raw and want the wider gamut of AdobeRGB
> can save their jpegs in this color space with the appropriate imbedded
> profile. If you shot raw, not of this matters. The color space is chosen by
> you at the time of the raw conversion.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ((E-Mail Removed))
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html


If you shoot to have your pictures printed CMYK it is best to have all your
images Adobe 98. Forget all the rest and you will have no problems. For me, I
use a totally custom profile that filts none of these and have been using it
for years. The biggest problem with looking at files is using any browser to
ever look at them. I use quick time to view all images, and I have photoshop
calibrated to quick time. The profiles were all created to be able to have
predictibal results on printers which are not CMYK, and if you calibrate to
them and not to CMYK, your color is never accurate. RGB and CMYK are
different, one based on pigment and the other based on light, but for me
historically, I have always had my images printed on color offset presses.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Differences in GCC and ICC compiled objects? relocatable. J K C Programming 6 02-23-2012 04:38 PM
No declaration and missing operator* in gcc 4.1.1, but not icc andgcc 3.3 Preben C++ 2 09-25-2006 09:23 PM
Images and ICC profiles David Bouchard Java 0 05-06-2005 08:00 AM
Building Python 2.4 with icc and processor-specific optimizations Michael Hoffman Python 3 03-14-2005 11:42 PM
ICC profiles for Nikon 8000, Canon i960 and Photoshop 7 C Digital Photography 3 12-29-2003 05:44 PM



Advertisments