ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Christian Bonanno, Sep 22, 2005.

  1. 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/
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Christian Bonanno

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Christian Bonanno <> 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 Nixon, Sep 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Jeremy Nixon <> wrote:

    > Christian Bonanno <> 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/
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Christian Bonanno

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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....
    Jim Townsend, Sep 23, 2005
    #4
  5. Christian Bonanno

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Christian Bonanno <> 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 Nixon, Sep 23, 2005
    #5
  6. 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/galleries/spring-festival/spring2005_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!

    --
    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, Sep 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Christian Bonanno

    Elmo Thud Guest

    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
    Elmo Thud, Sep 23, 2005
    #7
  8. 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.

    --
    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, Sep 23, 2005
    #8
  9. Christian Bonanno

    Unspam Guest


    > 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.
    Unspam, Sep 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Christian Bonanno

    Bob Allison Guest

    In article <4333aac3$>,
    Pix on Canvas <> 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/galleries/spring-festival/spring2005_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
    Bob Allison, Sep 23, 2005
    #10
  11. Christian Bonanno

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 23, 2005
    #11
  12. Christian Bonanno

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 23, 2005
    #12
  13. 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(1998) 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/
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 23, 2005
    #13
  14. 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(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/galleries/spring-festival/spring2005_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?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&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/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml


    --

    Photographs by Christian Bonanno
    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 23, 2005
    #14
  15. Christian Bonanno

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    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 |
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 23, 2005
    #15
  16. 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/
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 23, 2005
    #16
  17. Christian Bonanno

    Unspam Guest


    > 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
    Unspam, Sep 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Christian Bonanno

    Unspam Guest


    > 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(1998) 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, Sep 24, 2005
    #18
  19. 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, Sep 24, 2005
    #19
  20. Christian Bonanno

    Colin D Guest

    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.
    Colin D, Sep 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. C
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,333
    Aaron Queenan
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. Steven Wandy

    ICC Profiles for printers

    Steven Wandy, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Steven Wandy
    Jan 10, 2004
  3. jimmie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    736
    The-Wisest-One
    Feb 26, 2006
  4. PeterN

    Re: Out of camera JPEGs and embedded ICC profiles

    PeterN, Oct 14, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    147
  5. Dale

    "look and feel" of film and ICC abstract profiles

    Dale, Mar 2, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    122
Loading...

Share This Page