Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:29:55 AM

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/
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 2:29:56 AM

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....
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 4:27:05 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 5:07:54 AM

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/
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 7:22:47 AM

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
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 9:12:01 PM

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/galleries/spring-festiva...
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.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 12:30:14 AM

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/galleries/spring-festiva...
> .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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 1:04:20 AM

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/galleries/spring-festiva...
> .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=vi...
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-rg...


--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 1:53:04 AM

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:

> 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@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 5:05:46 AM

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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:16 AM

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.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:17 AM

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.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:17 AM

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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:17 AM

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

In article <433455e9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pix on Canvas <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> 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.

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/
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:18 AM

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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 9:22:18 AM

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

In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> > 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.


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/
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 1:12:47 PM

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

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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:25:30 PM

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.)


So they are then
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 2:26:33 PM

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

> In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 5:00:11 PM

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

In article <BF5AE87E.1DA33%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
wrote:

> > In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> >
> > 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.

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/
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 5:00:12 PM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
<seewebpage@mysig.com> 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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 11:30:38 PM

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

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 (98), process my work in
PhotoShopCS2 in Adobe RGB (98) 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
Anonymous
September 24, 2005 11:52:56 PM

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

In article <qo0bj19gq0aic4ohkpvdnldsd9sv1j1t9g@4ax.com>,
Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
> <seewebpage@mysig.com> 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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...


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

--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:06:25 AM

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

In article <OsSdnbpIYqGe5qjeRVn-ig@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> 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/
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:06:26 AM

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

Christian Bonanno wrote:

> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> 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.

I disagree. Except for safari, browsers ignore the tags and assume sRGB.
If the image is AdobeRGB it will be interpreted incorrectly by most
browsers. Also a web image can't display more than sRGB so the larger
color space is wasted unless you are planning for people to print the
web image using photoshop.


> 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.

Only if for some reason the tag was previously stripped. And then you
will only have your memory to tell you which colorspace to assign.


> Assign changes the color tag
> Convert changes the data

Correct but an inaccurate tag gets misinterpreted, thus changing the
display of the data.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:54:57 AM

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

Unspam wrote:
>
>>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.)
>
>
>
> 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.
September 25, 2005 12:55:00 AM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:49:10 -0500, Ed Ruf wrote
(in article <qo0bj19gq0aic4ohkpvdnldsd9sv1j1t9g@4ax.com>):

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:00:11 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Christian Bonanno
> <seewebpage@mysig.com> 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 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...

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
September 25, 2005 12:55:44 AM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:30:38 -0500, Steve Kramer wrote
(in article <433546EE.EC90809@seatraveler.com>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Steve Kramer <steve@seatraveler.com>
> Date: Today 7:30 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
>
>
> 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 (98), process my work in
> PhotoShopCS2 in Adobe RGB (98) and change the output to CMYK if my
> clients require it. I switch to sRGB only if shooting for the Internet.

You are basically doing what I do. I do not switch though. I do not like the
muted images.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 12:55:45 AM

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

Maak wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:30:38 -0500, Steve Kramer wrote
> (in article <433546EE.EC90809@seatraveler.com>):
>
>>
>>I know I usually shoot in Adobe RGB (98), process my work in
>>PhotoShopCS2 in Adobe RGB (98) and change the output to CMYK if my
>>clients require it. I switch to sRGB only if shooting for the Internet.
>
>
> You are basically doing what I do. I do not switch though. I do not like the
> muted images.

I usually don't bother for web stuff but isn't that the whole point of
this discussion, that one should convert to sRGB to control the colors
better. It looks from the OP's example that AdobeRBG actually looks more
pale than sRGB in a typical browser. If you take the trouble to convert
to sRGB, it gets a little more saturated in the browser.
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/webcolor/

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
September 25, 2005 1:00:04 AM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:12:47 -0500, Paul Furman wrote
(in article <OsSdnbpIYqGe5qjeRVn-ig@speakeasy.net>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> Date: Today 11:12 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
> 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.

I use a custom profile, but would never use sRGB because it is too much work
to keep track of which file has which. Personally I think all files should be
viewed in a general use program that does away with profiles as those are the
most accurate. Most profiles were created to be able to print to the
different ink jet and laser printers subdyes, and the RGB photographic
printers, which by their nature had problems matching the standard for
printing which until 57 years ago was only cmyk.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 1:00:05 AM

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

Maak wrote:
>
> I use a custom profile, but would never use sRGB because it is too much work
> to keep track of which file has which.

Agreed. It is a hassle but ideally, use a PS action to convert for web
and convert the color space there. Only the small web files will be
sRGB. In practice, sometimes I create web images one by one manually and
it's an extra step to remember to convert the color space so I end up
not bothering with it. It's only for web use.

In PS: Edit > Color Settings, you can set the working space to AdobeRGB
and have it alert you if anything funny comes in. That is not the
default behavior.

> Personally I think all files should be
> viewed in a general use program that does away with profiles as those are the
> most accurate.

I disagree here. If you don't want to mess with color space then use
sRGB. If I'm reading this correctly.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
September 25, 2005 1:09:56 AM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:34:01 -0500, Christian Bonanno wrote
(in article <seewebpage-DA1C5B.16340124092005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>):

>> 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.

Nope...it is more than likely the way color setting preferences within your
version of photoshop are set up. Nobody should ever look at photos with a
browser and expect anything to be realistic. Actually the best programs to
use for viewing pictures on the web are ones which do not interpret color
space.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
September 25, 2005 1:14:38 AM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:12:01 -0500, Pix on Canvas wrote
(in article <4333aac3$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>):

> 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!

You got that right. I have never saved any file to anything without doing it
to match cmyk...I have historically been the owner of a service bureau for
the printing industry with drum scanners and high end image setters. I did
this till the printers began going directly to plate or gave away for free
what I had to charge for. I use a custom profile which fits my calibrated
monitors and would never dream of using or setting any file to sRGB. I have
my cameras all set to Adobe RGB 98 and then it gets converted to my profile.
I only post 24 bit files not 32 bit files. I strip off everything and they
get to look how they look. I try not to have several types of files.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
September 25, 2005 1:17:25 AM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:22:16 -0500, Pix on Canvas wrote
(in article <433455e9$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>):

> 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.
>
>

That is not exactly true. Not all programs are that way. I do not use PCs for
calibrating , have only used Macs for that, but I would never make any file
sRGB. I do not work on the web, but I do supply web content. I do not do the
finished version of the file though, but all are calibrated Adobe RGB 98 when
sent.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
September 25, 2005 1:18:03 AM

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

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:28:09 -0500, Unspam wrote
(in article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%unspam@mail.com>):

>
>
>> 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.
>

No, that also is not true. You can set your camera to several different
settings.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 3:19:52 AM

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

Pix on Canvas wrote:
>
> Unspam wrote:
> >
> >>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.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 3:19:53 AM

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

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 | jeremy@exit109.com
September 25, 2005 3:19:54 AM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:04:09 -0500, Jeremy Nixon wrote
(in article <11jag5p4bnjj54a@corp.supernews.com>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
> Date: Today 7:04 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
> 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.

That is only true if you have shot RAW.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 7:27:30 AM

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

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> I'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
> custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
> it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
> combination.

A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 7:32:45 AM

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

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> I disagree. Except for safari, browsers ignore the tags and assume sRGB.
> If the image is AdobeRGB it will be interpreted incorrectly by most
> browsers. Also a web image can't display more than sRGB so the larger
> color space is wasted unless you are planning for people to print the
> web image using photoshop.

A "web image" is just an image loaded via the web; it can display more
than sRGB *if* two things are true: the browser understands profiles, and
the monitor can usefully display the gamut.

Of course, the set of people for whom those two things are true is very
small. A good monitor can display slightly more than sRGB, and a very
good monitor can display much more, but most people don't have very good
monitors.

If someone comes along running Safari on an Apple Cinema Display, there
would be a marginal benefit to sending them an image in Adobe RGB rather
than sRGB, but probably not enough to justify the effort of browser
sniffing and returning an alternate image to Safari. Monitors are getting
better pretty quickly, though, so in a couple more years it might actually
make sense to do that.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 1:03:14 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
>>custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
>>it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
>>combination.
>
> A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
> as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.

But, the US Web Coated SWOP thing is a very small gamut so I don't get
why that would be the only available working space. But as I said, I
don't really use CMYK so it's not a big deal for me, it just seems like
that would really cripple the gaumt of the image more than necessary.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 3:40:02 PM

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

> In article <BF5AE87E.1DA33%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> In article <BF5A23FA.1D9F7%unspam@mail.com>, Unspam <unspam@mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> So why have the other RGB profiles in the camera, like Adobe or even RAW
> (no color profile)?
>


If you print from a file with no profile (untagged), or the wrong profile,
it will be either flat and colourless (none) or have false colours (wrong)
depending on the output device. I only use a Fuji Frontier for prints.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 5:45:55 PM

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

In article <11jc692jrl3nc00@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
> > custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
> > it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
> > combination.
>
> A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
> as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.


What he is doing is called "Soft Proofing".

--

Photographs by Christian Bonanno
http://christianbonanno.com/
September 25, 2005 8:40:01 PM

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:42:24 -0500, Paul Furman wrote
(in article <_6WdnavSI9HMS6jeRVn-tA@speakeasy.net>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> Date: Yesterday 5:42 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
> Maak wrote:
>>
>> I use a custom profile, but would never use sRGB because it is too much
>> work
>> to keep track of which file has which.
>
> Agreed. It is a hassle but ideally, use a PS action to convert for web
> and convert the color space there. Only the small web files will be
> sRGB. In practice, sometimes I create web images one by one manually and
> it's an extra step to remember to convert the color space so I end up
> not bothering with it. It's only for web use.
>
> In PS: Edit > Color Settings, you can set the working space to AdobeRGB
> and have it alert you if anything funny comes in. That is not the
> default behavior.
>
>> Personally I think all files should be
>> viewed in a general use program that does away with profiles as those are
>> the
>> most accurate.
>
> I disagree here. If you don't want to mess with color space then use
> sRGB. If I'm reading this correctly.

I only use my custom version of adobe RGB 98. I have used it for a very long
time now. I also use a set custom cmyk conversion designed for use with
different line screens and papers.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 8:40:02 PM

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

Maak wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>>Maak wrote:
>>
>>>I use a custom profile, but would never use sRGB because it is too much
>>>work
>>>to keep track of which file has which.
>>
>>Agreed. It is a hassle but ideally, use a PS action to convert for web
>>and convert the color space there. Only the small web files will be
>>sRGB. In practice, sometimes I create web images one by one manually and
>>it's an extra step to remember to convert the color space so I end up
>>not bothering with it. It's only for web use.
>>
>>In PS: Edit > Color Settings, you can set the working space to AdobeRGB
>>and have it alert you if anything funny comes in. That is not the
>>default behavior.
>>
>>
>>>Personally I think all files should be
>>>viewed in a general use program that does away with profiles as those are
>>>the
>>>most accurate.
>>
>>I disagree here. If you don't want to mess with color space then use
>>sRGB. If I'm reading this correctly.
>
>
> I only use my custom version of adobe RGB 98. I have used it for a very long
> time now. I also use a set custom cmyk conversion designed for use with
> different line screens and papers.

OK understood. Sounds like you worked out the system in detail already.
For sure it's a nightmare to mix & match, better to be consistent.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
September 25, 2005 8:41:33 PM

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:45:55 -0500, Christian Bonanno wrote
(in article <seewebpage-DE2694.09455625092005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Christian Bonanno <seewebpage@mysig.com>
> Date: Today 8:45 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
> In article <11jc692jrl3nc00@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
>>> custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
>>> it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
>>> combination.
>>
>> A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
>> as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.
>
>
> What he is doing is called "Soft Proofing".

Soft proofing is pretty valuable. I only use that as I have my monitor
calibrated to my cmyk press matches, waterproofs, or matchprints.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
September 25, 2005 8:53:43 PM

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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:03:14 -0500, Paul Furman wrote
(in article <wdadnaNm57nfV6veRVn-hA@speakeasy.net>):

> Subject: Re: ICC Profiles, Web Browsers, and Your Images
> From: Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> Date: Today 11:03 AM
> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.photos.original, alt.photography,
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.digital
>
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
>>> custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
>>> it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
>>> combination.
>>
>> A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
>> as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.
>
> But, the US Web Coated SWOP thing is a very small gamut so I don't get
> why that would be the only available working space. But as I said, I
> don't really use CMYK so it's not a big deal for me, it just seems like
> that would really cripple the gaumt of the image more than necessary.

It does, but if you are first at Adobe RGB 98 and then make the conversion to
cmyk youi come out a whole lot better. It all depends on the line screen or
if you are printing stochastic [FM screening] as to what number of colors are
possible. The smaller the dither the more colors which are apparent. That is
the type of screening used by the ink jet printers.

--
Jon Barry
Baton Rouge, La
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:47:04 AM

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'm not clear why in the Color Settings, there is no way to load a
>>> custom printer profile for CMYK Working Space, but in the Proof Setup
>>> it's possible to load a custom profile for the printer/paper
>>> combination.
>>
>> A printer profile is an output profile; you're not supposed to use them
>> as a working space. They are the equivalent of a monitor profile.
>
> What he is doing is called "Soft Proofing".

Soft proofing is the second part of what he said. You don't convert to
the output profile as a working space to soft proof, you set it in the
Proof Setup options.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:54:50 AM

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

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> But, the US Web Coated SWOP thing is a very small gamut so I don't get
> why that would be the only available working space.

It's not the only available working space; I see 16 CMYK working space
profiles offered to me in color settings.

CMYK has a pretty small gamut, though; that's just what you have to work
with in that space. It does exceed sRGB *and* Adobe RGB in the dark areas,
of course, because of the different properties of ink-based and light-based
colors, and CMYK printing can make brighter yellows than RGB, but the total
gamut is not large. This is one reason why color separations for printing
are among the hardest things to do in image processing. Custom inks are
sometimes used to extend the range.

> But as I said, I don't really use CMYK so it's not a big deal for me, it
> just seems like that would really cripple the gaumt of the image more than
> necessary.

Well, the point is to give you the gamut that's going to be available to
you when you go to press.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:54:51 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But, the US Web Coated SWOP thing is a very small gamut so I don't get
>>why that would be the only available working space.
>
>
> It's not the only available working space; I see 16 CMYK working space
> profiles offered to me in color settings.

But they just look like different country's standards for offset
printing or coated vs uncoated (different paper?) all for offset
printing and as I understand inkjets have quite a larger range so by
working in that limited color space it chops the image down. I guess for
inkjet you just use an RGB color space.

> CMYK has a pretty small gamut, though; that's just what you have to work
> with in that space. It does exceed sRGB *and* Adobe RGB in the dark areas,
> of course, because of the different properties of ink-based and light-based
> colors, and CMYK printing can make brighter yellows than RGB, but the total
> gamut is not large. This is one reason why color separations for printing
> are among the hardest things to do in image processing. Custom inks are
> sometimes used to extend the range.
>
>
>>But as I said, I don't really use CMYK so it's not a big deal for me, it
>>just seems like that would really cripple the gaumt of the image more than
>>necessary.
>
>
> Well, the point is to give you the gamut that's going to be available to
> you when you go to press.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com
!