Adobe RGB Portfolio - What does it look like on your browser?

<p>I have always worked in AdobeRGB; both in camera and post camera. Everything I've posted on here has been in AdobeRGB.</p>

<p>I've just realised that some of you may not be seeing the same thing as me when you look at my pictures. Now I've got to decide whether to delete my entire portfolio and replace with sRGB versions. If I post Adobe RGB and sRGB versions of the same picture, could you tell me how different the colours appear to you?</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Chris</p>

<p>First the Adobe RGB version...........</p>

<div></div>

<p>Now the sRGB version..................</p><div></div>

<p>I'm seeing more muted colours in the Adobe RGB version.</p>

<p>Adobe RGB is not a color profile you want to use for posting on the Web, or for emailing to friends/family as most browsers in use cannot render it correctly (they are not colorspace aware).</p>

<p>As a last step, convert to and use sRGB when sharing on the Web. <br>

On my browser, Chrome, WIN XP SP3, your Adobe version is all washed out. Don't use that color space and the Web. (I think my other browser in my other office using Windows 7 x64 -- that is color space aware).</p>

<p>Thanks Ken.</p>

<p>I'm getting something similar in both Chrome and IE8 - under saturated colours. I quite like the effect, but that's not the point!</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>I am working in Safari which is color managed and supports icc profiles and I re-calibrated and re-profiled my display yesterday. The sRGB version looks a little over saturated to me especially in the flushed skin tones. </p>

<p>Strange,</p>

<p>I am using both Safari and Firefox, both with colour management. The RGB looks fuller and more saturated than the sRGB, particularly the fuschia shirt and the two race numbers.</p>

<p>When I open both in PS with respect colour space on they are identical.</p>

<p>On this thread page with a colour checker individual pixel levels are showing examples like<br /> RGB sRGB<br /> R 94.5% 93.7%<br /> G 91.8% 91.0%<br /> B 40.8% 41.2% for the yellow race number</p>

<p>R 73.3% 73.3%<br /> G 16.5% 17.6%<br /> B 36.1% 35.5% for the pink top</p>

<p>I don't see any difference both look fine to me and frankly the colors look the same. I'm viewing with a NEC MultiSync 90GX (opticlear). Not calibrated. Why waste your time changing the posts? Alan</p>

<p>I don't see any difference both look fine to me and frankly the colors look the same. I'm viewing with a NEC MultiSync 90GX (opticlear). Not calibrated. Why waste your time changing the posts? Alan</p>

<p>I'm on IE8 with a calibrated monitor. The AdobeRGB is muted and a little darker in the shadows. The sRGB looks better, but maybe a little over saturated...not much just enough to catch my attention.</p>

<p>To all who think there is no need to consider this issue, load the latest version of Google Chrome browser and see if you still think the the two versions look the same. Equivalently, load a version of Firefox that is more than a couple of years old and perform the same comparison.</p>

<p>If you do this, I think you'll see that the AdobeRGB version is much less saturated. This is particularly bad for skin, which tends to take on the color of a classic movie zombie. ;-)</p>

<p>Another area where problems arise is if you send images to other folks who then attempt to print them at some budget store / kiosk. I don't use them very often, myself, but as far as I can tell, many of the drug store type photo kiosks completely ignore the color space information and assume all images they get are sRGB.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>There is a noticeable greenish-yellow cast in the AdobeRGB pic when viewed with Google Chrome and IE, while the sRGB version is "more accurate" to the scene. No discernible difference between the 2 pics when viewed in Firefox. Definitely should embed your pics with sRGB for web postings.</p>

<p>I just ran a test using all three of the browsers I use regularly:</p>

<p>I'm running Windows 7 64-bit </p>

<p>IE 8 - AdobeRGB is more muted and does not properly display, sRGB looks fine, a bit over saturated, but I think it's the shot.</p>

<p>Firefox4 - Both photos look identical (to be expected since Firefox recognizes different color spaces and corrects for them)</p>

<p>Chrome - Same as IE8<br>

<br />RS</p>

<p>I see both looking the same in Safari 3.1.1 in OS 10.4.11.</p>

<p>Dragged and dropped both onto desktop and ran "Show Profile Info" and get a script error stating <em>"The variable profCreator is not defined"</em>. I have the option to click OK or Edit. This is the first I've ever gotten this warning with the many images I check from several photo sites dragging onto my desktop and running this script.</p>

<p>Opened both images in CS3 Photoshop and it shows they're Nikon AdobeRGB and Nikon sRGB. That figures!</p>

<p>Just FYI but most of the images on PhotoNET don't have embedded profiles including some very good fashion photogs like the screenshot below where as you can see they don't embed even an sRGB profile. I'm assuming they ARE converting to sRGB.</p>

<p>Looks like nobody cares and/or can control whether a profile is retained upon upload or if even if it is embedded at the point of creation by members and administrators of this site. Might as well just convert to sRGB and hope for the best.</p><div></div>

<p>they both look good to me, but im using firefox witch is color managed.. you are best to re export them as sRGB so all user as you can see now will see them correctly.</p>

<p>Just in case you doubt me. PhotoNET did retain the sRGB profile dragging and dropping my own screenshot of the screenshot posted into this thread. See below. I used "Save For Web" in CS3 to convert the screenshot to sRGB.</p>

<p>So it's hit or miss because this doesn't always happen in several photographer's portfolios including my own.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Chris,<br>

I'm using Firefox with color management turned on and on my screen both images submitted look strictly identical.<br>

If with your web browser they look different, than it means that the color management of your web browser is not working properly.<br>

As long as you include the color space profile in the images you submit, all users having a web browser with color management properly activated will see correct colors.<br>

But the vast majority of users don't use color managed browsers and they will have false colors with "adobe" tagged images: the standard profile for the web is sRGB and all standard screens sold on the market are designed to display properly sRGB, in this way the broad public is seeing relatively accurate colors on the net even if they have never calibrated their screen.<br>

Therefore the best color profile for web-publishing is sRGB.<br>

Now that doesn't mean that you should stop using "adobe RGB": this is a wide gamut color space, meaning that it can display more colors than sRGB and if you'd be using sRGB in your work-flow, you'd loose at an early stage color information. I'd suggest you to use adobe RGB for all post processing work-flow and only convert to sRGB the small resolution image for web publishing.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

Kind regards,<br>

Jan</p>

<p>And, here are a few discussions of the pros and cons of using various color spaces, including the usual warnings about out-of-gamut issues, banding when a large gamut color space is processed at only 8 bpc, etc.<br /> 1, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CKp-defUj7QC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=%22prophoto%22+banding&source=bl&ots=o_0Z1T7QHq&sig=lk7duyiD_rE-6JEdSKEFNuYzpMw&hl=en&ei=iKGuTe6EMNCbtweNo9DbAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22prophoto%22%20banding&f=false" target="_blank">(link)</a><br /> 2. <a rel="nofollow" href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00PjwT">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00PjwT</a><br /> 3. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/85/January+2005+-+ProPhoto+or+ConPhoto" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>In IE8, using a calibrated screen, your Adobe 1998 version looks more muted than the sRGB version. I'd expect this, which is not to say that the sRGB version is "right". More of this in a moment.</p>

<p>If I switch to a colour managed browser- in my case Firefox with colour management set- both your examples look very close and to my eye acceptable. Thing is though that, depending on your audience, not enough people will be viewing your images on a calibrated screen and using a colour managed browser to make that your default position.</p>

<p>In general you will get <strong><em>on average </em></strong> the best ( most realistic) result on uncalibrated screens and non colour managed monitors by using sRGB. Sadly this is not to say that all your images will look perfect or even nearly right, just that its the best choice available. In particular saturated cyans/blues and strong reds can become rather too strong, and indeed in your example of an sRGB image both the cyan and the red/purple are looking a little too strong for me and the blues are shifted a bit towards cyan. If your own screen is calibrated ( see below) you will be able to see this for yourself in sRGB/IE8 or similar and tone down where you want. </p>

<p>Finally note that the way to really lose control over what other people see is to work on an uncalibrated screen yourself. Unless you take this step to control the colours in what you upload, then what others are going to see is a lottery since frankly you don't really have much idea about what you're really sending out there. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi..Well on my screen which is calabrated and viewed with IE9 the Adobe RGB looks more saturated, especially in the reds. It´s the sRGB that looks washed out which surprises me.</p>

<p>Hi Mark, if the images displayed with IE9 look different, than it seems that the color management of IE is not working properly. Save locally the files and open them with photoshop, lightroom or any other software that has proper color management and you'll see that they look strictly identical; this is what you should see with a web browser with properly working color management.<br>

Internet Explorer 9 is supposed to have color management but I have read in forums that it does only half of the job: it recognises the profile stored in the images, but it doesn't take the calibration profile of the screen into account...<br>

as far as I know, IE8 has no color management at all.<br>

I'm using Firefox 3.6 with a calibrated Eizo Coloredge CG243 screen. The color management of FireFox 3.6 doesn't take v4 color profiles into account but the v4 profiles aren't broadly used on the net and more important FireFox takes your screen profile into account (if it's a v2 profile). I haven't tried FireFox 4.0 yet, I think it's supposed to work with v4 profiles, but I've read in a forum that it doesn't work with Win 7 x64....</p>

PS To my earlier post, on the iPad through Safari they are identical.