Lightroom vs Unmanaged JPG - How do you deal with it?

<p>I'm having issues with Lightroom, NX2 and unmanaged (ie web browsers) viewing of photos. I'm fully calibrated, with my Spyder 3 Pro. Things look great, until I export to jpg (sRGB). I end up with a red orange cast being too hot. This is all viewed on my calibrated monitor. At first I really couldn't figure out what was going on, until I read a bunch of articles on the subject (maybe not enough), and it looks to be that I'm simply viewing them with unmanaged applications vs managed. Everything between managed apps looks great. I'm still not 100% convinced though since if I'm already calibrated viewing the images in my web browser shouldn't I be reaping some of those rewards? Why don't my images show up in IE better?</p>

<p>So the real question is, how do you deal with this? If I'm calibrated and running a managed app, what do you do about the rest of the world that isn't? Do you simply export your photos to sRGB and figure they are correct, therefore other people viewing them will simply have a slight variance of that, but you know you are right? Or do you try to tone down the problem? I like contrast and vibrant colors. I've tried toning down the problem, but it really defeats the whole point since now I'm working in Lightroom trying to match an export of a jpg, but what I'm looking at isn't accurate. I'm guessing that just going to make things much worse overall.</p>

<p>http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter</p>

<p>If the browser (or app) isn’t color managed, all bets are off in terms of what the image looks like on other’s display (and yours depending on how its been calibrated). For non color managed app’s, sRGB is a good start unless you happen to be using a wide gamut display that isn’t anything like the assumed sRGB behavior. </p>

<p>Right. The answer to "how do I deal with this" is, don't. Just do what you're doing -- calibrate your environment, work with color-managed tools, make it look great, post to the web in sRGB with the tags and/or embedded profile intact, and hope for the best.</p>

<p>You should use a color-managed web browser. I'm not a Windows person, but I believe IE9 is (finally!) color-managed. Firefox has been color-managed by default since version 3.5. Also, encourage your readers to use color-managed browsers, and do what you can to encourage software vendors to support color management.</p>

<p>Regardless of what you might do in Adobe RGB or LAB or whatever, sRGB is its own thing, and you need to edit it for what it is, not what it started from.<br>

I often find that considerable 'tweaking' is necessary after conversion to sRGB for it to look like what I want it to be.</p>

My thinking is that if you are preparing photos for the web, a calibrated display is not necessarily what you want. You want a display that represents the average display that viewers are using. Probably only a tiny fraction of these viewers ever calibrate their displays, not even using software-only utilities. (Unless your viewing population is, say, graphic arts professionals or museum curators.)

Viewers using devices like an iPad or an iPhone can't calibrate their displays, even if they want to.

Now, having said that, I don't know how you can get such a display. Maybe use a display with all the controls set to their factory defaults?

If you're printing or otherwise preparing photos to be viewed in a color-managed way (including calibration where it makes sense), then of course you want to work on a calibrated display.

<blockquote>

<p>You want a display that represents the average display that viewers are using</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that’s impossible. They are all over the map. Then you have folks futzing with the OSD controls, now its even farther off. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Viewers using devices like an iPad or an iPhone can't calibrate their displays, even if they want to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At least the company that built that Spyder claims they can. But the big difference here is we’re talking about a single display technology, controlled by a single vendor and manufacturer. If that were true with displays and computer systems, we’d be a lot more likely to see the same colors displayed. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe use a display with all the controls set to their factory defaults?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who’s factory defaults? NEC, Samsung? All models from all companies produce the same results when reset (I suspect not even close). And as the devices age? <br>

Nope, calibrating lots of displays to a standard behavior (at least in terms of white point and luminance) seems a surer way to reduce the differences. They will still be different based on the software and instruments used, even if we could get everyone to target the same calibration aim points. </p>

<p>Lots of great info. Thanks!<br>

The source starts as sRGB in my camera, but its raw in Lightroom using proPhoto RGB and then outputted to sRGB when I export to JPG. I also can see the same problem with Capture NX2 (Nikons) software so manged vs unmanaged appears right on. I have to believe the only way to make any of this work is to follow a standard and have the manufactures of equipment and software try to meet that standard. Though it bugs me regardless, because in the end I'm really only after a jpg that displays correctly and I don't care if it has a ICC profile. So I'm in the Mark S camp, I have to just keep doing what I'm doing, but use a functional preview tool.</p>

<p>Andrew - this link <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter" target="_blank">http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter</a> is pretty darn neat and these are my results: (all windows 7)</p>

<p><strong>In Firefox (5)</strong>, my images match Lightroom - this is progress. Open your link in Firefox and shows me supporting only ICC 2 profiles.</p>

<p>In <strong>IE 9</strong> - it shows ICC v2 and V4. But my colors don't match lightroom (the orig problem) - so who knows here. I would expect it to be the same as firfox, but it's IE.</p>

<p><strong>Chrome</strong> - It doesn't support either. And my colors are off. So Firefox appears to be the only consistent solution.</p>

<p>In the end I'll need check a few other computers without all the calibration and what-not just to make sure I'm on track with my photos.</p>

<p>I'm making progress though, so this has been a huge help.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Open your link in Firefox and shows me supporting only ICC 2 profiles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You only want to be dealing with V2 profiles anyway. Be sure that whatever product you use to calibrate the display is building V2, not V4 profiles. </p>

<p><em>"The source starts as sRGB in my camera, but its raw in Lightroom using proPhoto RGB and then outputted to sRGB when I export to JPG. "</em></p>

<p>1. All digital cameras record a RAW image. Your image starts as a RAW file inside your camera.<br>

2. The RAW image can be converted to a sRGB in-camera and stored on the camera's data card as a sRGB jpeg. <br>

3. The sRGB jpeg is imported into Lightroom. While one can convert the jpeg to a DNG, the resulting DNG image really isn't a RAW image because a great deal of information was removed from the data during the in-camera RAW conversion. Depending on the image, the information loss can be significant or trivial. Anyway, the Lightroom image is just a jpeg file imbedded in the DNG file structure. The RAW file was discarded inside your camera when it was automatically converted to a sRGB file before it was stored on the data card.<br>

4. The imported jpeg may be in the proPhoto RGB color space. But because the sRGB color space is smaller than the proPhoto color space, the advantages of the proPhoto color space are not available.<br>

5. Upon export, the image is converted back into a jpeg. The second conversion (the first was in the camera) compresses the data a second time. Depending on the image, even more information may be lost by the second jpeg compression step.<br>

I doubt the above has anything to do with your color cast issue. </p>

<p>you can't convert a jpg to a dng. or at least I can't... and don't want to.</p>

<p>I too have my camera set to sRGB, even though I shoot only raw files. This is because I occasionally change to raw + jpg for on site printing from the jpg. As for the raw file, in camera color space settings make no difference whatsoever.<br /><br />Stephen intimates he's shooting raw, but doesn't state that explicitly. I have spent the day (with LR 3.4.1) showing a friend why raw capture is superior to jpg. It's a no brainer that he accepted within minutes. <br /><br />I also forwarded a few links from Andrew's website to a troublesome and uncalibrated client. Thanks, Andrew.</p>