Color Issues

[joe_c5]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim , the point is : in a unmenaged utility, such as windows viewer , or on this post page in photonet, the only srgb converted from adobe rgb picture of the little girl that looks close to the original master in photoshop adobe rgb color space is the 3th one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no way to make the colors look correct in applications without color management; it is provably impossible. If you change the colors so that they look correct on one monitor, they will then look incorrect on all different monitors and all color managed applications.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>this is the original adobe rgb file , not converted, the same file as my first of the 4 attachements</p>

 

<br />Attachment: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00WTvp-244845584.jpg">filekIzWGi.jpg</a>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>here the converted to srgb image without proofing and without curve adjustments</p>

 

<br />Attachment: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00WTvX-244843584.jpg">filecbqKby.jpg</a>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In Firefox 3.6, these two images look identical.</p>

<p>The only thing that you are doing wrong is expecting the second of those two images not to look <em>terrible </em>in a web browser without color management. If you use either the latest Firefox or Safari, all images tagged with a profile will look correct on your monitor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>7b) the lab prints look very reddish and oversaturated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a bigger problem. It implies some problem with either the monitor and/or printer profiles, or with the way you or the photo lab are using them. Unless the photo lab asks otherwise, you might try sending them AdobeRGB images and then the color matching will be entirely under their control.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>For Tim : the master come from 1) raw shot, 2) capture nx conversion to tiff, assigning adobe rgb profile 3) I open the converted tiff on ps cs3 in adobe rgb color space and here I do all my editing and save the tiff. This is the reference picture, viewed in ps adobe rgb colorspace. I wish my picture on web and on print would look the same as this master , after srgb conversion. I never use Save For Web, I always use Save As. I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version. Actually, it looks very very colose, if not identical, to the master viewed on ps in adobe rgb color space. And I like it very much ! So : master tiff image in ps adobe rgb space = jpg image posted on flickr without any conversion to srgb...So, why shoud I convert from adobe rgb to srgb ? If this is the real world result with consistency and if this could be also conceptualy correct, I will not convert any further...I will post anything in adobe rgb, the same color space as my ps working space.<br>

For Roger : I opened the link of the PDI image. On that page, when I roll the mouse over the image, I can see the huge color shift, the transition from adobe rgb to srgb, going from neutral ( adobe rgb) to reddish ( srgb). Then, I downloaded the PDI image. I opened it on ps ( in my adobe rgb working space) and the skin tones look great. I desaturated the image, and the greyscale looks good. I converted the image from adobe rgb to srgb, and no differece on ps ( adobe rgb working space). On ps the 2 versions look identical and neutral. Also on my non color menaged image viewer ( windows image viewer) the 2 images ( adobe rgb original and srgb converted) look identical among them, but both more red saturated than the 2 same images when viewed on ps. Conclusion : starting from an adobe rgb original master, the converted to Srgb version looks identical to the adobe srgb master in ps ( adobe rgb working color space). On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps. And this is the weird news : on flickr, the non converted adobe rgb version looks identical to the non converted original master viewed on ps, as I said above to answer Tim. The converted to Srgb version, instead, on flickr looks more red saturated and very different from the original adobe rgb master viewed on ps. This is what I can see at my monitor.</p>

<p> </p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Joe, I guess you catched the point. I should better not to convert.<br />This is the adobe rgb master, non converted. It looks great here at my monitor. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616489793/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616489793/</a><br>

This is the converted to srgb version, without any proofing and without any adjustment after the proofing <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4615500993/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4615500993/</a> too red saturation<br>

And this is the converted to srgb version, curve adjusted after proofing before the conversion to srgb <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616116600/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/marco_landini/4616116600/</a> more acceptable than the above 2nd version, but too washed out and too greenish.<br>

About the lab, I will send them my adobe rgb files, not converted. And I will hope and pray ...</p>

[joe_c5]

<p>If you have a wide gamut monitor, it is probably fairly similar to AdobeRGB. I do not recommend posting AdobeRGB images on Flickr, since most people do not use color managed web browsers or wide gamut monitors. The image will look wrong on their monitors even though it looks correct on yours.</p>

<p>I recommend using tagged sRGB images for anywhere on the web.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Joe, of the 3 pictures I posted the link just above, which one looks good or better at your screen ?</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I'm on a work laptop, so take it with a grain of salt, but the master and converted appear 100% identical using Firefox. The sRGB one is slightly washed out (undersaturated reds). </p>

<p>I would send your lab only AdobeRGB if they explicitly say they can handle it. Otherwise convert to their profile or sRGB. I would also send them the PDI target as the orginal (AdobeRGB) and after you convert it to sRGB to see how they handle it and how it matches your screen.</p>

[joe_c5]

<p>To me in Firefox or GIMP (I don't have Photoshop installed at the moment) the first two look identical and the third looks greener and brighter.</p>

<p>It sounds as if you are viewing them with software that isn't color managed.</p>

<p>What do you see if you open the exact same three files in Photoshop?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're viewing it in a non-color managed browser through a wide gamut display. It's not surprising it looks like the preview you get in Photoshop. The Flickr preview is the Argb numbers interpreted through your display's wide AdobeRGB-ish gamut. If you don't like the way your images look online in sRGB then view your web images in a color managed browser like Firefox.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This means that Windows IS doing its own color management in Picture Viewer where it may be either referencing the wrong system display profile or using a color management module that's not following ICC standards.</p>

<p>Just FYI, several years ago I was checking out my brother's newly acquired $500 Dell Windows XP media center bundled package with a bunch of loaded software catering to video, music, fancy cable hookups and picture in picture software and photography apps but no Photoshop. It had a video card with tons of Ram, 4GB of system Ram and on and on.</p>

<p>I opened the original PDI file in Picture Viewer and low and behold the main preview was color managed (sort of) and the thumbnail on the bottom wasn't meaning (typical desaturated preview as viewed on an sRGB gamut CRT). What I mean by "sort of" is that even though the color managed preview was more saturated as expected compared to the thumbnail, the hues of the skin tones were sort of jaundice-I mean way off from what I've seen on typical non calibrated displays. </p>

<p>I was viewing on a CRT back then whose native state after setting proper white balance and contrast in the OSD was pretty much within sRGB specs. The only profile loaded in Windows system Color Management panel was default sRGB. There was no way the PDI could look that way off. Something was messed up within Windows color management implementation.</p>

<p>The only thing I can suggest for your Picture Viewer issue is to update your video driver if possible and get Window's latest color management module and software if it exists.<br>

<br /></p>

[marco_landini]

<p>For Joe and Roger : exactly now I' m in my office at work, I' m using now an old cheap ctr monitor, not calibrated and the browser ( explorer) is not color managed, so this is the "most people" view conditions at monitor. I' m opening the 3 images, and the situation is the same as when I open them at my calibrated wide gamut DELL at home from this page ( same as on flickr) : the first looks neutral and identical to de adobe rgb master in ps. The 2nd look too red saturated. The 3rd looks desaturated and a bit greenish. So, the files posted on flickr behave the same at this ctr non-wide gamut non-calibrated monitor in unmenaged site ( flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) , as at my home lcd wide gamut calibrated screen in unmanaged site (flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) .</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Last minute idea : I was wondering about the final solution, almost as a surrender act, to keep all the workflow in sRgb, from raw conversion to the final image for web and for print, doing also the editing in photoshop srgb space ; so, this way I won' t need to do any conversion and mess the things up with ICC profiles ecc..I will loose some dinamics and color transitions, but I will save my pictures from inconsistence in workflow. And now the ( foolish...? ) intuition about what could be wrong in my process we are discussing about in this post : it seems as I was working on photoshop editing in srgb instead adobe rgb color space, and then, when I convert to srgb, the resuling image seems a twice converted to srgb image, resulting double saturated...I set the photoshop working space to adobe rgb, but maybe the system have some issue and the real color working space is shifted to srgb for any unknown problem. Then, I add even more un-necessary saturation doing an un-necessary conversion to srgb, resulting in a double saturated final picture. Could it be so...?</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<blockquote>

<p>I posted on flickr the non converted adobe rgb master image : on flickr and it looks very different from the reddish tones of the non edited srgb converted version. Actually, it looks very very colose, if not identical, to the master viewed on ps in adobe rgb color space.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a confirm that you have a wide gamut monitor. More similar to Adobe 1998 than sRGB.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, why shoud I convert from adobe rgb to srgb ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because there are much more sRGB-like monitors than Adobe 1998-like monitors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Also on my non color menaged image viewer ( windows image viewer) the 2 images ( adobe rgb original and srgb converted) look identical among them, but both more red saturated than the 2 same images when viewed on ps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose you use Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.<br />Well, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer read the ICC profile, but it transforms the image to sRGB.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On my windows picture viewer, the non converted adobe rgb and the converted to srgb images look identical, no difference between them, but both more red saturated than the same 2 versions viewed on ps.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />You are looking at the same sRGB image.</p>

[joe_c5]

<blockquote>

<p>So, the files posted on flickr behave the same at this ctr non-wide gamut non-calibrated monitor in unmenaged site ( flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) , as at my home lcd wide gamut calibrated screen in unmanaged site (flickr) and unmanaged browser ( explorer) .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <em>differences </em>between the files will always be there on different monitors with no color management. The AdobeRGB data will always be less saturated than the sRGB version and your third adjusted version will always be paler and greener. With color management enabled, the first two will look identical and the adjusted version will look wrong.</p>

<p>There is no way to control what people see if they are not using color management. One person might see the image as too red, but another person with a different monitor might see it as too green.</p>

<p>If the colors themselves are also identical, it is only coincidence that the monitors are similar.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then, I add even more un-necessary saturation doing an un-necessary conversion to srgb, resulting in a double saturated final picture. Could it be so...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The conversion to sRGB is not unnecessary. What is supposed to happen is that you convert it to sRGB and then your web browser uses your monitor profile to display it correctly on your wide gamut monitor. What is happening is your browser is not doing that last step. If you do not convert to sRGB, most people browsing Flickr will see the wrong colors because their browser will not display AdobeRGB correctly on their sRGB-ish monitors.</p>

<p>Again, it is <strong>impossible </strong>to do what you want, which is for the colors to always be correct everywhere even without color management.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>I agree with you all , your considerations are surely right, and I thank you very much for the help. But I' m getting more and more frustrated. Actually, this is the question that I can' t still explain and I would your final opinions about : why I see on flickr my srgb converted pictures become red , and the other members pictures look good and neutral at my monitor ? I suppose all the pictures posted by the other members are srgb converted as my ones. At my monitor the other members pics look good, instead my srgb pictures, my ones and only my ones look red...The combination monitor-browser -color profiles works well on all pictures but my ones...!</p>

[joe_c5]

<p>The most likely explanation is that you have not seen the color corrected versions of all other pictures to compare them to.</p>

<p>Try opening somebody else's photo in Photoshop. I suspect it will look less red than the same photo did in the web browser.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I just viewed the three images again and the AdobeRGB and sRGB are identical and the"2 STEPS PROOFING AND CURVE ADJUSTMENTS" one is undersaturated in reds. I don't know which version is closer to your intentions, and if you only showed me one I'd think it was fine. FYI- I'm using Firefox (which is color manged) on a calibrated LCD.</p>

<p>Marco, your wide gamut display is not happy with non-color managed browsers. How do your flickr images look in Firefox?</p>

<p>I didn't see any gross color casts in your people series, but did notice some of the files have very weak blacks and wonder if it was intentional.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Roger : <em>I didn't see any gross color casts in your people series, but did notice some of the files have very weak blacks and wonder if it was intentional. </em>They are scans from velvia slides...very deep blacks ! No color profile assigned to them.<br /><em>Marco, your wide gamut display is not happy with non-color managed browsers. How do your flickr images look in Firefox?</em> I downloaded firefox : now, my images on flickr look good at my wide gamut monitor. And they appear the same as you said : the adobe rgb and srgb are now identical, the 2 steps adjusted one looks washed out and greenish. The adobe rgb and srgb ones both match my master picture as I see it in photoshop adobe rgb. Good ! But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>On my CRT with a non color managed browser (IE 8), your AdobeRGB file looks a bit undersaturated, your curves edited one looks greener and lighter and SRGB is redder. None of them match the image in Firefox.</p>

<p>Personally I'd not worry too much about viewers with non calibrated CRTs using non color managed browsers. They are not likely the most critical of viewers anyway.</p>

<p>I'd spend more time figuring out why the blacks are so gray in certain shots from your people gallery.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Roger : thank you very much for your considerations and suggestions. Please, tell me : among the 3 ones, which one looks better than the others on your not managed ctr ? My people gallery : as I said, they are scans from velvia 35mm slides. I used a cheap flatbet scanner...and edited on photoshop doing minimal adjusments. The original slides also suffer because of exposure issue when I shot them. The old glory days of slide shooting...</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>With a little post-processing you could get much better results from your Velvia slides. Some are underexposed slides where it looks like the scanner jacked up the exposure. That's not a terrible thing- you just need to set the black point right to darken the shadows.</p>

<p>I don't know if any of the 3 look "better"- none of them match what I see in Firefox. The sRGB is too red and the others too pale. They are all reasonably close so that if I didn't know what it was supposed to look like I wouldn't notice anything was amiss (unlike your film scans where some have crushed, featureless shadows, others look washed out, and others look awesome).</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, this is the question that I can' t still explain and I would your final opinions about : why I see on flickr my srgb converted pictures become red , and the other members pictures look good and neutral at my monitor ? I suppose all the pictures posted by the other members are srgb converted as my ones</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>1- Is your browser color-managed? What browser do you use?<br>

2- Do you embedd the sRGB profile into image? Looking at your first link it is true. But do you embed the sRGB profile at any time?</p>

<p>If an image has the profile and your browser is color-managed, you get the right colors if your monitor profile is good.<br>

It's difficult to say if image is oversaturated intentionally or for a missing profile.<br>

The difference between sRGB and Adobe 1998 is not so strong.<br>

I'm sure many people publishe images in Adobe 1998 or worse in ProPhoto (sometimes the profile is embedded, sometimes no profile is embedded).</p>

<p>The rules for web publishing are:<br>

1- sRGB color space<br>

2- embedd sRGB profile<br>

The rules to see correct colors are:<br>

1- profile the monitor<br>

2-use a color-managed browser and a color-managed application to see images</p>

<p>Previous rules are valid for any monitor.<br>

If your monitor is sRGB-like sometimes you can get acceptable results without a monitor profile and without color-managed browser and applications.<br>

This is not the case if your monitor is wide gamut</p>

<p> </p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Honor Fabio Polenghi</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<p>As there are not answers, I suppose you are understanding what color management is.<br>

In any case, as it's not the first time you ignore my posts, I'll be glad to ignore you.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Sorry Jacopo for my late answer. You are giving me your help and I appreciate very much.<br>

<em>1- Is your browser color-managed? What browser do you use? </em>In the 7th post above <em>, </em>I say : <br>

I downloaded firefox : now, my images on flickr look good at my wide gamut monitor. And they appear the same as you said : the adobe rgb and srgb are now identical, the 2 steps adjusted one looks washed out and greenish. The adobe rgb and srgb ones both match my master picture as I see it in photoshop adobe rgb. Good ! But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.<br>

<em>2- Do you embedd the sRGB profile into image? Looking at your first link it is true. But do you embed the sRGB profile at any time? </em>The srgb is embeded any time in my srgb images, as the adobe rgb profile is embebed any time in my adobe rgb images.<br>

And my monitor is calibrated and the calibration is uploaded automatically at each windows start.</p>

[jacopo_brembati]

<blockquote>

<p>But the trouble is not completely solved : when I see the pictures at my office ctr monitor, not wide gamut, in explorer , as I said they look red saturated and different from my photoshop master picture. This means that the problem is solved for my wide gamut monitor in firefox space. But all the other people with non wide gamut screens and unmanaged browser like explorer still continue to see my pictures, converted from adobe rgb to srgb, oversaturated.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> Non-wide-gamut monitors without color management can see: about rights colors, or oversaturated colors or undersaturated colors. It depends on monitor gamut.<br>

The only thing you can do is: upload sRGB images and embedd color profile. This is a choise that statistically produces the better results for people.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Hi Marco,<br>

This is a long shot and notice that I have little to no idea on how it works, but could it be that some of the ICC/ICM files in your system are corrupted? That might have a number of effects:<br>

- a corrupted file could be embedded and then some of the viewers could do no color management, do it according to the name of the profile, ot do it according the corrupted data<br>

- corrupted files could be used for visualisation on your computer by some programs, hence not showing the correct colors in some situations<br>

But maybe this is a completely foolish idea.</p>