Here's a trial balloon for what we should tell Steve:
1. Let's ship the Mac with gamma set to 2.2. It's the Internet and TV standard. No Apple person is defending 1.8 anymore and the web is full of people suggesting 2.2, including Apple's own pages and the monitor calibration vendors.
First off, this is an OS issue so there's nothing I know of hardware wise that stops Apple and, they could have done this when OS X shipped with a clean slate. They kept 1.8 assumption for legacy reasons. But the OS is pretty well color managed along with the applications Apple provides so for them, its probably a "screw them" kind of mentality (3rd party app's that don't handle color correctly).
Even if the Mac OS had a 2.2 gamma assumption, this wouldn't really do much for you. You still have to have that good old color managed browser and Flash (talking yesterday with Adobe, that hopefully will come about soon).
The Mac at 1.8 and Windows at 2.2 gamma isn't really a strong argument that the problem isn't ICC aware browsers in mass.
Now a news flash from the PhotoPlus NY show last October. Display designer and expert (color scientist) Karl Lang when doing tests on Cinema displays found their native gamma was 1.8! He discussed this in a very good session at the show.
As for films, I believe QuickTime is color managed. So I don't think Raider's would look washed out. None of the video content I see looks problematic.
Item 3 IS the right thing for the internet as a whole. While an untagged image is mystery meat (to borrow Andrew's phrase), an image on the open internet has ZERO chance of being in your own monitor profile. Your monitor profile is specific to your monitor or specific to the model and brand of monitor if you haven't profiled your display and have installed some default display profile. The image being displayed was put on the internet by someone who knows nothing about your system so it can't possibly be in your monitor profile. So assuming the monitor profile is probably the worst choice there is.
We used to have control over this until Tiger. I've asked Apple till blue in the face to default to sRGB or far better, give the user control. Once again, in the future, sRGB will not be the assumption for images if display technology continues to evolve. We're no better off being forced into sRGB as Monitor RGB. We used to have a preference in ColorSync. I think Apple feels that too geeky or hidden (and to some degree that's true). I'd rather see this system wide in System Preferences (Monitors Control Panel). Set default to sRGB. Only someone that knows what they are doing would set it differently. We currently have the ability to load different display profiles in this control panel, so its not a stretch to allow a 2nd profile that's used for untagged files.
Steve isn't paying any attention to ColorSync or color management if recent OS history is any indication.
Here's a trial balloon for what we should tell Steve:
1. Let's ship the Mac with gamma set to 2.2. It's the Internet and TV standard. No Apple person is defending 1.8 anymore and the web is full of people suggesting 2.2, including Apple's own pages and the monitor calibration vendors.
I am trying to find the link, but when I got my MacBook Pro last June and started to set it up, a page/document from Apple stated something along the lines of "First, change the gamma to 2.2 from 1.8 ...". I thought it was funny because of the way DavidTO always preached that on all the various threads.
If people want aRGB or ProPhoto, they can tag their images. That .1% of the population would know how.
As long as SmugMug has a Help screen and sticky thread to assist the delta of the population that do know how (.1%), and the remainder that don't but still would want to. Especially, as Andrew has pointed out, since there are affordable wider gamut monitors available even today. You don't want to be in the same situation 6 years out.
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
The Apple guys say his eyes glazed because it got too complicated for mere mortals. He wants a simple way out of the swamp consumers can grok.
It can be reduced to a very simple answer for the consumer and this should probably be your pitch.
Support ICC profile tags in Safari and fix the default gamma. This is brain-dead simple for the consumer. They don't have to know anything. The sites that care about accurate color display willl add ICC profile tags and the consumer will just get more accurate color display. The sites that don't care about good color get exactly what they have today.
I personally think sRGB should be assumed if no profile is present in the image or pointed to in the HTML, but once they have support for ICC profile tags, that doesn't really matter any more.
For those who want to venture beyond sRGB (to AdobeRGB, for example), just include a profile reference in the HTML and everything is hunky dory (on Safari, at least).
The message to Steve is that this will get Apple the hands-down best internet color display anywhere, particularly for color concious folks who profile their monitors. Windows + IE will be miles behind. Photo sharing sites will add the ICC profile references in a snap because it costs them virtually nothing, has no backward compatibility issues and promotes better color display for those who care.
It can be reduced to a very simple answer for the consumer and this should probably be your pitch.
Support ICC profile tags in Safari and fix the default gamma.
I wouldn't even bring up the gamma issue because you can't get that toothpaste back into the tube. It will not matter anyway if the browser is ICC aware just like it doesn't matter to Photoshop users. If Apple didn't pull this silly legacy gamma with the first release of OS X, the certainly are not going to do so now. Customers head's would explode.
This is brain-dead simple for the consumer. They don't have to know anything.
They still need a good profile for the display. Note that what, 6-8 years ago, Apple introduced a self calibrating display. Didn't work, was a huge failure. But they tried.
The message to Steve is that this will get Apple the hands-down best internet color display anywhere, particularly for color concious folks who profile their monitors.
But they get that now, Safari ships with all Mac's, its color managed. Steve can point to Adobe and Flash. Why should Steve care about how users working with a non Apple Browser see color. That tact will not fly.
Windows + IE will be miles behind. Photo sharing sites will add the ICC profile references in a snap because it costs them virtually nothing, has no backward compatibility issues and promotes better color display for those who care.
Windows + IE already is (it is taking IE out of the sentence). Look at their (Apple) sales. Look at the ability to boot into Windows and naughty IE and OS X from the same box. None of this is a compelling reason for Steve to do anything.
But they get that now, Safari ships with all Mac's, its color managed. Steve can point to Adobe and Flash. Why should Steve care about how users working with a non Apple Browser see color. That tact will not fly.
My point was this. Users running Safari on Macs see the same non-color-managed internet as the Windows world because most of the images on the web have no profiles. The Mac + Safari is no better than anything else because the majority of the internet has no profiles for it's images.
If they fix a few things in Safari, then color quality concious sites like Smugmug and other sites who care about their image quality will take advantage of it and Safari will offer the best internet color display. Though Safari has color management capabilities today, it usually doesn't give them any advantage. With just a little more functionality, that advantage could be applied much more widely and matter a lot more.
It does indeed look as though FF3 with color management enabled is defaulting to sRGB for untagged images and CSS. Although I'm not sure it's doing monitor compensation for css colors. Thats the only explanation I can come up with for the difference in the background color and how awful the rest of the internet looks in FF3. Or maybe i'm just missing the point again.
Note the differences in the thumbnails and in the background colors. The main image is/should be identical since it has an attached sRGB profile.
My point was this. Users running Safari on Macs see the same non-color-managed internet as the Windows world because most of the images on the web have no profiles. The Mac + Safari is no better than anything else because the majority of the internet has no profiles for it's images.
Understood. But untagged documents are not good, and my point is, altering the gamma of the OS doesn't solve anything is very unlikely to happen.
If they fix a few things in Safari, then color quality concious sites like Smugmug and other sites who care about their image quality will take advantage of it and Safari will offer the best internet color display. Though Safari has color management capabilities today, it usually doesn't give them any advantage. With just a little more functionality, that advantage could be applied much more widely and matter a lot more.
We either need (preferably) system wide profile assignment for untagged docs, or (probably more doable) a preference in Safari for untagged docs that defaults as sRGB. Even easier short term is to STOP using the silly assumption of Monitor RGB for untagged docs. So I think if anyone has influence, it should be directed at the Safari team.
Understood. But untagged documents are not good, and my point is, altering the gamma of the OS doesn't solve anything is very unlikely to happen.
I agree. My feedback to Baldy was exactly that. If you we get Smugmug images interpreted as profiled images, then that gamma setting doesn't matter anymore. I think we're on the same page here.
We either need (preferably) system wide profile assignment for untagged docs, or (probably more doable) a preference in Safari for untagged docs that defaults as sRGB. Even easier short term is to STOP using the silly assumption of Monitor RGB for untagged docs. So I think if anyone has influence, it should be directed at the Safari team.
What we are arguing for is that Safari support some of the proposed standards that allow a site (using CSS styles or HTML attributes) to say what profile any given image is without embedding the actual profile in the image. This has the advantage of not adding the overhead of an ICC profile to every image and allows the browser to cache a single profile for all the images on a page (particular great for thumbnails, but efficient for larger images too). It can also be added by any site who cares in minutes and it has no backward compatibility issues at all. You are right, this is something to work on the Safari team with. Firefox 3 is supporting these new profile attributes.
I agree. My feedback to Baldy was exactly that. If you we get Smugmug images interpreted as profiled images, then that gamma setting doesn't matter anymore. I think we're on the same page here.
What we are arguing for is that Safari support some of the proposed standards that allow a site (using CSS styles or HTML attributes) to say what profile any given image is without embedding the actual profile in the image. This has the advantage of not adding the overhead of an ICC profile to every image and allows the browser to cache a single profile for all the images on a page (particular great for thumbnails, but efficient for larger images too). It can also be added by any site who cares in minutes and it has no backward compatibility issues at all. You are right, this is something to work on the Safari team with. Firefox 3 is supporting these new profile attributes.
CSS 3 has a property, color-profile, but I'm not familiar with FF3 supporting it. This page states that no browser currently supports it including FF3 beta. There may be a mozilla proprietary CSS property I'm not familiary with though, I'd love to know about it if there is. Given the W3C's track record on timliness of their recommendations I'd say it'll be a long frickin time before we see CSS3 make it into browsers in any meaningful way.
Y'all don't want to hear me, you just want to dance.
CSS 3 has a property, color-profile, but I'm not familiar with FF3 supporting it. This page states that no browser currently supports it including FF3 beta. There may be a mozilla proprietary CSS property I'm not familiary with though, I'd love to know about it if there is. Given the W3C's track record on timliness of their recommendations <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif" border="0" alt="" > I'd say it'll be a long frickin time before we see CSS3 make it into browsers in any meaningful way.
No discussion of CSS support that I've found. The img tag or body tag support would allow Smugmug to solve their problem.
Dunno how accurate that article still is. Last modified date is 20 May, 2005.
Pedal faster
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited January 30, 2008
Somebody mentioned QuickTime having color management. My understanding is it sorta does, but not in the way we think about it for stills.
If you upgrade to QuickTime Pro, you can specify source and destination profiles for a QuickTime movie you're saving. It's like converting a jpeg to another colorspace in Photoshop. It isn't that it attaches an ICC profile that color-aware options know what to do with, I don't think.
Another comparision between FF3 w/color management enabled and Safari3 on my system. Can anyone explain why this is happening? (besides the fact that apparently my wife has been using my Amazon login)
FF3 on top, Safari on bottom. Clicky for original size
Another comparision between FF3 w/color management enabled and Safari3 on my system. Can anyone explain why this is happening? (besides the fact that apparently my wife has been using my Amazon login)
Hahaha on the login.
I haven't installed FF3 or read anything about how they do color management, but it sure looks like they are trying to color manage the HTML and CSS, unlike Safari. I'll look at this later in the week.
In the meantime, Pantone got back to me and pointed me to
Hello folks. I was searching the web for a solution to this same issue, learning things along the way and found this long and extremely interesting thread.
I recently bought one of the Dell "wide gamut" LCD screens, the 2407WFP-HC and found the same issue with PS/OSX/Color profiles. Even after "calibrating" the screen with an i1/GretaMacbeth, when doing a save for web in PS, the saturation goes way up (a huge change). While I could deal with the fact that I would not get an accurate preview in save for web and would have to embed a profile to get an accurate view in Safari to match the color managed Photoshop/Lightroom, I don't have a PC around anymore to make sure my photos look "alright" to the average joe.
Now I understand that the jump in saturation that I get when the picture is not color managed (as in save for web, Firefox, or Safari with no embedded profile) after it was converted to sRGB, is because my monitor, after profiling, is not close enough to sRGB specs.
This monitor has a number of things that can be set, aside from contrast/brightness, but I think the main problem a lot of buyers of this kind of screen are going to face is the total lack of documentation. You buy something that you think will be better for photo work (I used to have an iMac and now an external screen on a laptop), but you don't know how to use it.
For example, you can select a PC color mode or a Mac color mode. Now it's pretty obvious to me what this does: gamma 2.2 or 1.8. Easy. I set it to PC.
Below that, you have to choose between PC Standard, PC Blue, PC Red. Alright, standard is the obvious choice. I kinda assume this is likely to mean a 6500k color temperature. But again, no explanations.
But then it gets complicated: you can also choose "custom color" with RGB sliders. Ah, now what? Which one is the most "standard" mode? The PC Standard or the custom color with all sliders up at 100%?
And then in another menu, you get IMAGE MODES, and there you've got Desktop Standard, Multimedia, Gaming. I kinda figured the Desktop Standard is the one without overly boosted, cartoonish colors.
Why the heck can't they provide any decent explanations for a screen that they advertise in a way to sell it to people that are actually interested in color control? How do I know how I should setup my screen to obtain a good base for color profiling with the i1?
Then I read more into it and found a way to get into the service menu, and there I can see the color values used for the different presets (PC Standard etc.). I thought I read that reducing the monitor's RGB values was bad and would lead to banding, which is why I decided to use Custom Color and leave things at 100%, but now I read about monitor's internal LUT versus graphic card LUT, blah blah blah, so perhaps the PC Standard mode *was* the value I should be using, since its settings seem based on 8bit values (0 to 255) rather than the 0-100 of the Custom Color mode.
I'm going to have to borrow the i1 again from my friend and spend more time calibrating, profiling.
Bottom line is, there's so much confusion around this, mostly from lack of documentation, it's really difficult to know what's what. I feel fine about being able to work in a totally color managed environment, but still I'd like to use my monitor to its maximum possibilities in the most accurate way possible, while knowing that things are not going to be too out of whack for the average person out there.
Currently, since I decided to go for the Custom Color mode after I had given the i1 back already, I am currently using the monitor profile for my screen that came with OSX. After opening the profiles and looking inside, it seems awfully close to the provided sRGB profile except it seems its gamut (tri-stimulus) is quite a bit larger.
Hello folks. I was searching the web for a solution to this same issue, learning things along the way and found this long and extremely interesting thread.
I recently bought one of the Dell "wide gamut" LCD screens, the 2407WFP-HC and found the same issue with PS/OSX/Color profiles. Even after "calibrating" the screen with an i1/GretaMacbeth, when doing a save for web in PS, the saturation goes way up (a huge change). While I could deal with the fact that I would not get an accurate preview in save for web and would have to embed a profile to get an accurate view in Safari to match the color managed Photoshop/Lightroom, I don't have a PC around anymore to make sure my photos look "alright" to the average joe.
Now I understand that the jump in saturation that I get when the picture is not color managed (as in save for web, Firefox, or Safari with no embedded profile) after it was converted to sRGB, is because my monitor, after profiling, is not close enough to sRGB specs.
This monitor has a number of things that can be set, aside from contrast/brightness, but I think the main problem a lot of buyers of this kind of screen are going to face is the total lack of documentation. You buy something that you think will be better for photo work (I used to have an iMac and now an external screen on a laptop), but you don't know how to use it.
For example, you can select a PC color mode or a Mac color mode. Now it's pretty obvious to me what this does: gamma 2.2 or 1.8. Easy. I set it to PC.
Below that, you have to choose between PC Standard, PC Blue, PC Red. Alright, standard is the obvious choice. I kinda assume this is likely to mean a 6500k color temperature. But again, no explanations.
But then it gets complicated: you can also choose "custom color" with RGB sliders. Ah, now what? Which one is the most "standard" mode? The PC Standard or the custom color with all sliders up at 100%?
And then in another menu, you get IMAGE MODES, and there you've got Desktop Standard, Multimedia, Gaming. I kinda figured the Desktop Standard is the one without overly boosted, cartoonish colors.
Why the heck can't they provide any decent explanations for a screen that they advertise in a way to sell it to people that are actually interested in color control? How do I know how I should setup my screen to obtain a good base for color profiling with the i1?
Then I read more into it and found a way to get into the service menu, and there I can see the color values used for the different presets (PC Standard etc.). I thought I read that reducing the monitor's RGB values was bad and would lead to banding, which is why I decided to use Custom Color and leave things at 100%, but now I read about monitor's internal LUT versus graphic card LUT, blah blah blah, so perhaps the PC Standard mode *was* the value I should be using, since its settings seem based on 8bit values (0 to 255) rather than the 0-100 of the Custom Color mode.
I'm going to have to borrow the i1 again from my friend and spend more time calibrating, profiling.
Bottom line is, there's so much confusion around this, mostly from lack of documentation, it's really difficult to know what's what. I feel fine about being able to work in a totally color managed environment, but still I'd like to use my monitor to its maximum possibilities in the most accurate way possible, while knowing that things are not going to be too out of whack for the average person out there.
Currently, since I decided to go for the Custom Color mode after I had given the i1 back already, I am currently using the monitor profile for my screen that came with OSX. After opening the profiles and looking inside, it seems awfully close to the provided sRGB profile except it seems its gamut (tri-stimulus) is quite a bit larger.
One thing you have to realize is that what you do with your monitor has aboslutely nothing to do with what the average joe is going to see on their uncalibrated monitor. The best thing you can do is to get your images looking the best they can on your color managed screen in color-managed apps. That, at least, puts them as close to accurate as possible so the closer a viewer's screen is to accurate, the better your images will look. From there, how they look on a non-color-managed system will have nothing to do with how you fiddle with your screen in all these settings you are discussing. Absolutely nothing. Since it sounds like you use (color-managed) Safari for browsing and color-managed apps for photo editing, I wouldn't bother if I were you. Calibrate your screen to a reasonable temperature setting and then use color-managed apps.
There is some false sense that if you make your monitor somehow close to sRGB and then look at your images when not color-managed that that will somehow help you see how the regular joe is going to see them. Unfortunately, it doesn't at all. It just shows you how they look on a non-color-managed monitor that's been futzed with the way you did. How they see your images has only to do with how their monitor is set up.
One thing you have to realize is that what you do with your monitor has aboslutely nothing to do with what the average joe is going to see on their uncalibrated monitor. The best thing you can do is to get your images looking the best they can on your color managed screen in color-managed apps. That, at least, puts them as close to accurate as possible so the closer a viewer's screen is to accurate, the better your images will look.
Exactly, which is why I want to find out how best to setup my color management. Unfortunately, the fact that the monitor comes with so little documentation isn't helpful.
From there, how they look on a non-color-managed system will have nothing to do with how you fiddle with your screen in all these settings you are discussing. Absolutely nothing. Since it sounds like you use (color-managed) Safari for browsing and color-managed apps for photo editing, I wouldn't bother if I were you. Calibrate your screen to a reasonable temperature setting and then use color-managed apps.
I use many web browsers. I am a web developer as well as photographer. And I want to bother because it's in my nature. Knowing exactly how my screen works and what it does when is the first step to being able to calibrate it correctly. Heck, getting the brightness and contrast right is already a chore! (and you should see the weird stuff this screen does at certain contrast settings) I know that my own calibration will not impact how my work looks on another screen....except if my calibration work is off and I'm overcompensating for something (not that...)
There is some false sense that if you make your monitor somehow close to sRGB and then look at your images when not color-managed that that will somehow help you see how the regular joe is going to see them. Unfortunately, it doesn't at all. It just shows you how they look on a non-color-managed monitor that's been futzed with the way you did. How they see your images has only to do with how their monitor is set up.
I know this. Been working with computers digital photography a long time. Nevertheless, it's important to get it right for me. I've read it all in this thread about sRGB and how it's not really a standard etc. With due respect, it's just talk and play on words. It is a de-facto standard because of the sheer number of systems expecting things to be close to those specs, even when they are not color managed. As a web developer, I wish I could say to heck with IE and make my life easier, but that's not how things are.
I've also used many PCs on quite a few screens. Even with the variation on screen types, quality, settings etc...if someone at least takes the time to set a 6500k white balance, everything else being equal, the closer I get to sRGB specs, the more chance I have that my photos will not be totally out of whack on someone else's machine (including the potential buyer), as you mention in your first paragraph. I've seen my own work on enough different machines to know this for a fact. Other macs, PCs, desktops, laptops... Slightly different colors, slightly different saturation, sometimes the picture too blue, or too yellow, sometimes a CRT screen that has lived long past its prime (I have one of those at home). That's expected but it's better to do it right and now that I'm not introducing issues from the start. I also work on multiple screens.
To come back to the main reason for my post: how to best setup these new "wide gamut" screens, and in particular the Dell I mentioned in order to do the best calibration possible. What's the point calibrating something if my base settings are way out, modifying a color response one way to just compensate it via profiling in Photoshop, probably introducing issues and crippling the color values. Bottom line is...with a screen like this I don't even know enough to choose the right settings on the on-screen menu, going blindly.
Exactly, which is why I want to find out how best to setup my color management. Unfortunately, the fact that the monitor comes with so little documentation isn't helpful.
I use many web browsers. I am a web developer as well as photographer. And I want to bother because it's in my nature. Knowing exactly how my screen works and what it does when is the first step to being able to calibrate it correctly. Heck, getting the brightness and contrast right is already a chore! (and you should see the weird stuff this screen does at certain contrast settings) I know that my own calibration will not impact how my work looks on another screen....except if my calibration work is off and I'm overcompensating for something (not that...)
I know this. Been working with computers digital photography a long time. Nevertheless, it's important to get it right for me. I've read it all in this thread about sRGB and how it's not really a standard etc. With due respect, it's just talk and play on words. It is a de-facto standard because of the sheer number of systems expecting things to be close to those specs, even when they are not color managed. As a web developer, I wish I could say to heck with IE and make my life easier, but that's not how things are.
I've also used many PCs on quite a few screens. Even with the variation on screen types, quality, settings etc...if someone at least takes the time to set a 6500k white balance, everything else being equal, the closer I get to sRGB specs, the more chance I have that my photos will not be totally out of whack on someone else's machine (including the potential buyer), as you mention in your first paragraph. I've seen my own work on enough different machines to know this for a fact. Other macs, PCs, desktops, laptops... Slightly different colors, slightly different saturation, sometimes the picture too blue, or too yellow, sometimes a CRT screen that has lived long past its prime (I have one of those at home). That's expected but it's better to do it right and now that I'm not introducing issues from the start. I also work on multiple screens.
To come back to the main reason for my post: how to best setup these new "wide gamut" screens, and in particular the Dell I mentioned in order to do the best calibration possible. What's the point calibrating something if my base settings are way out, modifying a color response one way to just compensate it via profiling in Photoshop, probably introducing issues and crippling the color values. Bottom line is...with a screen like this I don't even know enough to choose the right settings on the on-screen menu, going blindly.
I have no idea what any Dell monitor menu settings do (I have an HP monitor that has none of the settings you mention). If there is such a thing, I would think you would want a forum where folks discuss Dell hardware or look at the manual for your monitor here on the Dell site.
On my 30" HP, all I had to do was pick a color temperature setting that I wanted as a target in the calibration and then adjust the brightness of the monitor to match a target luminance value as part of the calibration process. Everything else was handled by the calibration tool (EyeOne Display2, in my case).
I have no idea what any Dell monitor menu settings do (I have an HP monitor that has none of the settings you mention). If there is such a thing, I would think you would want a forum where folks discuss Dell hardware or look at the manual for your monitor here on the Dell site.
On my 30" HP, all I had to do was pick a color temperature setting that I wanted as a target in the calibration and then adjust the brightness of the monitor to match a target luminance value as part of the calibration process. Everything else was handled by the calibration tool (EyeOne Display2, in my case).
That's what I used as well. I do wish that my monitor had clearly labeled settings such as the color temperature rather than obscure mode names. As for adjusting the brightness of the screen via the calibration tool I have found it almost impossible since any increase or decrease in contrast also influences the tool's reading, with no clear indication of how to best set the contrast (100% is way too high on a monitor like this, burns all the whites and your eyes too). It's a guessing game. Your eyes adjust to various settings and it's hard to pick the right one.
Oh well, I guess that's the stuff you have to deal with on a monitor in that price range.
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I know this. Been working with computers digital photography a long time. Nevertheless, it's important to get it right for me. I've read it all in this thread about sRGB and how it's not really a standard etc. With due respect, it's just talk and play on words. It is a de-facto standard because of the sheer number of systems expecting things to be close to those specs, even when they are not color managed. As a web developer, I wish I could say to heck with IE and make my life easier, but that's not how things are.
I'm with LeChuck. In my (brief) conversations with Gretag they indicated that their calibration is not supposed to do this and they don't (yet) have an answer for why it's happening.
LeChuck, I'm sorry I didn't pay attention to this thread for a few days.
...It is a de-facto standard because of the sheer number of systems expecting things to be close to those specs, even when they are not color managed. As a web developer, I wish I could say to heck with IE and make my life easier, but that's not how things are.
I hadn't read this thread when I posted [thread=88703]mine[/thread] on a similar - maybe even the same - topic. I struggled through reading this whole thread here, and I'm amazed that there's no single, straight-forward answer. The prevailing theme seems to be "it depends" on what you want to do. Well, maybe there's an answer to what *I* want to do, which is have my image look "good" to the untrained consumer eye when viewed on the web.
oh, boy!
So, is this a lot like life itself? The more you learn, the less you understand? And the more you realize how messed up everyone else really is?
I just asked this question yesterday, about over saturated images in the main window panel. I was directed here, and now, after this long read, I'm not sure what the question was, if there's any real answer, and does it really matter?
All right, I'll try anyway. I have a Mac, ACDisplay, browse within Safari. Based on (internet) advice, I've set my gamma at 2.2, profile with a Spyder 2. Process in CS3 in an Adobe RGB environment, convert to sRGB before uploading to Smugmug. ( I do not use Save for Web.)
The thumbnails appear like my original upload, the large window, which I assume is applying the sRGB tags, is over saturated. The same JPEG, opened with CS3, displayed in sRGB, side by side on the same monitor, does not match the Smugmug image opened in the Safari browser.
From what I've been able to decipher, Safari does use the sRGB tags. This is where I'd normally try to guess what's happening, but not after reading this thread. I'm so #@%! confused now. Should I even consider this an issue at all, since the image does not appear over saturated on a Windows machine with IE7? And why would a non-color managed image appear more correct than one that is using the ICC tags?
You know, I have been de-saturating by -10 or so when sending out any small images via email. The reason is that when they came back to me, they were, of course, over saturated. Nobody ever complained, but it was alarming to me. Now I realize that maybe it's just MY SYSTEM that's applying additional corrections from the LUT to untagged images? Or am I totally missing the point?
Please, correct me if I'm doing something wrong. I am, like everyone else, searching for the Holy Grail of color management.
In the meantime, I think I've decided that I trust Photoshop and my Spyder 2 profile to give me accurate color. After it leaves here, all bets are off. Should I even think that it's possible to have a color match between an original and something displayed from a web browser, any web browser for that matter? Or am I asking for something that really isn't possible?
In the meantime, I think I've decided that I trust Photoshop and my Spyder 2 profile to give me accurate color. After it leaves here, all bets are off.
You've got it right there, once it leaves photoshop for anyone else's non-color managed applications (firefox, IE, and the like) it doesn't matter. Someone else using PS, downloading the TAGGED image and viewing it in the rightly tagged color space *should* see as closely as possible with today's technology. That's as good as it gets and it's everything that was explained here.
Should I even think that it's possible to have a color match between an original and something displayed from a web browser, any web browser for that matter? Or am I asking for something that really isn't possible?
If the image is tagged when uploaded to the web, you can easily download it and open it in PS and "keep the embedded color space when it differs from your working color space" and it'll match the original as if someone handed you the same file on a cd So yes, it IS possible, what it looks like in an non-color managed browser has nothing to do with what it "truly" looks like
Can you believe I just "got this" 2 days ago? Probably can
BTW, I was at the spam bot check question when registering! too funny.
And yes, this is by far the MOST informative thread on the subject I've found so far. I had found g ballards site first, SO hard to follow and apparently a lot of flawed statements in there despite the fact that he's apparently started to think they are all not "right" as per the above posted adobe link I first read through before finding this.
Again, thank you for a most informative thread.
0
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
I was looking over Ben's shoulder this a.m. with his new and newly calibrated dual 30" monitors, as he whined about the two monitors being so different. You move a photo from one to the other and the skin tone goes from tanned to reddish. It would be nice if just once in our offices we could get two monitors to match...
I've probably fielded 3,000 emails from pros about their prints who say, but it looked good on my calibrated monitor... I always send them to the Photoshop eyedropper tool and that's what I use for all my corrections. I don't recall ever seeing a print returned that we adjusted that way.
Comments
First off, this is an OS issue so there's nothing I know of hardware wise that stops Apple and, they could have done this when OS X shipped with a clean slate. They kept 1.8 assumption for legacy reasons. But the OS is pretty well color managed along with the applications Apple provides so for them, its probably a "screw them" kind of mentality (3rd party app's that don't handle color correctly).
Even if the Mac OS had a 2.2 gamma assumption, this wouldn't really do much for you. You still have to have that good old color managed browser and Flash (talking yesterday with Adobe, that hopefully will come about soon).
The Mac at 1.8 and Windows at 2.2 gamma isn't really a strong argument that the problem isn't ICC aware browsers in mass.
Now a news flash from the PhotoPlus NY show last October. Display designer and expert (color scientist) Karl Lang when doing tests on Cinema displays found their native gamma was 1.8! He discussed this in a very good session at the show.
As for films, I believe QuickTime is color managed. So I don't think Raider's would look washed out. None of the video content I see looks problematic.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
We used to have control over this until Tiger. I've asked Apple till blue in the face to default to sRGB or far better, give the user control. Once again, in the future, sRGB will not be the assumption for images if display technology continues to evolve. We're no better off being forced into sRGB as Monitor RGB. We used to have a preference in ColorSync. I think Apple feels that too geeky or hidden (and to some degree that's true). I'd rather see this system wide in System Preferences (Monitors Control Panel). Set default to sRGB. Only someone that knows what they are doing would set it differently. We currently have the ability to load different display profiles in this control panel, so its not a stretch to allow a 2nd profile that's used for untagged files.
Steve isn't paying any attention to ColorSync or color management if recent OS history is any indication.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I am trying to find the link, but when I got my MacBook Pro last June and started to set it up, a page/document from Apple stated something along the lines of "First, change the gamma to 2.2 from 1.8 ...". I thought it was funny because of the way DavidTO always preached that on all the various threads.
As long as SmugMug has a Help screen and sticky thread to assist the delta of the population that do know how (.1%), and the remainder that don't but still would want to. Especially, as Andrew has pointed out, since there are affordable wider gamut monitors available even today. You don't want to be in the same situation 6 years out.
-Fleetwood Mac
It can be reduced to a very simple answer for the consumer and this should probably be your pitch.
Support ICC profile tags in Safari and fix the default gamma. This is brain-dead simple for the consumer. They don't have to know anything. The sites that care about accurate color display willl add ICC profile tags and the consumer will just get more accurate color display. The sites that don't care about good color get exactly what they have today.
I personally think sRGB should be assumed if no profile is present in the image or pointed to in the HTML, but once they have support for ICC profile tags, that doesn't really matter any more.
For those who want to venture beyond sRGB (to AdobeRGB, for example), just include a profile reference in the HTML and everything is hunky dory (on Safari, at least).
The message to Steve is that this will get Apple the hands-down best internet color display anywhere, particularly for color concious folks who profile their monitors. Windows + IE will be miles behind. Photo sharing sites will add the ICC profile references in a snap because it costs them virtually nothing, has no backward compatibility issues and promotes better color display for those who care.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I wouldn't even bring up the gamma issue because you can't get that toothpaste back into the tube. It will not matter anyway if the browser is ICC aware just like it doesn't matter to Photoshop users. If Apple didn't pull this silly legacy gamma with the first release of OS X, the certainly are not going to do so now. Customers head's would explode.
They still need a good profile for the display. Note that what, 6-8 years ago, Apple introduced a self calibrating display. Didn't work, was a huge failure. But they tried.
But they get that now, Safari ships with all Mac's, its color managed. Steve can point to Adobe and Flash. Why should Steve care about how users working with a non Apple Browser see color. That tact will not fly.
Windows + IE already is (it is taking IE out of the sentence). Look at their (Apple) sales. Look at the ability to boot into Windows and naughty IE and OS X from the same box. None of this is a compelling reason for Steve to do anything.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
My point was this. Users running Safari on Macs see the same non-color-managed internet as the Windows world because most of the images on the web have no profiles. The Mac + Safari is no better than anything else because the majority of the internet has no profiles for it's images.
If they fix a few things in Safari, then color quality concious sites like Smugmug and other sites who care about their image quality will take advantage of it and Safari will offer the best internet color display. Though Safari has color management capabilities today, it usually doesn't give them any advantage. With just a little more functionality, that advantage could be applied much more widely and matter a lot more.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Note the differences in the thumbnails and in the background colors. The main image is/should be identical since it has an attached sRGB profile.
clicky for original size.
Understood. But untagged documents are not good, and my point is, altering the gamma of the OS doesn't solve anything is very unlikely to happen.
We either need (preferably) system wide profile assignment for untagged docs, or (probably more doable) a preference in Safari for untagged docs that defaults as sRGB. Even easier short term is to STOP using the silly assumption of Monitor RGB for untagged docs. So I think if anyone has influence, it should be directed at the Safari team.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I agree. My feedback to Baldy was exactly that. If you we get Smugmug images interpreted as profiled images, then that gamma setting doesn't matter anymore. I think we're on the same page here.
What we are arguing for is that Safari support some of the proposed standards that allow a site (using CSS styles or HTML attributes) to say what profile any given image is without embedding the actual profile in the image. This has the advantage of not adding the overhead of an ICC profile to every image and allows the browser to cache a single profile for all the images on a page (particular great for thumbnails, but efficient for larger images too). It can also be added by any site who cares in minutes and it has no backward compatibility issues at all. You are right, this is something to work on the Safari team with. Firefox 3 is supporting these new profile attributes.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
- <img… iccprofile=…> support
- <body… iccprofile=…> support
No discussion of CSS support that I've found. The img tag or body tag support would allow Smugmug to solve their problem.Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
If you upgrade to QuickTime Pro, you can specify source and destination profiles for a QuickTime movie you're saving. It's like converting a jpeg to another colorspace in Photoshop. It isn't that it attaches an ICC profile that color-aware options know what to do with, I don't think.
Here's some details:
http://safari.adobepress.com/0321245768/ch11lev1sec5
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess we just need to try it. Anyone know any ICC profiles at a publicly accessible URL?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
FF3 on top, Safari on bottom. Clicky for original size
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I haven't installed FF3 or read anything about how they do color management, but it sure looks like they are trying to color manage the HTML and CSS, unlike Safari. I'll look at this later in the week.
In the meantime, Pantone got back to me and pointed me to
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
to answer my questions. Hahaha, back in circles we go again.
I recently bought one of the Dell "wide gamut" LCD screens, the 2407WFP-HC and found the same issue with PS/OSX/Color profiles. Even after "calibrating" the screen with an i1/GretaMacbeth, when doing a save for web in PS, the saturation goes way up (a huge change). While I could deal with the fact that I would not get an accurate preview in save for web and would have to embed a profile to get an accurate view in Safari to match the color managed Photoshop/Lightroom, I don't have a PC around anymore to make sure my photos look "alright" to the average joe.
Now I understand that the jump in saturation that I get when the picture is not color managed (as in save for web, Firefox, or Safari with no embedded profile) after it was converted to sRGB, is because my monitor, after profiling, is not close enough to sRGB specs.
This monitor has a number of things that can be set, aside from contrast/brightness, but I think the main problem a lot of buyers of this kind of screen are going to face is the total lack of documentation. You buy something that you think will be better for photo work (I used to have an iMac and now an external screen on a laptop), but you don't know how to use it.
For example, you can select a PC color mode or a Mac color mode. Now it's pretty obvious to me what this does: gamma 2.2 or 1.8. Easy. I set it to PC.
Below that, you have to choose between PC Standard, PC Blue, PC Red. Alright, standard is the obvious choice. I kinda assume this is likely to mean a 6500k color temperature. But again, no explanations.
But then it gets complicated: you can also choose "custom color" with RGB sliders. Ah, now what? Which one is the most "standard" mode? The PC Standard or the custom color with all sliders up at 100%?
And then in another menu, you get IMAGE MODES, and there you've got Desktop Standard, Multimedia, Gaming. I kinda figured the Desktop Standard is the one without overly boosted, cartoonish colors.
Why the heck can't they provide any decent explanations for a screen that they advertise in a way to sell it to people that are actually interested in color control? How do I know how I should setup my screen to obtain a good base for color profiling with the i1?
Then I read more into it and found a way to get into the service menu, and there I can see the color values used for the different presets (PC Standard etc.). I thought I read that reducing the monitor's RGB values was bad and would lead to banding, which is why I decided to use Custom Color and leave things at 100%, but now I read about monitor's internal LUT versus graphic card LUT, blah blah blah, so perhaps the PC Standard mode *was* the value I should be using, since its settings seem based on 8bit values (0 to 255) rather than the 0-100 of the Custom Color mode.
I'm going to have to borrow the i1 again from my friend and spend more time calibrating, profiling.
Bottom line is, there's so much confusion around this, mostly from lack of documentation, it's really difficult to know what's what. I feel fine about being able to work in a totally color managed environment, but still I'd like to use my monitor to its maximum possibilities in the most accurate way possible, while knowing that things are not going to be too out of whack for the average person out there.
Currently, since I decided to go for the Custom Color mode after I had given the i1 back already, I am currently using the monitor profile for my screen that came with OSX. After opening the profiles and looking inside, it seems awfully close to the provided sRGB profile except it seems its gamut (tri-stimulus) is quite a bit larger.
One thing you have to realize is that what you do with your monitor has aboslutely nothing to do with what the average joe is going to see on their uncalibrated monitor. The best thing you can do is to get your images looking the best they can on your color managed screen in color-managed apps. That, at least, puts them as close to accurate as possible so the closer a viewer's screen is to accurate, the better your images will look. From there, how they look on a non-color-managed system will have nothing to do with how you fiddle with your screen in all these settings you are discussing. Absolutely nothing. Since it sounds like you use (color-managed) Safari for browsing and color-managed apps for photo editing, I wouldn't bother if I were you. Calibrate your screen to a reasonable temperature setting and then use color-managed apps.
There is some false sense that if you make your monitor somehow close to sRGB and then look at your images when not color-managed that that will somehow help you see how the regular joe is going to see them. Unfortunately, it doesn't at all. It just shows you how they look on a non-color-managed monitor that's been futzed with the way you did. How they see your images has only to do with how their monitor is set up.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Exactly, which is why I want to find out how best to setup my color management. Unfortunately, the fact that the monitor comes with so little documentation isn't helpful.
I use many web browsers. I am a web developer as well as photographer. And I want to bother because it's in my nature. Knowing exactly how my screen works and what it does when is the first step to being able to calibrate it correctly. Heck, getting the brightness and contrast right is already a chore! (and you should see the weird stuff this screen does at certain contrast settings) I know that my own calibration will not impact how my work looks on another screen....except if my calibration work is off and I'm overcompensating for something (not that...)
I know this. Been working with computers digital photography a long time. Nevertheless, it's important to get it right for me. I've read it all in this thread about sRGB and how it's not really a standard etc. With due respect, it's just talk and play on words. It is a de-facto standard because of the sheer number of systems expecting things to be close to those specs, even when they are not color managed. As a web developer, I wish I could say to heck with IE and make my life easier, but that's not how things are.
I've also used many PCs on quite a few screens. Even with the variation on screen types, quality, settings etc...if someone at least takes the time to set a 6500k white balance, everything else being equal, the closer I get to sRGB specs, the more chance I have that my photos will not be totally out of whack on someone else's machine (including the potential buyer), as you mention in your first paragraph. I've seen my own work on enough different machines to know this for a fact. Other macs, PCs, desktops, laptops... Slightly different colors, slightly different saturation, sometimes the picture too blue, or too yellow, sometimes a CRT screen that has lived long past its prime (I have one of those at home). That's expected but it's better to do it right and now that I'm not introducing issues from the start. I also work on multiple screens.
To come back to the main reason for my post: how to best setup these new "wide gamut" screens, and in particular the Dell I mentioned in order to do the best calibration possible. What's the point calibrating something if my base settings are way out, modifying a color response one way to just compensate it via profiling in Photoshop, probably introducing issues and crippling the color values. Bottom line is...with a screen like this I don't even know enough to choose the right settings on the on-screen menu, going blindly.
I have no idea what any Dell monitor menu settings do (I have an HP monitor that has none of the settings you mention). If there is such a thing, I would think you would want a forum where folks discuss Dell hardware or look at the manual for your monitor here on the Dell site.
On my 30" HP, all I had to do was pick a color temperature setting that I wanted as a target in the calibration and then adjust the brightness of the monitor to match a target luminance value as part of the calibration process. Everything else was handled by the calibration tool (EyeOne Display2, in my case).
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I have that manual, thanks.
That's what I used as well. I do wish that my monitor had clearly labeled settings such as the color temperature rather than obscure mode names. As for adjusting the brightness of the screen via the calibration tool I have found it almost impossible since any increase or decrease in contrast also influences the tool's reading, with no clear indication of how to best set the contrast (100% is way too high on a monitor like this, burns all the whites and your eyes too). It's a guessing game. Your eyes adjust to various settings and it's hard to pick the right one.
Oh well, I guess that's the stuff you have to deal with on a monitor in that price range.
LeChuck, I'm sorry I didn't pay attention to this thread for a few days.
Great analogy.
This is, by miles, the mother-lode-rosetta-stone-historically-awesome thread for quality discussion of display color management I've ever read.
I just wanted to post for the sake of bumping this thread up so more innocent bystanders might end up reading it.
Peace,
Sanaka Thompson
Kit lens for now: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS
So, is this a lot like life itself? The more you learn, the less you understand? And the more you realize how messed up everyone else really is?
I just asked this question yesterday, about over saturated images in the main window panel. I was directed here, and now, after this long read, I'm not sure what the question was, if there's any real answer, and does it really matter?
All right, I'll try anyway. I have a Mac, ACDisplay, browse within Safari. Based on (internet) advice, I've set my gamma at 2.2, profile with a Spyder 2. Process in CS3 in an Adobe RGB environment, convert to sRGB before uploading to Smugmug. ( I do not use Save for Web.)
The thumbnails appear like my original upload, the large window, which I assume is applying the sRGB tags, is over saturated. The same JPEG, opened with CS3, displayed in sRGB, side by side on the same monitor, does not match the Smugmug image opened in the Safari browser.
From what I've been able to decipher, Safari does use the sRGB tags. This is where I'd normally try to guess what's happening, but not after reading this thread. I'm so #@%! confused now. Should I even consider this an issue at all, since the image does not appear over saturated on a Windows machine with IE7? And why would a non-color managed image appear more correct than one that is using the ICC tags?
You know, I have been de-saturating by -10 or so when sending out any small images via email. The reason is that when they came back to me, they were, of course, over saturated. Nobody ever complained, but it was alarming to me. Now I realize that maybe it's just MY SYSTEM that's applying additional corrections from the LUT to untagged images? Or am I totally missing the point?
Please, correct me if I'm doing something wrong. I am, like everyone else, searching for the Holy Grail of color management.
In the meantime, I think I've decided that I trust Photoshop and my Spyder 2 profile to give me accurate color. After it leaves here, all bets are off. Should I even think that it's possible to have a color match between an original and something displayed from a web browser, any web browser for that matter? Or am I asking for something that really isn't possible?
Kevin :cry
If the image is tagged when uploaded to the web, you can easily download it and open it in PS and "keep the embedded color space when it differs from your working color space" and it'll match the original as if someone handed you the same file on a cd
Can you believe I just "got this" 2 days ago? Probably can
BTW, I was
And yes, this is by far the MOST informative thread on the subject I've found so far. I had found g ballards site first, SO hard to follow and apparently a lot of flawed statements in there
Again, thank you for a most informative thread.
I was looking over Ben's shoulder this a.m. with his new and newly calibrated dual 30" monitors, as he whined about the two monitors being so different. You move a photo from one to the other and the skin tone goes from tanned to reddish. It would be nice if just once in our offices we could get two monitors to match...
I've probably fielded 3,000 emails from pros about their prints who say, but it looked good on my calibrated monitor... I always send them to the Photoshop eyedropper tool and that's what I use for all my corrections. I don't recall ever seeing a print returned that we adjusted that way.