Practical implications of the colour space issue

shrekie

Hi everyone,

I've spent many hours reading through these forums as well as the articles on colour space management and I'm still confused as to how best to prepare my images for export into smugmug so I'm hoping to find some enlightenment and assistance here:)

My issues are these:

1. I shoot in RAW, edit in Aperture, and export using sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
My Macbook Pro monitor has been calibrated to PC gamma 2.2 and white point D65.
Despite this, even after re-calibrating the monitor and exporting with sRGB IEC61966-2.1, there is still no difference in the colour rendition of the photos in Firefox and they still appear washed out compared to Safari. So was there much point in re-calibrating and exporting with sRGB IEC61966-2.1? According to the smugmug article here (http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/), there should be no discernible difference (or at least only a minimal difference) in the image seen in Safari and Firefox now, however, this has not been the case with me.

2. People have said that it depends on what your final printing output format is as to which colour space you use. However, if you are offering images for sale as both digital downloads (for web use) AND prints, how can any single colour space accommodate both options for the same image?

3. If I spend all my time post processing and adjusting colours in Aperture which looks perfect in Safari, but terrible in Firefox, I am basically wasting my time as the majority of net users use Firefox or IE. How do I do post processing in Aperture so that what I see is what it's going to look like in Firefox and IE rather than Safari? (In which case, will I be disadvantaging Safari users as they may end up with a supersaturated image?)

4. So by saving the RAW images in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 colour space, the colours will in fact be printed faithfully, but won't the image itself will look different in Firefox compared to the printed image? That is, if I was looking at an image in Firefox and decided to print it, the printed photo will look different to the version that I saw in Firefox wouldn't it?

5. Do users specify what colourspace the image has been saved in so that if magazines require a different colour space for whatever reason, they will need to contact you to provide them with a different file? Or do users politely request potential buyers to view the images in Safari so as to get an accurate idea of what the final print will look like?


Sorry about all the questions, but I'm just trying to get my head around the realities and practicalities of the colour space issue.

Many Thanks in advance!

Nelson

arodney

shrekie wrote:

2. People have said that it depends on what your final printing output format is as to which colour space you use. However, if you are offering images for sale as both digital downloads (for web use) AND prints, how can any single colour space accommodate both options for the same image?

Nope.

3. If I spend all my time post processing and adjusting colours in Aperture which looks perfect in Safari, but terrible in Firefox, I am basically wasting my time as the majority of net users use Firefox or IE. How do I do post processing in Aperture so that what I see is what it's going to look like in Firefox and IE rather than Safari?

You can't

4. So by saving the RAW images in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 colour space, the colours will in fact be printed faithfully, but won't the image itself will look different in Firefox compared to the printed image?

You've got one output device that's a printer (and its color space is unknown without an output profile) and a possible million different output devices (everyone's non calibrated systems using non ICC aware browsers). So one space isn't going to work here obviously nor is any necessarily "faithful".

That is, if I was looking at an image in Firefox and decided to print it, the printed photo will look different to the version that I saw in Firefox wouldn't it?

Yup.

5. Do users specify what colourspace the image has been saved in so that if magazines require a different colour space for whatever reason, they will need to contact you to provide them with a different file?

Someone, at some point converts to CMYK based on the magazine printing conditions. Who does, how well and with what satisfaction varies.

Or do users politely request potential buyers to view the images in Safari so as to get an accurate idea of what the final print will look like?

I doubt it. One would probably soft proof in Photoshop (and in the exact example above, they would have to since the final output device is CMYK).

See this as a start:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

Hi everyone,

I've spent many hours reading through these forums as well as the articles on colour space management and I'm still confused as to how best to prepare my images for export into smugmug so I'm hoping to find some enlightenment and assistance here:)

My issues are these:

1. I shoot in RAW, edit in Aperture, and export using sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
My Macbook Pro monitor has been calibrated to PC gamma 2.2 and white point D65.
Despite this, even after re-calibrating the monitor and exporting with sRGB IEC61966-2.1, there is still no difference in the colour rendition of the photos in Firefox and they still appear washed out compared to Safari. So was there much point in re-calibrating and exporting with sRGB IEC61966-2.1? According to the smugmug article here (http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2007/02/14/this-is-your-mac-on-drugs/), there should be no discernible difference (or at least only a minimal difference) in the image seen in Safari and Firefox now, however, this has not been the case with me.

2. People have said that it depends on what your final printing output format is as to which colour space you use. However, if you are offering images for sale as both digital downloads (for web use) AND prints, how can any single colour space accommodate both options for the same image?

3. If I spend all my time post processing and adjusting colours in Aperture which looks perfect in Safari, but terrible in Firefox, I am basically wasting my time as the majority of net users use Firefox or IE. How do I do post processing in Aperture so that what I see is what it's going to look like in Firefox and IE rather than Safari? (In which case, will I be disadvantaging Safari users as they may end up with a supersaturated image?)

4. So by saving the RAW images in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 colour space, the colours will in fact be printed faithfully, but won't the image itself will look different in Firefox compared to the printed image? That is, if I was looking at an image in Firefox and decided to print it, the printed photo will look different to the version that I saw in Firefox wouldn't it?

5. Do users specify what colourspace the image has been saved in so that if magazines require a different colour space for whatever reason, they will need to contact you to provide them with a different file? Or do users politely request potential buyers to view the images in Safari so as to get an accurate idea of what the final print will look like?


Sorry about all the questions, but I'm just trying to get my head around the realities and practicalities of the colour space issue.

Many Thanks in advance!

Nelson

I think this can be summarized fairly well by just saying two things:

1. When you poperly calibrate your monitor, adjust your photos in color-aware applications, convert your image to sRGB, include the color profile information in the image and upload that to Smugmug you are doing the best you can to present your image on the web in Smugmug or provide the best original to Smugmug's printers. For other uses of the digital document, it depends entirely upon what the recipient needs. If the doucment is properly tagged as sRGB, at least the recipient will know what they are getting and they can view it properly in a color-managed application.
2. The above set of things is also the best you can do for your viewers on the web. Firefox is NOT a color-managed application right now, Safari is. That means that Firefox is not paying any attention to the calibration profile for your monitor or for anyone else who has calibrated their monitor and uses Firefox. That means it's a bit of blind luck for how the image looks in Firefox. It's unpredicatable. Whether the image looks more or less saturated than it really is in Firefox depends upon a whole bunch of things in a particular system and there's nothing you can or should do about it because it's just out of your control. An image viewed in Safari (a color-managed application) on a faithfully calibrated monitor should match your view of it and should match the printed output if the printer's calibration is working properly. Hopefully this issue with Firefox will get fixed in the future as color management is being worked on now in Firefox 3 beta.

shrekie

Andrew and John, thanks so much for your quick replies ...very much appreciated!

John, I think you've summarised it well and it's helped me to move on to spending more time working on my photos rather than researching about colour space endlessly! It's just difficult knowing that after spending so much time working on an image, at the end of the day, most people will see it differently to how you intended it anyway. My main concern is that clients may look at the images in Firefox where they just won't have the same visual impact as a result of the colour discrepancy, and basically skipping past your photos because they appear to be all washed out.

As you said, the best thing to do now is to wait for Firefox to release their next version which will honour the colour profiles.

Thanks again:)

Nelson

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

Andrew and John, thanks so much for your quick replies ...very much appreciated!

John, I think you've summarised it well and it's helped me to move on to spending more time working on my photos rather than researching about colour space endlessly! It's just difficult knowing that after spending so much time working on an image, at the end of the day, most people will see it differently to how you intended it anyway. My main concern is that clients may look at the images in Firefox where they just won't have the same visual impact as a result of the colour discrepancy, and basically skipping past your photos because they appear to be all washed out.

As you said, the best thing to do now is to wait for Firefox to release their next version which will honour the colour profiles.

Thanks again:)

Nelson

One fortunate thing is that most people aren't nearly as sensitive to color accuracy as we are and they pay far more attention to the composition of the photo than the accuracy of the colors.

If it's any consolation, many of the newer wider gamut monitors actually look more saturated in Firefox so it works both ways.

shrekie

Sorry John,

I just had a look at your photos (stunning landscape shots by the way!) and there is no discernible difference in the colours when viewed on Safari vs. Firefox. So there must be something that I am not doing correctly at the moment...

(I'm not sure if I should post this here or to start a new thread, so I'll be happy to start a new thread if others feel it would be better:))

So here's some background info:
I am using Aperture 1.5.6 on my Macbook Pro and i have calibrated my screen and set it to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 with a gamma of 2.2 and D65. I have set onscreen proofing profile on with sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as the proofing profile.

I shoot in RAW and import directly into Aperture. My image export preset is set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (no black point compensation - I'm not sure if this should be ticked or not).


The problem:
So, when I export my photos from Aperture and then open up the exported image in Preview and "get info", it says the Colour Space is RGB (as opposed to sRGB) and the Profile name is sRGB IEC61966-2.1. does that mean my image is not exported with the sRGB colour space?

I then tried to reimport this exported image back into Aperture to see if colour space shows up in Aperure's EXIF but the Colour Space field is still empty. How do i get the colour space info into Aperture's EXIF data?

Could this be why my images look different in Safari and Firefox whereas yours don't? If so, are there any Aperture users out there who know how I can fix this?

Thanks again:)

Nelson

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

Sorry John,

I just had a look at your photos (stunning landscape shots by the way!) and there is no discernible difference in the colours when viewed on Safari vs. Firefox. So there must be something that I am not doing correctly at the moment...

(I'm not sure if I should post this here or to start a new thread, so I'll be happy to start a new thread if others feel it would be better:))

So here's some background info:
I am using Aperture 1.5.6 on my Macbook Pro and i have calibrated my screen and set it to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 with a gamma of 2.2 and D65. I have set onscreen proofing profile on with sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as the proofing profile.

I shoot in RAW and import directly into Aperture. My image export preset is set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (no black point compensation - I'm not sure if this should be ticked or not).


The problem:
So, when I export my photos from Aperture and then open up the exported image in Preview and "get info", it says the Colour Space is RGB (as opposed to sRGB) and the Profile name is sRGB IEC61966-2.1. does that mean my image is not exported with the sRGB colour space?

I then tried to reimport this exported image back into Aperture to see if colour space shows up in Aperure's EXIF but the Colour Space field is still empty. How do i get the colour space info into Aperture's EXIF data?

Could this be why my images look different in Safari and Firefox whereas yours don't? If so, are there any Aperture users out there who know how I can fix this?

Thanks again:)

Nelson

Can you provide a link to your Smugmug images in question?

Also, you don't "set a monitor to sRGB IEC61966-2.1". The monitor profile should be what the screen calibrator produces, not something you pick from a list. Are you sure your screen is properly calibrated?

shrekie

jfriend wrote:

Can you provide a link to your Smugmug images in question?

Also, you don't "set a monitor to sRGB IEC61966-2.1". The monitor profile should be what the screen calibrator produces, not something you pick from a list. Are you sure your screen is properly calibrated?

Thanks John,

Here is the link to the images:
http://lookingglassphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/4353182_hDz2w#255731182

On page 1 is the image exported using sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
On page 2 is the image exported using Adobe RGB(1998).
On page 3 is the image exported using Generic RGB.

Yes, I have gone through the calibration process and set it by eye, although I have read that it can often be quite a bit off. Regardless of this though, even if my calibration is totally off, what I don't understand is how your images look the same in both Safari AND Firefox, whereas mine still don't (which then would exclude calibration issues as a factor).

Thanks for taking a look:)

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

Thanks John,

Here is the link to the images:
http://lookingglassphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/4353182_hDz2w#255731182

On page 1 is the image exported using sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
On page 2 is the image exported using Adobe RGB(1998).
On page 3 is the image exported using Generic RGB.

Yes, I have gone through the calibration process and set it by eye, although I have read that it can often be quite a bit off. Regardless of this though, even if my calibration is totally off, what I don't understand is how your images look the same in both Safari AND Firefox, whereas mine still don't (which then would exclude calibration issues as a factor).

Thanks for taking a look:)

Here's what I see on your images:

Image 1 is sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Image 2 was uploaded as AdobeRGB as you say, but Smugmug converts it to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 so it ends up being pretty much identical to the first.

Image 3 is some color profile that I don't recognize called "Generic RGB Profile". It is apparently a bit different than sRGB IEC61966-2.1. This means that the RGB numbers in Image 3 are different than the other two images. Because the numbers are different, the image displays differently in Firefox. Safari, on the other hand, respects the color profile and renders the third image the same as the other two.

The correct way to upload things to Smugmug is as sRGB IEC61966-2.1 like Image 1, not "Generic RGB Profile" like Image 3. You can upload AdobeRGB, but Smugmug will just convert it to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 so it's better to control this yourself and just upload sRGB IEC61966-2.1 images.

If you are uploading Generic RGB Profile images and I'm uploading sRGB IEC61966-2.1 images, that could explain why yours look more different in Firefox.

shrekie

jfriend wrote:

The correct way to upload things to Smugmug is as sRGB IEC61966-2.1 like Image 1, not "Generic RGB Profile" like Image 3. You can upload AdobeRGB, but Smugmug will just convert it to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 so it's better to control this yourself and just upload sRGB IEC61966-2.1 images.

If you are uploading Generic RGB Profile images and I'm uploading sRGB IEC61966-2.1 images, that could explain why yours look more different in Firefox.

Thanks for taking a look John:)

I have actually been uploading to Smugmug as sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and I only included the other 2 versions for comparison because I have read in other forums where users have said that Generic RGB works for them, although in this instance it hasn't made any difference.

So with my Image 1, what I'm interested in knowing is whether this image (uploaded as sRGB IEC61966-2.1) looks the same to you in your Firefox and Safari, or if they look different? That seems to be my main issue at the moment in that I have done what you and many others have recommended by I don't seem to be able to get my images to look the same in both browsers as you have managed to do with yours.

Also, I don't understand why the colour space info on ALL 3 images when opened in Preview say that they are all RGB. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks again:)

shrekie

shrekie wrote:

Thanks for taking a look John:)

I have actually been uploading to Smugmug as sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and I only included the other 2 versions for comparison because I have read in other forums where users have said that Generic RGB works for them, although in this instance it hasn't made any difference.

So with my Image 1, what I'm interested in knowing is whether this image (uploaded as sRGB IEC61966-2.1) looks the same to you in your Firefox and Safari, or if they look different? That seems to be my main issue at the moment in that I have done what you and many others have recommended by I don't seem to be able to get my images to look the same in both browsers as you have managed to do with yours.

Also, I don't understand why the colour space info on ALL 3 images when opened in Preview say that they are all RGB. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks again:)

Sorry again...a very strange update.
I went through the 3 images in Safari and in Firefox just then and there is definitely a noticeable difference between version 3 and the first 2 images. That is, in Firefox, the Generic RGB version actually looks MORE saturated in Firefox than the sRGB and Adobe RGB versions. In Safari, the Generic RGB version is almost hypersaturated now compared to the sRGB and the Adobe RGB (and is more saturated still than the Firefox Generic RGB)!

So I've come to the stage where if I export as Generic RGB, the Firefox image will look as close as I can get it so far to what I intended the image to look like, and thus satisfying the vast majority of users, but now Safari is hypersaturated to a mild degree which is the compromise. This is not ideal so I'm still wondering how I can just get the same image to look the same in both Safari and Firefox as you have managed to do.

shrekie

As an aside, are there any issues with uploading photos that are saved in Generic RGB when it comes to printing (seeing as Smugmug recommends that you save in sRGB for printing)?

arodney

shrekie wrote:

As an aside, are there any issues with uploading photos that are saved in Generic RGB when it comes to printing (seeing as Smugmug recommends that you save in sRGB for printing)?

Generic RGB? If you're referring to that old ICC profile, you don't want to go there. In reality, there's no such thing as "Generic RGB".

DonRicklin

shrekie wrote:

As an aside, are there any issues with uploading photos that are saved in Generic RGB when it comes to printing (seeing as Smugmug recommends that you save in sRGB for printing)?

For some background info on RGB spaces and Browser viewing check out:

• Jeffref Frield's Blog for Digital-Image Color Spaces.
• Andrew Rodney's Understanding color management in Lightroom

All good reading.


Don

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

As an aside, are there any issues with uploading photos that are saved in Generic RGB when it comes to printing (seeing as Smugmug recommends that you save in sRGB for printing)?

Smumug's printers are expecting sRGB. If you use something else, you run the risk of getting innacurate color when prints are ordered.

jfriend

shrekie wrote:

Sorry again...a very strange update.
I went through the 3 images in Safari and in Firefox just then and there is definitely a noticeable difference between version 3 and the first 2 images. That is, in Firefox, the Generic RGB version actually looks MORE saturated in Firefox than the sRGB and Adobe RGB versions. In Safari, the Generic RGB version is almost hypersaturated now compared to the sRGB and the Adobe RGB (and is more saturated still than the Firefox Generic RGB)!

So I've come to the stage where if I export as Generic RGB, the Firefox image will look as close as I can get it so far to what I intended the image to look like, and thus satisfying the vast majority of users, but now Safari is hypersaturated to a mild degree which is the compromise. This is not ideal so I'm still wondering how I can just get the same image to look the same in both Safari and Firefox as you have managed to do.

My own images do NOT look the same for me in Safari and Firefox on my computer. In Firefox, the images look more saturated and skin tones look more red. In Safari, they look as I intended them to look in Photoshop because those two apps are color-managed and Firefox is not. For my mom, Firefox is completely different. For my sister, Firefox is completely different. There is NOTHING I can do about how Firefox displays my images on other people's computers because it is not color-managed so it depends upon their particular monitor how they will display. That's what "non-color-managed" does to the display.

You really need to reread my first post in this thread. Make your images look good in sRGB on a properly calibrated screen using color managed apps. Then upload in sRGB. That's it!

Do not mess with any other color profiles when uploading to Smugmug. If you happen to get something you like with another color profile, that's blind luck and only applies to your system and will make your prints worse and will make your images display worse for people with calibrated screens and color managed apps.

How your images look in Firefox is totally random. How they look in Firefox on your computer has little to do with how they will look on someone else's computer. Does that feel like a massive bummer? Yes. But you have to let go until Firefox is color-managed. Non-color-managed apps just dump RGB values right to the video card so it's completely up to the video card and monitor to decide what color things will be. Color-managed apps use your monitor's profile to modify the value they give the video card so that a given color will actually display as the right color.

In the end, you've got to realize that MOST people viewing your images don't have a calibrated monitor and most people viewing your images aren't using a color-managed browser. So, ALL you can do is make your images correct (in sRGB on a color calibrated screen in a color-managed app). This will guarentee you good color when anyone orders prints via Smugmug (assuming your calibration and the printer's calibration are up-to-date). And, you just have to hope that your viewer's systems are not too far off from correct, though they will be off. There is nothing you can do about how far off their systems are.

DonRicklin

LRmvcDonR wrote:

For some background info on RGB spaces and Browser viewing check out:

• Jeffref Frield's Blog for Digital-Image Color Spaces.
• Andrew Rodney's Understanding color management in Lightroom

All good reading.


Don

One more:

• G. BALLARD's sRGB Correct ColorSpace Tutorial for the Internet WWW Target ColorSpace: sRGB 2.2 Gamma The PROOF!

mercphoto

jfriend wrote:

In the end, you've got to realize that MOST people viewing your images don't have a calibrated monitor and most people viewing your images aren't using a color-managed browser.

That's correct. We can, to some extent, blame Microsoft for this. But blame aside one has to realize that no matter how much time you spend trying to make your images look the same on all browsers on your computer is a futile waste of time because you can't control the computers of your potential customers.

Make sure you use the sRGB color space. If you work in a different color space and convert just before you save the JPG remember that there is a HUGE difference between assigning a new color space and converting to a new color space. Its the best you can do. Little need to worry about it any further.

shrekie

Sorry for returning late to this post. Thanks again so much for everyone's replies and advice. Hugely appreciated:)

John, thank you for your time in explaining to me that images in Firefox can look either the same (as in the case with my monitor) or different and there is just no way we can control it.

I'm confident in knowing that I am now doing the right thing with regards to my workflow, so once again, thank you!

Nelson