Adobe RGB to sRGB conversion: colors do change!

[ergaticus]

Hi,
I've been reading the sticky about color problems and color managment and I've been trying to set up a workflow accordingly. I calibrated my monitor with Spyder2express and I am now converting my RAW images to 16 bit AdobeRGB TIFF files. After setting my Photoshop workspace to AdobeRGB I started working on an image to try the new settings. After a few quick adjustments I thought that the colors in Photoshop looked ok and saved two versions of the same file: one AdobeRGB TIFF file for printing and another one that I created for web use resizing it, converting to sRGB JPEG (8 bit). The thing is, when I open the image with Firefox or even the Windows image viewer, the colors look washed out. Isn't this supposed to happen if you don't covert to sRGB? I am talking about some pretty big difference, I don't like the way the image looks after the conversion, all the bright, saturated yellows are gone. I embedded the ICC sRGB profile when saving the JPEG, I can't understand what am I doing wrong. If I pick the same JPEG photo and open it with Photoshop, using the embedded profile or even converting to the working space it looks great. It turns out that the printer is not achieving the same colors I can see in Photoshop, I am letting PS determine colors, use the printer profile, and I've disabled color management in the printer. Anyway, I know that printing can be more tricky, I'd like to understand what's the matter with the converted sRGB files for now. I understand that PS is a color managed application and my web browser is not, but I thought that the "convert from AdobeRGB to sRGB" would do the trick.
I tried switching the proof setup settings: with Windows RGB the image looks great while with monitor RGB it's washed out as with my web browser.
I hope you can help...Please don't tell me to use sRGB until I don't understand color managent: I am trying really hard to understand, but I guess it will take some time. ;)
Thanks in advance for your advice.

[gparvan]

Thank you for providing lots of information. I have a couple questions for you:
1. does the print have similar washed out look as sRGB pic in Firefox?
2. Which version of Photoshop?

I tried to follow your scenario and convert from RAW to sRGB. The pic looked very similar to RAW.

[René Damkot]

Isn't this supposed to happen if you don't covert to sRGB?

Yes, in a way, no in an other: It will be *even worse* if you use AdobeRGB. sRGB gives a smaller difference. Not *no* difference

If I pick the same JPEG photo and open it with Photoshop, using the embedded profile or even converting to the working space it looks great.

This tells you what you are seeing is the difference between a color managed and a not color managed application. When the document profile is sRGB, you could say you're seeing the difference between your monitors profile and sRGB.

I tried switching the proof setup settings: with Windows RGB the image looks great while with monitor RGB it's washed out as with my web browser.

See ;) That's what I said.
Post 40 in the CM sticky.

It turns out that the printer is not achieving the same colors I can see in Photoshop, I am letting PS determine colors, use the printer profile, and I've disabled color management in the printer.

Sounds like you're doing it all good.
Did you soft proof for the specific printer/paper profile? How does that compare with the print?

[ergaticus]

Thank you for providing lots of information. I have a couple questions for you:
1. does the print have similar washed out look as sRGB pic in Firefox?
Yes, it does. :cry:
2. Which version of Photoshop?
I'm curretnly using CS2.

[ergaticus]

This tells you what you are seeing is the difference between a color managed and a not color managed application. When the document profile is sRGB, you could say you're seeing the difference between your monitors profile and sRGB.
I've checked my sRGB image in Photoshop with all the proof setups and it only looks different with Monitor RGB. I think that you are saying that Monitor RGB shows the same results you would see in a non color managed application, that's why it looks just the same when I open it with Firefox or Windows viewer. I hope I got that right. So, maybe in order to get more consistent results I could turn on Proof Colors, select Monitor RGB and do all the processing accordingly?

Sounds like you're doing it all good.
Did you soft proof for the specific printer/paper profile? How does that compare with the print?
Well, soft proof for the printer profile looks identical to the original image on my screen. I think the biggest problem here could be with my printer profile, as it only has one, there are none available for different papers. You can just select the kind of paper you'll be using inside the printer setup window (just before printing). But unfortunately none of the printers that have downloadable online ICC profiles is available for sale here. :cry:

[ergaticus]

This is a screenshot with both the sRGB JPEG file in Photoshop and in Windows viewer side by side. I must say that after saving the image as sRGB too, both images look different from the original ones in Windows viewer too! (both have much more saturation). After uploading them they seem to be more similar to the originals.
How do they look to you?

[René Damkot]

I've checked my sRGB image in Photoshop with all the proof setups and it only looks different with Monitor RGB. I think that you are saying that Monitor RGB shows the same results you would see in a non color managed application, that's why it looks just the same when I open it with Firefox or Windows viewer. I hope I got that right.

Mac RGB should look different as well. It's set up for (ancient) Mac gamma 1.8, instead of (windows and sRGB) gamma 2.2.

If you're on a Mac, use gamma 2.2.

Monitor RGB is "a non coor managed app on your computer", so you've got that right ;)

So, maybe in order to get more consistent results I could turn on Proof Colors, select Monitor RGB and do all the processing accordingly?

No.
If you do that, all images will look fine on your computer in a non CM application, but it's still (more of) a guess what it will look like on somebody elses system (Since they use a different monitor). They'll also look 'off' on your system in a color managed application...

Well, soft proof for the printer profile looks identical to the original image on my screen.
That doesn't sound right.

I think the biggest problem here could be with my printer profile, as it only has one, there are none available for different papers. You can just select the kind of paper you'll be using inside the printer setup window (just before printing). But unfortunately none of the printers that have downloadable online ICC profiles is available for sale here. :cry:

What printer is that?
There are a few links in my sig for (IIRC) Canon, Epson and HP.

Most printers (I know of) come with at least some different profiles for (their own brand of) papers. Problem here can be finding out what they are called, and which is for what paper...

Most bigger paper manufactureres (Like Hahnemühle (http://www.hahnemuehle.com/site/en/338/icc-profiles.html)) supply ICC profiles for their papers on (bigger brand) printers.

Some printing shops also offer ICC profiles for the machines they use.

[René Damkot]

This is a screenshot with both the sRGB JPEG file in Photoshop and in Windows viewer side by side. I must say that after saving the image as sRGB too, both images look different from the original ones in Windows viewer too! (both have much more saturation). After uploading them they seem to be more similar to the originals.
How do they look to you?

Posted while I was typing ;)

They look different: Left more yellow, right redder. Left a bit more contrast I think (hard too tell)

Not too sure on what you mean by "I must say that after saving the image as sRGB too, both images look different from the original ones in Windows viewer too!"


Off to sleep now; back tomorrow ;)

[ergaticus]

Mac RGB should look different as well. It's set up for (ancient) Mac gamma 1.8, instead of (windows and sRGB) gamma 2.2.
That's right, I forgot to mention...I use a Windows XP laptop and it does look different with Mac RGB. If I'm not wrong the Spyder2express sets up a profile with 2.2 gamma, 6500K (D65) by default, so it's resonable to see a difference with gamma 1.8 I guess.

No.
If you do that, all images will look fine on your computer in a non CM application, but it's still (more of) a guess what it will look like on somebody elses system (Since they use a different monitor). They'll also look 'off' on your system in a color managed application...
So...I guess your suggestion would be sticking to sRGB? Or is there anything else I can do? What do you suggest?

What printer is that?
There are a few links in my sig for (IIRC) Canon, Epson and HP.

Most printers (I know of) come with at least some different profiles for (their own brand of) papers. Problem here can be finding out what they are called, and which is for what paper...

Most bigger paper manufactureres (Like Hahnemühle (http://www.hahnemuehle.com/site/en/338/icc-profiles.html)) supply ICC profiles for their papers on (bigger brand) printers.

Some printing shops also offer ICC profiles for the machines they use.
My printer is an Epson C79 and it installs itself with just one profile in the WINDOWS/system32/spool/drivers/color folder, it's called E_FICMBGL and it appears in Photoshop as "Epson IJ printer 06". I haven't been able to find any other profile for this model. Plus, the only papers I can get here are Epson Glossy Photo Paper and Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and sometimes I can't find those either. Sorry...I live far away from civilization!;)

[ergaticus]

Posted while I was typing ;)

They look different: Left more yellow, right redder. Left a bit more contrast I think (hard too tell)
That's right: left more yellow and right redder. I can also see more saturation on the left image, probably a little bit more contrast too. Should this difference be considered "normal" for an AdobeRGB to sRGB conversion?

Not too sure on what you mean by "I must say that after saving the image as sRGB too, both images look different from the original ones in Windows viewer too!"
Sorry...it's just that after saving the screenshot that I uploaded here I noticed that both photos looked more saturated than their original counterparts, both on color managed or non color managed applications. I guess there's a reason for that too, but as I said I noticed that they looked better after I uploaded them to the forum.
Thanks for your help, much appreciated! :)

[ergaticus]

As an important update I'd like to mention that I switched my Photoshop working space to sRGB and I still have the very same problem when saving files. The images look very different on non color managed applications, they look more yellow in Photoshop and redder in a browser. Here's another example:
214615
So, I think I can rule out any connection about using AdobeRGB or sRGB as they present the same problem. The only thing that I have changed in my workflow besides that is using a monitor profiling device. Before that I had no problems at all, but obviously, I was working with an uncalibrated monitor, which wasn't good.
So, I think that the difference I am seeing is the one between how sRGB looks with my LCD display profile (Photoshop) and sRGB as it's treated by any non color managed application.
It looks to me like a pretty big difference and I guess it can create problems as I intend to process and upload many of my images to the net.
Any suggestions?

[gparvan]

I'm thinking you might have something wrong at the OS level.
What OS are your running?
How about uploading an unaltered and altered jpg of one of the bird pics. We can try it on our own systems.

[René Damkot]

That is a possibility off course.
However I think what we are seeing here might be the limitations of a laptop screen: Reminds me of this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=376629&highlight=laptop).

What you are seeing is the difference between your screen and sRGB then.

Then again: No harm in checking the monitor profile, and / or checking the image on an external (calibrated) monitor.

[strmrdr]

post or link an srgb file you are having the problem with please.

[gcogger]

So, I think that the difference I am seeing is the one between how sRGB looks with my LCD display profile (Photoshop) and sRGB as it's treated by any non color managed application.
It looks to me like a pretty big difference and I guess it can create problems as I intend to process and upload many of my images to the net.
Any suggestions?

Assuming your monitor profile is OK, what you are seeing is unique to your system.

If you upload the (sRGB) images to a web site, the majority of people will see the images as being closer to how you see them in Photoshop. If you edit the images with monitor proofing switched on, most people will be seeing the colours very differently from what you intended. Unfortunately, until all browsers are colour managed, there are no guarantees and there is no way to predict exactly how other people will see the colour of your images :(

Another observation. Given the large difference you are seeing between Photoshop and non colour managed applications, you are probably also seeing other peoples images incorrectly when you view them on the internet...

[nutsnbolts]

Assuming that your monitor profile is correct, the only browser that I know of that is color managed is Safari (mac). Either way, make sure you assign the profile to your image.

[René Damkot]

make sure you assign the profile to your image.

That would be either "embed the profile" or "Convert to sRGB". Not "assign".

[nutsnbolts]

^^Same difference. Just couldn't think of the wording.

[ergaticus]

Ok, first of all: thanks for your input. :) Here's the second sRGB file I had posted, I think it's the one that shows more differences in the comparison.
214750
I don't think I have a problem with my OS (wich is Windows XP SP2), my photos used to look very much alike both in Photoshop and my browser. It all started after calibrating with the Spyder2express; maybe the main problem is calibrating a laptop screen.
I have two laptops, so I tried looking at the image with my other (uncalibrated) machine. The photo looked (in Windows Image Viewer) much lighter, and the colors were closer to the ones I see in a non color managed application with my main laptop. Opening the image in Photoshop with this second machine, showed a brighter image, but essentially with no color switch. Then I calibrated this second laptop: in Photoshop the image looks yellower and in Firefox is redder, basically the same problem I have on my first laptop.
I'd like to know how the photo looks on your screens. Also, I noticed that after calibration both my laptops have very dark gray tones, I mean in some grayscale chart, the last two-three gray squares are all dark. And even if I prefer the general look of my screen after calibration, I noticed that both my images and what I see on the web has become darker, or at least the darker parts of the images look almost black or a very dark shade of gray. Do I have a problem with my black point setup? In the image I posted the darkest parts of the swallow look black (calibrated laptop), but on my uncalibrated laptop they were looking a light shade of blue-gray.
Any comment will be most welcome!! ;)

[gparvan]

Try going to "Edit > Assign Profile" and tell me what you see when you switch between "Working Profile: Adobe RGB (1998 )" and "Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1".

When I click between the two different profiles I get the color differences you have shown to us.

I'm using CS3 so hopefully your menu structure is the same.

[strmrdr]

that is strange your working profile in PS must be off or something...
the image is srgb and is imbedded..
photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile

btw by opening the image in wordpad and doing a search for icc you can see what the profile is.

[strmrdr]

mokia monitor test can be used to check black point calibration and colors.
click on the brightness and contrast button you should be able to see the difference between 2% and 3%.


http://majorgeeks.com/download960.html

[gparvan]

that is strange your working profile in PS must be off or something...
the image is srgb and is imbedded..
photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile

btw by opening the image in wordpad and doing a search for icc you can see what the profile is.


Yes, I thought it strange too cuz I'm running a calibrated monitor via MonacoOPTIX. I'll look into it later today, I just bought CS3 and I'm a rookie in PS.

[Robf]

i might be muddying this, and i've skip read this...but try this.

Get your image..whichever one...now convert (not assign) to MonitorRGB (make sure it is your current monitor profile), then look at that side by side in PS and your non colour managed applications. Assuming all is well, these 2 images should look the same.

If that works, then i suggest the difference your seeing between sRGB and your non colour managed application is the difference between sRGB and your monitor rgb. The two dont and are normally subtly differerent. Non colour managed apps will display in your monitors RGB space...often this is based around sRGB, but there will be some difference because as default your profile will be neutral, but calibrating it will bend it as it tries to balance between what the monitor should be displaying and what it is (and to some extent, it might reach the limits and might be short, which is why hardward calibrators are better when they can monkey with the hardware and the software, but not all calibrators and monitors will do this together)

Just something nutsnbolts said...assign whatever, same difference...erm not really...when you assign the file's pixel values are untouched, all the changes is the look of the file on screen due to the profile your assigning...when you convert the file's pixel values are changed, and the look should stay the same...thats 2 ways to get a file with a profile attached...and they have a big impact depending on the route. Most people will want to convert (to sRGB before saving for web for instance), but you might want to experiment with assign with files you get without profiles to see if one matches well (normally sRGB or AdobeRGB)

if i've misunderstood, sorry.

[ergaticus]

Try going to "Edit > Assign Profile" and tell me what you see when you switch between "Working Profile: Adobe RGB (1998 )" and "Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1".

When I click between the two different profiles I get the color differences you have shown to us.

I'm using CS3 so hopefully your menu structure is the same.
I did that and yes, the colors do change both if I open the file in Photoshop using it's sRGB embedded profile or converting to the working space (AdobeRGB) and then using assign profile.The thing is: the sRGB version I get in Photoshop looks different from the one I see in Windows Viewer anyway (same differences: more yellow-redder).

[ergaticus]

that is strange your working profile in PS must be off or something...
the image is srgb and is imbedded..
photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile

btw by opening the image in wordpad and doing a search for icc you can see what the profile is.
I know it's profile it's embedded, I did that on purpose! ;)
These are my color settings:
214993

[ergaticus]

mokia monitor test can be used to check black point calibration and colors.
click on the brightness and contrast button you should be able to see the difference between 2% and 3%.


http://majorgeeks.com/download960.html
I downloaded this but it states that it should be use to test CRT monitors and I have an LCD laptop display. Anyway, I can't understand how to use most of its features (help menu isn't really helpful at all :(), but I can see all the grey square boxes, even the darkest ones with this app.

[ergaticus]

i might be muddying this, and i've skip read this...but try this.

Get your image..whichever one...now convert (not assign) to MonitorRGB (make sure it is your current monitor profile), then look at that side by side in PS and your non colour managed applications. Assuming all is well, these 2 images should look the same.
If I use "convert to profile", there is no "monitor RGB" option, that's only visible in the "proof setup" menu. If you mean that I should convert using the profile I got for my monitor with the Spyder2express, then I tried that and the image doesn't change in Photoshop, still looks as it used to outside PS. I guess that could be because PS already uses the calibrated monitor profile.
Thanks anyway.

[Robf]

I tried that and the image doesn't change in Photoshop, still looks as it used to outside PS.

ok, so that was a test...it means that everything is singing off the same monitor profile.

So, you have an AdobeRGB file...and you want to view it on the web to be the same...well, you can't...you can get close, but only as close as the difference between your monitor profile and sRGB. Thats because when you convert to sRGB and save out, even if you preserve the profile (which by default doesn't happen in save for web) a non colour managed application wont display it in sRGB, it will display it in your sypder generated monitor profile, because thats what your system uses to display things.

Thats why i checked that worked.

You just have 2 options (well one really)...you can either convert to sRGB and preserve or strip the profile when you save and let non colour managed applications deal display it in the spyder monitor profile, but you will see the difference in PS who currently knows it's sRGB because it can see the profile embedded in the file...but then when most people (who dont calibrate and thus use sRGB as their monitor profile) see this in sRGB, it will look close in colour neutrality to your view in PS....so only you see the difference (between sRGB and your monitor profile)

or you can convert to your monitor spyder profile...see it exactly as you see it either in PS or non colour managed app, but everyone else will see it different, be it in their default sRGB space or their custom monitor profile, the latter which will skew the colours further away from neutrality.


Ok, so assuming route one, open your adobeRGB file, convert to sRGB...go to save for web...decide if you want the memory overhead of keeping the profile with the file or not and save. Keeping it is worth it if its not a teeny file...yes it will look different depending on the app, because it will either be in sRGB space, or your monitor space. But for joe public, their monitors are in sRGB so it doesnt really matter that much.

hope that makes sense.

[ergaticus]

Well, I must say this is still quite confusing, but I thought I would post some conclusions for now: here's what I think.
1) All my problems started because of the monitor calibration I performed, they have nothing to do with AdobeRGB or sRGB formats.
2) Due to the different treatment a color managed application and a non color managed application give to all images when you are using a calibrated profile, my files will always look different in Photoshop than in another application like a web browser.
3) Any sRGB (even with an embedded profile), will look different on any other computer as my laptop shows my images using a calibrated profile.
4) I still haven't found a solution, except from: buying a new pc with a better screen?
5) I'd still like to know your opinions about post # 19. How does that photo looks to you? Especially: do blacks look black? And what about saturation?
Thank you :).

[René Damkot]

1) Yes.
2) yes.
3) won't look different in a color managed application.
4) yep. All that's needed is a better screen. A good, used, CRT is the cheapest option.
5) looks okay to me, but that's also taste dependent off course. Also, I don't know the original. I am using Safari, so am color managed.

[Robf]

Well, I must say this is still quite confusing, but I thought I would post some conclusions for now: here's what I think.
1) All my problems started because of the monitor calibration I performed, they have nothing to do with AdobeRGB or sRGB formats.
2) Due to the different treatment a color managed application and a non color managed application give to all images when you are using a calibrated profile, my files will always look different in Photoshop than in another application like a web browser.
3) Any sRGB (even with an embedded profile), will look different on any other computer as my laptop shows my images using a calibrated profile.
4) I still haven't found a solution, except from: buying a new pc with a better screen?
5) I'd still like to know your opinions about post # 19. How does that photo looks to you? Especially: do blacks look black? And what about saturation?
Thank you :).

1) yes, but its because by default you were using sRGB as your monitor profile, now your not...the difference you now see is that difference...so your monitor is now more correct, which means sRGB wasn't.

2) yes...on your machine, however on a file thats targeted to sRGB on a machine thats not been calibrated, its most likely it will look the same on that machine in or out of a colour managed app, because it will most likely be using sRGB as a monitor profile as yours was before.

3) yes and no. On a good calibrated machine, assuming yours is a good calibration, it should look the same or close. That said, profiles can only go as far as the monitor can allow, for instance if the reg gun died on the monitor, there's nothing a profile can do about that. There are some hardware/calibration pairings which will adjust the monitor to it's optimum before profiling to avoid this, but these aren't the norm.

4) a better screen wont solve the problem of you seeing different colour from a non managed app and a managed app now you've calibrated your screen...

Think of it this way

Non colour managed app uses monitorRGB to display images...if you haven't calibrated, your monitorRGB is most likely to be sRGB...if you have it wont be, it will be custom to your machine.
Colour managed apps will display using the profile. You've proved that this works by seeing no difference between the two files when using monitorRGB as the profile and viewing in non and managed apps...because the non will use monitorRGB, and the managed will see the monitorRGB profile and use that, and hence they look the same.
When you use sRGB on the file, the managed app uses sRGB, but the non managed app falls back on the monitorRGB which is now different away from the default sRGB because you have calibrated. This is a good thing.

The blacks look a little light, but then i'm on a non calibrated laptop and a non managed app, so it really doesnt matter, because i could go into work tomorrow and it would look fine.

Unfortunately, you can't make a file to look good on everybody's screen because they could be out of wack and not using a colour managed app...

The idea behind profiles, is once you start using them and calibrated your machine, your files will look how you want them to on people who have taken the same effort.

Your lucky, your only talking about screen...you should try the headache that printing profiling gives you (especially when 1/2 a dozen people inbetween you hose the file, or the press is running light) :D

[René Damkot]

4) a better screen wont solve the problem of you seeing different colour from a non managed app and a managed app now you've calibrated your screen...

True off course, but if the screen is closer to sRGB, the differences will be smaller.
At least to the point of not mattering much in most cases.

If the monitor is capable of displaying close to Adobe gamut (think $$$$), the problem is 'reversed' (sRGB images will be displayed too vivid in a non CM app, AdobeRGB images correct)

[ergaticus]

True off course, but if the screen is closer to sRGB, the differences will be smaller.
At least to the point of not mattering much in most cases.

If the monitor is capable of displaying close to Adobe gamut (think $$$$), the problem is 'reversed' (sRGB images will be displayed too vivid in a non CM app, AdobeRGB images correct)
Well, the idea of buying a new screen came mainly because I've read that laptop displays are not the best. Plus, yes: I've calibrated it, but I'm not sure the results are so great as I only have one "backlighting" button on my keybord, I have no way to control brightness, contrast and other parameters. Now, the software tells you to leave everything as default, but if you can't reach good results, at least it gives you the option to move those settings till you reach proper calibration (luminance can be controlled that way for instance).
I read some posts about dual monitor setups and they say that you need two video cards in order to make them work. So I just decided to buy a new pc with an LCD screen. I know that TFT monitors are not the best for photography, but I am sure it will be so much better than my laptop screen that it's worth anyway. Plus I am running Lightroom and CS2 with 448Mb RAM, so I think it's definetely a good idea to look for a 2GB machine with Dual Core if I want to speed up my workflow. CS2 runs ok on my laptop, but Lightroom is driving me crazy, so slow (but I love it!).

[Robf]

True off course, but if the screen is closer to sRGB, the differences will be smaller.
At least to the point of not mattering much in most cases.

If the monitor is capable of displaying close to Adobe gamut (think $$$$), the problem is 'reversed' (sRGB images will be displayed too vivid in a non CM app, AdobeRGB images correct)

i think it gets tangled, because for the most part sRGB fits inside AdobeRGB, so it should display it pretty well...but i think your right, having a screen that shoots close or does shoot sRGB should be better to kick off with...and then your only probably influences are your enviroment (which makes a big difference if it's not stable)...

for the most part if i haven't got a good screen to start with i dont bother calibration beyond the brightness and gamma...

[gcogger]

i think it gets tangled, because for the most part sRGB fits inside AdobeRGB, so it should display it pretty well
<snip>


That's not how it works in a non colour managed application, I'm afraid. Let me try to explain.

In sRGB, a pure green RGB value (R=0, G=255, B=0) will represent a particular colour. In AdobeRGB, the same RGB values will represent a much more intense colour. If the image is converted to AdobeRGB, the colour represented by (0, 255, 0) in sRGB is now represented by (144, 255, 60) in AdobeRGB.

Now a non-CM app knows nothing about sRGB or AdobeRGB - it simply sends the RGB values unchanged to the monitor.

A monitor with a similar gamut to sRGB will display (0, 255, 0) similarly to what is represented in the sRGB image. If you have the same image in AdobeRGB, the colour will be (144, 255, 60), which will look far less saturated. So it displays sRGB images correctly but desaturates AdobeRGB ones.

A monitor with a similar gamut to AdobeRGB will display (144, 255, 60) similarly to what is represented in the AdobeRGB image (and therefore similarly to (0, 255, 0) in the sRGB one). If you feed it with values (0, 255, 0) it will be much more saturated - this is a colour that can't even exist in an sRGB image. So it displays AdobeRGB images correctly but over-saturates sRGB ones.

Phew - I hope that makes some kind of sense :)

[Robf]

edit...brain collapsed...:D

your right...but i think the problem is muddied because the assumption is that the sRGB image out of a colourmanaged app with more impact on the adobeRGB image is wrong...its not cos its not sRGB anymore, it's in another space, its in monitorRGB...;) to see it in sRGB you need to put it into a cm'd app like PS, where it will look right once again. The catch is going the other way, if you have an image in adobeRGB that you view on a monitor only capable of sRGB it will clip, you can't see the colour your working with...

for ease of normal life an sRGB gamut monitor is fine and good...for the more complex adobeRGB is better, because you dont play in a non CM'd world, so you never see non profiled images looking different to non profiled images on different monitors...and sRGB looks the same :D (tangled :D)

[gcogger]

OK, let's see if I can make it simpler. (I couldn't make it much more complicated, could I?) :)

A monitor with a gamut similar to AdobeRGB can display colours that cannot even be represented in an sRGB image. The "greenest possible green" (0,255,0) of the monitor is more saturated than the "greenest possible green" in an sRGB image.

So if you display an sRGB image in a non-colour managed app on that monitor, the "greenest possible green" (0,255,0) of the image will be displayed as the "greenest possible green" of the monitor, since it is still displaying (0,255,0), and therefore over-saturated. (Which is all that Rene originally said).

[nutsnbolts]

Oh and one more thing when someone says 0,255,0 is green, it is not necessary always green. The gamut can be different and it will still be 0, 255, 0. In other words, if it is Adobe 98, the greenest part is 0, 255, 0 and if it's sRGB it's still 0,255,0.

So simply, don't rely on numbers.

[Robf]

OK, let's see if I can make it simpler. (I couldn't make it much more complicated, could I?) :)

A monitor with a gamut similar to AdobeRGB can display colours that cannot even be represented in an sRGB image. The "greenest possible green" (0,255,0) of the monitor is more saturated than the "greenest possible green" in an sRGB image.

So if you display an sRGB image in a non-colour managed app on that monitor, the "greenest possible green" (0,255,0) of the image will be displayed as the "greenest possible green" of the monitor, since it is still displaying (0,255,0), and therefore over-saturated. (Which is all that Rene originally said).

yep i got you :)...i think i fried my own brain...:D

[ergaticus]

Hi!
I'm writing using my new pc and 19" LCD display. I've calibrated my new monitor and I'm very happy as these are the results:
216232
I can't see any more color differences between PS and the Windows Image Viewer application, can you?
Lighroom, CS2 and the Spyder2Pro (I've upgraded from Spyder2express) are running perfectly on Windows Vista.
Just a simple question:
when I realized the calibration for the first time I noticed that the monitor was too bright, so during calibration I adjusted the brightness and contrast sliders so that my profile is:
white point luminance: 120 cd/m2
black point luminance: 0.4 cd/m2
the contrast ratio should be 300:1 based on this.
Do you think these settings are all right for my studio (light intensity is medium)?
Thanks!

[René Damkot]

Looks good, settings sound okay.
120Cd/m2 might be a bit bright, but inside limits.

[ergaticus]

Thank you René! ;)
When I calibrated for the first time the screen had a 250Cd/m2 white luminance, I think it's much better now.