ICC Profiles-Save for WEB Question

[scottbergerphoto]

This is a follow up to the recent thread in which Leo, Scottes, and Maderito gave me some food for thought. I had been resizing my images for web without converting them from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I did some experimenting this morning and my observations led to a question.
In a color managed application like PS CS a Tiff (Adobe RGB) converted to sRGB and then Jpeg and saved without the ICC profile has brighter/richer colors then the same tiff changed to Jpeg without conversion to sRGB and also then the original tiff. If the ICC profile is saved with the file, the sRGB Jpeg looks like the original tiff.

In a non color managed application like Windows Explorer, the JPEGs that result from conversion to sRGB and then resizing look the same regardless of whether or not the ICC profile is attached and look like the original tiff. The jpeg that was created from the tiff without converting to sRGB looks a little darker.

Can someone explain what's going on?
When saving for web, do you check the box to save the ICC profile?

Scott

[Scottes]

I'm in work without time to do some testing, but I can answer the question: No.

The embedded profile only informs ICC-aware apps, other apps just ignore them. There are very few (Safari only?) ICC-aware browsers, so 99.9% of the people qouldn't get to see the image with the correct profile anyway. Most browsers (thanks to Windows in general I think, but I think it's true on the Mac, too) will assume that an image is in sRGB, so thus the profile isn't even needed for almost all the Internet users out there. So embedding the profile is fairly useless, so I don't - and I save a couple KB, too.

[scottbergerphoto]

Thanks Scottes.
Here's another question.
In PS CS the sRGB JPEG without the ICC profile attached is more colorful/bright, then both the sRGB jpeg with the ICC profile attached and the original tiff.
(They both look the same in Windows Explorer as expected.)
Why?

[PacAce]

This is a follow up to the recent thread in which Leo, Scottes, and Maderito gave me some food for thought. I had been resizing my images for web without converting them from Adobe RGB to sRGB. I did some experimenting this morning and my observations led to a question.
In a color managed application like PS CS a Tiff (Adobe RGB) converted to sRGB and then Jpeg and saved without the ICC profile has brighter/richer colors then the same tiff changed to Jpeg without conversion to sRGB and also then the original tiff. If the ICC profile is saved with the file, the sRGB Jpeg looks like the original tiff.

In a non color managed application like Windows Explorer, the JPEGs that result from conversion to sRGB and then resizing look the same regardless of whether or not the ICC profile is attached and look like the original tiff. The jpeg that was created from the tiff without converting to sRGB looks a little darker.

Can someone explain what's going on?
When saving for web, do you check the box to save the ICC profile?

Scott

Scott, this is the part I don't understand. You're saying that the JPEG file which was ocnverted to sRGB first is brighter and richer than the original TIFF? In my case, this is never the case. If anything, I should loose some brightness or saturation when converting from Adobe RGB to sRGB because the sRGB has a smaller color gamut than Adobe RGB. Your situation is very interesting and I sure would be interested in knowing what's going on here.

I'm assuming your PS working space is set to Adobe RGB?

[PacAce]

Thanks Scottes.
Here's another question.
In PS CS the sRGB JPEG without the ICC profile attached is more colorful/bright, then both the sRGB jpeg with the ICC profile attached and the original tiff.
(They both look the same in Windows Explorer as expected.)
Why?

When you brought the sRGB JPEG without hte ICC profile, what option did you select when your were asked about the color space? And what's your default PS working space?

[scottbergerphoto]

My Working Space is Adobe RGB.
I must have done something wrong with color management. I just went back and checked all my settings. I used the embedded profiles for the Adobe RGB tiff and sRGB JPEG with ICC Profile attached, and I told PS to leave the sRGB JPEG without an ICC attached as un managed. Now they all look the same.
Is that what I should be seeing?
Scott

[PacAce]

The sRGB jpeg saved without the ICC profile attached looks brighter then the original tiff when opened in PS CS.
My Working Space is Adobe RGB.
I tell PS CS to Leave as Unmanaged, the sRGB JPEG without the attached ICC Profile.
Shouldn't sRGB and unmanaged look the same?
Scott

If youe working space is Adobe RGB and you leave an sRGB JPEG as unmanaged, it doesn't look the same as if you had elected to assign sRGB to the JPEG. The same thing happens to me when I leave an sRGB image as unmanaged and I'm using the ARGB working space. If I change the working space to sRGB, then they look identical (sRGB and unmanaged).

[scottbergerphoto]

If youe working space is Adobe RGB and you leave an sRGB JPEG as unmanaged, it doesn't look the same as if you had elected to assign sRGB to the JPEG. The same thing happens to me when I leave an sRGB image as unmanaged and I'm using the ARGB working space. If I change the working space to sRGB, then they look identical (sRGB and unmanaged).
Thanks Leo. It's all a bit confusing!
Scott

[PacAce]

Thanks Leo. It's all a bit confusing!
Scott

It is, isn't it? I'm still trying to figure out why an unmanaged sRGB image in an Adobe RGB working space comes out brighter and richer than if sRGB had been selected in the first place or if you had chosen to use the sRGB working space.

I can actually see the unmanaged image change when I dynamcially change the working space from Adobe RGB to sRGB but none of the other images change colors like the unmanaged image does. Very curious.

[PacAce]

Thanks Leo. It's all a bit confusing!
Scott

At any rate, as long as you convert to sRGB before saving for the Web, your web images should look like how you want them to. I think that was the discussion that lead us here in the first place, wasn't it? :D

[scottbergerphoto]

Your last post gave me an idea. I opened up the sRGB image without the ICC profile in my Adobe RGB working space. If I assign it the sRGB profile it looks the same as the original tiff. If I leave it unmanaged, it is much brighter in color. Remarkable!
Regards,
Scott

[Belmondo]

Right now, I'm extremely confused. I really think you guys are making this up as you go along.:lol:

Happy New Year.


Thosey

[PacAce]

Your last post gave me an idea. I opened up the sRGB image without the ICC profile in my Adobe RGB working space. If I assign it the sRGB profile it looks the same as the original tiff. If I leave it unmanaged, it is much brighter in color. Remarkable!
Regards,
Scott

What you want is for the sRGB to look like the original TIFF and not be brighter as when "unmanaged" is selected.

[PacAce]

Right now, I'm extremely confused. I really think you guys are making this up as you go along.:lol:

Happy New Year.


Thosey

Aw, Tom. I was hoping we could keep you confused for a little longer before you found us out. But you're too smart for us, as always. :lol:

And a happy New Year to you, too. I'm going to have my camera ready tonight when they drop the ball at Time Square. Anybody got any tips on how to get good pictures off of a TV screen? :mrgreen:

[Scottes]

Scott, we do this on purpose. Really. :evil:

Tom, you caught us!

Leo, 1/60th will do it.

[scottbergerphoto]

I redid all the pictures in my Christmas 2004 gallery by first saving to sRGB. Leo, Scottes, Maderito, you were all right. The new jpeg's are brighter and more colorful.
Thanks and Happy New Year,
Scott

[Scottes]

Awesome to hear! And I like the extra little "pop" they have now. Very nice.

I just did a side-by-side of the little girl in front of the tree. Actually that's quite a bit of difference!