Posting in Adobe RGB

[Jonny]

After viewing some of the contest photos i noticed that a many people post their images in aRGB instead of sRGB. These images, of course, look all washed out to me which is a shame as it probably lost that person my vote!

Am i being stupid here or am i right in saying all photos posted should really be in sRGB for browsers to read it correctly. OR is there anyway (plugins etc..) for my browser to properly display aRGB files?

FOR EXAMPLE:

THIS WAS POSTED AS ARGB AND LOOKS WASHED OUT:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/srgb.jpg

WHILE IF IT WAS POSTED AS SRGB IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/argb.jpg

Am i missing something?

[scottbergerphoto]

You are correct. If you shoot in Adobe RGB as I do, the first step in preparing for the web after editing should be:
Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB.

[BlueTit]

There must be something wrong with me or my monitor, I can't see any difference. ??

[slin100]

Until such time that browsers become ICC aware, color managed applications, it's best to convert images to sRGB for the Web. I'm only aware of two ICC aware browsers, Safari and Omniweb, and I think they only run on the Mac.

[Jonny]

Until such time that browsers become ICC aware, color managed applications, it's best to convert images to sRGB for the Web. I'm only aware of two ICC aware browsers, Safari and Omniweb, and I think they only run on the Mac.


Ah well theres a thing!! i am using safari on a mac! So why do i see such a difference?

[etaf]

i'm on a windows laptop and cant see any difference

[Jonny]

Ok so i am really intrigued by this now.

I just load the same picture into safari, one in ARGB and the other in SRGB, and you are right steven. Safari displays no difference between the two! Wow.
I tried the same files in Camino and the difference was drastic.

So why does that image look so washed out in Safari and so vibrant in PS?

[Pekka]

I think your images are both converted to sRGB before saving. This example should work:

ProPhoto RGB:
http://photography-on-the.net/stuff/HV8O8755-01.jpg

sRGB:
http://photography-on-the.net/stuff/HV8O8755-01_copy.jpg

This is because majority of browsers are not color profile aware, everything is displayed in sRGB which is considered a basic computer screen gamut. Browser does not convert to sRGB, it just ignores the profile.

[Jonny]

Pekka,

That example does indeed work well. In Safari the images are almost identical but under Camino they are very different which demonstrates perfectly that Safari is indeed ICC aware.
But this didn't explain why my original image displayed so poorly under the browser and so vibrantly under PS.........So i looked into it further.

I took the same image and created four files.

1. ARGB with ARGB profile embedded
2. ARGB without ARGB profile embedded
3. SRGB with SRGB profile embedded
4. SRGB without SRGB profile embedded

The two files with embedded profiles displayed perfectly whilst the two without were washed out. The two without were different to each other in there 'washed out' look.

what i would have expected is for all pictures to look the same because with an embedded ARGB profile the browser would know how to display the image and as the rest were either without a profile or SRGB anyway then the should all display the same- sRGB.

So why did i get 3 different looks? the only two the same were the ones with the embedded profile so this is obviously where the key lies!!!

EDIT:

The three different looks only applies under safari, if i switch to Camino both the sRGb files look the same whilst the aRGB files both look the same.

Must be something to do with how safari works.

Any thoughts?

[Pekka]

Sounds to me that Safari does not see profiles installed in system. Perhaps you could post a bug report about that.

[Jonny]

Problem solved, well not solved but now i understand it.

I found this with the super google.

"Rob Galbraith posted on his own forum (link) that the version of Safari shipping, with OSX 10.3, requires no configuration for colour management to be enabled, which is great. It just shows pictures with embedded profiles with the appropriate compensation, no fuss, no muss. And it also applies the compensation as the picture is drawn to the screen, rather than at the end like Internet Explorer for Mac.

Unfortunately, Safari assumes the colour space of the monitor, if the picture doesn't have an embedded profile, instead of sRGB, which would be preferable."

C'mon Apple, sort it out!

[PacAce]

After viewing some of the contest photos i noticed that a many people post their images in aRGB instead of sRGB. These images, of course, look all washed out to me which is a shame as it probably lost that person my vote!

Am i being stupid here or am i right in saying all photos posted should really be in sRGB for browsers to read it correctly. OR is there anyway (plugins etc..) for my browser to properly display aRGB files?

FOR EXAMPLE:

THIS WAS POSTED AS ARGB AND LOOKS WASHED OUT:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/srgb.jpg

WHILE IF IT WAS POSTED AS SRGB IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/argb.jpg
Am i missing something?
I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not but the only difference between the two files you attached is that the top one has no ICC profile for ARGB embedded in it while the bottom one does. In all other respects, they are both the same, i.e. they are both ARGB color space images. For either of these images to be properly displayed in non-ICC aware browsers, they would need to be converted to the sRGB color space first.

[Jonny]

Yeah, i know now....my mistake..

[ByteTheBullet]

You are correct. If you shoot in Adobe RGB as I do, the first step in preparing for the web after editing should be:
Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB.

As info:

In CS2 it is now...Edit>Convert to Profile>sRGB


ByteTheBullet (-:

[tim]

Those first two images look identical to me, the examples posted by Pekka demonstrate the problem very well.

[Tom W]

There must be something wrong with me or my monitor, I can't see any difference. ??

They both look the same to me also.

[PacAce]

They both look the same to me also.
Unless you have Safari (on the Mac) or some other ICC-aware browser, you're not going to see any difference with the pictures in question. However, the reverse will be true with Pekka's pictures, though. You see two different images but on a Safari, they both look identical because, although the pictures are in different color spaces, both are tagged so Safari knows how to display each one correctly. :confused:

[J Rabin]

It' may be OT a little, but the images I take at work for people, which are destined for use with PowerPoint and LCD projectors, MUST also be converted to sRGB and low resolution. sRGB or the colors wash out, dumbing down in resolution because .ppt chokes. Had a couple embarassing experiences.

I shoot RAW, either aRGB or Prophoto RGB 16-bit TIFF on conversion. For web or LCD destined images, at end of editing, all horizontals go in folder. All verticals go in another folder. I made two actions. The action:

dumbs down the Image Size to either 1024, 900, or 800 pixel wide,
Mode 8-bit,
Convert sRGB Perceptual Intent
Sharpen for multimedia,
and Save As JPG Compression 8

Image now usable for any multimedia; LCD, web, TV, etc.
Jack

[Jonny]

Unless you have Safari (on the Mac) or some other ICC-aware browser, you're not going to see any difference with the pictures in question. However, the reverse will be true with Pekka's pictures, though. You see two different images but on a Safari, they both look identical because, although the pictures are in different color spaces, both are tagged so Safari knows how to display each one correctly. :confused:


EXACTLY.

Now why the hell do Apple make Safari default to your monitor profile instead of sRGB when there is no embedded profile..... This seems like a really poor decision to me.
Everyone does/should use sRGB for web display but Apple ignore that....thats dum.

So the only coice i have to view non sRGB embedded files as the author intended is to set my monitor colour space to sRGB and not my calibrated profile.

This is soooooooo wrong. I feeling like ringing Apple to complain, like it would do any good!

So i am sorry but from now on everyone must use embedded profiles...thats an order! Understood??

[UncleDoug]

EXACTLY.

Now why the hell do Apple make Safari default to your monitor profile instead of sRGB when there is no embedded profile..... This seems like a really poor decision to me.
Everyone does/should use sRGB for web display but Apple ignore that....thats dum.

So the only coice i have to view non sRGB embedded files as the author intended is to set my monitor colour space to sRGB and not my calibrated profile.

This is soooooooo wrong. I feeling like ringing Apple to complain, like it would do any good!

So i am sorry but from now on everyone must use embedded profiles...thats an order! Understood??


At least Apple produces software that takes into account ICC profiles in some way shape and form. It would be nice if Safari had some pref. to deal with this.

But don't complain to Apple, send them a suggestion. :D

If you ask me, it is still the responsibility of the poster to get things right.

There is no primrose path down the road of digital files.....just the briar patch all of us had to wade through in the film days.

[tommykjensen]

Some time ago I did a test that clearly showed what the difference can be when messing up with the color profiles.

In this test photo the top one is sRGB all the way. Look at the red color especially.

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/testcolorspace.jpg

[UncleDoug]

Some time ago I did a test that clearly showed what the difference can be when messing up with the color profiles.

In this test photo the top one is sRGB all the way. Look at the red color especially.


The image you posted has no profile tagged to it.

How about re-posting both images independantly, not as one image, with the intended profiles. :lol:

[tommykjensen]

The image you posted has no profile tagged to it.

How about re-posting both images independantly, not as one image, with the intended profiles. :lol:

Nope ;-) The purpose was to display the difference when the same image is processed correctly and incorrectly. The image I posted is sRGB.

Have a look in this thread to get the full story of this image

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57096

[UncleDoug]

Nope ;-) The purpose was to display the difference when the same image is processed correctly and incorrectly. The image I posted is sRGB.

Have a look in this thread to get the full story of this image

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57096

I participated in the thread ;)

And agreed, if you convet an sRGB image to aRGB colors will be left out/clipped and it will not look as good as it could.

But why did you not tag the merged file you posted?
Were you trying to illustrate how an untagged image looks as well? :confused:

[tommykjensen]

But why did you not tag the merged file you posted?

Whats the point of that? As many has stated most browser does not support that anyway so as long as the image is sRGB there is no problems.

[UncleDoug]

Whats the point of that? As many has stated most browser does not support that anyway so as long as the image is sRGB there is no problems.

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand your point of view/logic train....:D

If most browsers are not ICC compliant but everything is good as long as the image is tagged with the sRGB profile why did you post the example image with no profile tagged to it? I opened the image in PSCS, got a warning. Checked it out in iView MediaPro and the info returned is that it is an RGB file with no profile tagged to it.
According to previous posts regarding Safari, which I use, an untagged image will be displayed using the monitor profile, not sRGB.

Now, following the logic you have proposed, i.e. "Whats the point of that?" this would infer that you do not need to tag an image being posted to the web for it to look good/as it should.

[UncleDoug]

here is an interesting read related to this subject....

http://www.color.org/wpaper2.html

http://www.color.org/srgb.html

[slin100]

I've been poking around trying to learn more about Safari's behavior with untagged images and I came across this:

>>><johnz@apple.com>
Untagged RGB data is treated differently when drawn to the display than
when saving as PDF or printing in Panther.

Untagged RGB data is (currently) not matched to the display. This is
done mainly for performance reasons. If the data wasn't worth tagging,
the assumption was it's not worth the overhead to the user to have all
untagged RGB data matched to the main display profile. NOTE: untagged
CMYK data is matched to the display using the Generic CMYK Profile.icc
as source, and untagged gray data is matched to the display using
Generic Gray Profile.icc as source.

The mantra since v10.0 has been "tag your data", so the OS knows for
sure how to treat it.

We're at a point now that most hardware, particularly Quartz Extreme
capable display cards, can be used to help speed the color matching. We
can now consider matching untagged data by default. The question
remaining would be whether to assume Generic RGB or sRGB as the source
for all untagged RGB data, and/or to have Quartz look to the ColorSync
prefs for this info. I'm interested in this part of the discussion.

JZ>>>>>


So, there you have it. The initial motivation was performance.

I also came across an argument against tagging. The argument was that tagging can significantly increase the filesize, particularly for thumbnails. I suppose the point is valid, but who's going to care whether a thumbnail has a profile?

[Edit: I forgot to mention that, while it's not related to viewing images on the Web, some photo labs cannot handle tagged images; it crashes certain printers. Hopefully, that will change over time.]