Windows, wide-gamut does Safari Convert to monitor profile?

Hi, I was looking for the Safari Windows forum, but this was the only one I could find.
Can someone with a Wide Gamut monitor (not set to its sRGB preset) using a calibrated custom monitor profile look at the sRGB rollovers here
gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
And tell me if the Tagged image is a dead-on exact "match" to the Untagged rollover?
If the Tagged file looks normal or over-saturated like the Untagged image?
I am trying to determine if Safari for Windows Converts Tagged color to the monitor profile like Photoshop (or only to sRGB) and it should be most obvious on wide-gamut AdobeRGB type monitors.
I've pretty much concluded the Untagged color gets sent straight through to the monitor unchanged (so Untagged images should appear overly red on wide gamut panels).
Thanks...

Okay, I put my Windows Vista Business hard drive back in my Mac Pro and booted off it.
I installed Xrite iMatch 3.6.2 software, connected my eye-one display 2, profiled my monitor with a custom ICC profile, and rebooted.
Now I am seeing exactly the same Safari behavior I see on system 10.6 using this hardware (and my other Mac Pros running profiled 30" Apple displays) --- a slight shift in the untagged sRGB rollover.
The untagged sRGB rollover appears like Safari for Windows is defaulting untagged sRGB to my custom monitor profile now, the same as my OS-X machines, and as I expected it to work on the PC.
+++++
Previously, my Windows system was using whatever profile my NEC 2490WUXi setup by default --- I had a feeling setting a custom profile would provide a clue.
Seeing is believing...

Similar Messages

Does Safari Convert Embedded Profiles to Monitor RGB or sRGB?

I am building a test page here:
http://www.gballard.net/firefox/
A Mac devotee, I checked the top rollover on a Windows Vista machine using Safari and can't figure out what I am seeing.
The top rollover (Windows Safari) is showing me a visual dead-on exact "match" between tagged whackedRGB and untagged sRGB (this is very impressive for Safari and not what I expected to see).
*I figure only two things could be happening:*
*1. Safari is Converting the tagged file to sRGB and Assuming sRGB on the untagged file, and NOT Converting to the monitor profile, or*
*2. Safari is Converting the tagged file to the monitor profile; and Safari is Assuming sRGB on the untagged file and then Converting it to the monitor profile.*
I only had access to the Windows machine for 5 minutes...does anyone know what's going on, how Safari is matching these two rollovers on Vista?
+++++
If any Windows Safari users are seeing even the slightest shift in the top rollover, that would be useful information...

Okay, I put my Windows Vista Business hard drive back in my Mac Pro and booted off it.
I installed Xrite iMatch 3.6.2 software, connected my eye-one display 2, profiled my monitor with a custom ICC profile, and rebooted.
Now I am seeing exactly the same Safari behavior I see on system 10.6 using this hardware (and my other Mac Pros running profiled 30" Apple displays) --- a slight shift in the untagged sRGB rollover.
The untagged sRGB rollover appears like Safari for Windows is defaulting untagged sRGB to my custom monitor profile now, the same as my OS-X machines, and as I expected it to work on the PC.
+++++
Previously, my Windows system was using whatever profile my NEC 2490WUXi setup by default --- I had a feeling setting a custom profile would provide a clue.
Seeing is believing...

Windows 8 Bootcamp Does Not Recognize External Monitor

So, my Bootcamp of Windows 8 does not recognize my external monitor when I try to plug it in. I have read that the startup must recognize the monitor during the boot process. However, I have already done this and my external monitor remains in sleep mode. My drivers are all up to date with this bootcamp and I work on programming a lot so I need a solution for this issue because going back and forth between windows of the internet and my code is not ideal for me and wastes too much time. The external monitor works when I run my OS X, just not on Windows 8. If anyone could point me in the direction of how to solve this issue, it would be greatfully appreciated.

They're downloadable. But I'm going to create a system restore point in case something happens.
The below discussion had a similar issue but with Windows 7
https://discussions.apple.com/message/12358950#12358950
http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us

Pdf file shows open but document does not appear on monitor

Using Illustrator CS2 for pdf documents. Have a few files created with CS2 that show as being open in the Tool Bar "Window" but document does not appear on monitor.

Try Ctrl-Y for preview.

Fully Color Managed Application (using calibrated monitor profiles)

Hi,
I'm new to JAVA 2D so I may be missing something obvious - apologies if I am, but I've been trawling the API and web to try and solve this for many hours - so any help would be much appreciated!
I'm trying to write an application to open a JPEG with an embedded colour profile (in this case AdobeRGB) and display it with correct colour on my monitor, for which I have an accurate custom hardware calibrated profile. In my efforts to do this several problems / queries have arisen.
So, JAVA aside, the concept is simple:
a) Open the image
b) Transform the pixels from AdobeRGB->Monitor Profile (via a PCS such as CIEXYZ).
c) Blit it out to the window.
(a) is fine. I've used the following code snip, and can query the resulting BufferedImage and see it has correctly extracted the AdobeRGB profile. I can even display it (non-color corrected) using the Graphics2D.drawImage() function in my components paint() method.
BufferedImage img = ImageIO.read(new File("my-adobe-rgb.jpg"));(b) Also seems OK (well at least no exceptions)...
ICC_Profile monitorProfile = ICC_Profile.getInstance("Monitor_Calibrated.icm");
    ColorConvertOp convert = new ColorConvertOp(new ICC_ColorSpace(monitorProfile ),null);
    BufferedImage imgColorAdjusted = convert.filter(img,null);[I was feeling hopeful at this point!]
QUESTION 1: Does this conversion go through the CIEXYZ (I hope) rather than sRGB, there seems to be no way to specify and the docs are not clear on this?
(c) Here is the major problem...
When I pass imgColorAdjusted to the Graphic2D.drawImage() in my components paint() method the JVM just hangs and consumes 100% CPU.
QUESTION 2: Any ideas why it hangs?
Pausing in the debugger I found the API was busy transforming by image to sRGB this leads to my third question...
QUESTION 3: If I pass an image with a color model to drawImage() does drawImage do any color conversion, e.g will it transform my adobe image to sRGB (not what I want in this case!)?
And if answer to Q3 is yes, which I suspect it is, then the next question is how to make the J2D understand that I have a calibrated monitor, and to tell it the profile, so that the Graphics2D it provides in paint() has the correct color model. Looking in the API I thought this was provided to J2D through the GraphicsEnviroment->GraphicsDevice->GraphicsConfiguration.getColorModel(). I tried looking at what these configurations were (code below). Result - 10 configurations, all with the JAVA 2D sRGB default, despite my monitor colour management (through the windows display properties dialog) being set to the calibrated profile.
QUESTION 4: Am I just off track here - does Java 2D support monitor profiles other than sRGB? Is what I am trying possible?
GraphicsConfiguration[] cfg = GraphicsEnvironment.getLocalGraphicsEnvironment().getDefaultScreenDevice().getConfigurations();
    System.out.println(cfg.length);
    byte[] d;
    for (int j=0; j<cfg.length; j++) {
      System.out.println("CFG:"+j+cfg[j]);
      d = ((ICC_ColorSpace)cfg[j].getColorModel().getColorSpace()).getProfile().getData();
      for (int i=0; i<d.length && i<256; i++){
        if (d[i] != 10 && d[i] != 13){
          System.out.print((char)d);
System.out.println();
Any help much appreciated.
Thanks.

I have had some sucess with this, but it wasn't easy or obvious. The trick is converting the color to the monitor profile and then changing the color model to be sRGB without changing the pixel data. JAI's Format operation does this easily although I'm sure there are other ways to do it. The RGB data is then displayed without being converted to sRGB so that the monitor calibration is maintained. I will answer your questions since I had similar ones.
Q1. Yes the conversion is done using XYZ as it should be.
Q2. I believe paint is just very slow, not hanging. Any color model other than XYZ or sRGB requires conversion before it can be displayed (as sRGB). This is both slow and incorrect for a calibrated monitor.
Q3. Yes that is what I have found, a conversion to sRGB will always happen, unless it appears to be already done as when the color model is sRGB (even though the pixel data is not!).
Q4. It is possible but apparently only with this somewhat strange work around. If there is a way to change the Java display profile to be other than sRGB, I could not find it either. However, calibrated RGB display can be achieved.
Since I have seen many other posts asking for an example of color management, here is some code. This JAI conversion works for many pairs of source and destination profiles including CMYK to RGB. It does require using ICC profiles in external files rather than embedded in the image.
package calibratedrgb;
import com.sun.media.jai.widget.DisplayJAI;
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.color.*;
import java.awt.image.*;
import java.io.IOException;
import javax.media.jai.*;
import javax.swing.*;
* @author keitht
public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
        String filename = args[0];
        PlanarImage pi = JAI.create("fileload", filename);
        // create a source color model from the image ICC profile
        ICC_Profile sourceProfile = ICC_Profile.getInstance("AdobeRGB1998.icc");
        ICC_ColorSpace sourceCS = new ICC_ColorSpace(sourceProfile);
        ColorModel sourceCM = RasterFactory.createComponentColorModel(
                pi.getSampleModel().getDataType(), sourceCS, false, false,Transparency.OPAQUE);
        ImageLayout sourceIL = new ImageLayout();
        sourceIL.setColorModel(sourceCM);
        // tag the image with the source profile using format
        RenderingHints sourceHints = new RenderingHints(JAI.KEY_IMAGE_LAYOUT, sourceIL);
        ParameterBlockJAI ipb = new ParameterBlockJAI("format");
        ipb.addSource(pi);
        ipb.setParameter("datatype", pi.getSampleModel().getDataType());
        pi = JAI.create("format", ipb, sourceHints);
        // create a destination color model from the monitor ICC profile
        ICC_Profile destinationProfile = ICC_Profile.getInstance("Monitor Profile.icm");
        ICC_ColorSpace destinationCS = new ICC_ColorSpace(destinationProfile);
        ColorModel destinationCM = RasterFactory.createComponentColorModel(
                pi.getSampleModel().getDataType(), destinationCS, false, false, Transparency.OPAQUE);
        ImageLayout destinationIL = new ImageLayout();
        destinationIL.setColorModel(destinationCM);
        // convert from source to destination profile
        RenderingHints destinationHints = new RenderingHints(JAI.KEY_IMAGE_LAYOUT, destinationIL);
        ParameterBlockJAI cpb = new ParameterBlockJAI("colorconvert");
        cpb.addSource(pi);
        cpb.setParameter("colormodel", destinationCM);
        pi = JAI.create("colorconvert", cpb, destinationHints);
        // image is now the calibrated monitor RGB data ready to display, but
        // an unwanted conversion to sRGB will occur without the following...
        // first, create an sRGB color model
        ColorSpace sRGB = ColorSpace.getInstance(ColorSpace.CS_sRGB);
        ColorModel sRGBcm = RasterFactory.createComponentColorModel(
                pi.getSampleModel().getDataType(), sRGB, false, false, Transparency.OPAQUE);
        ImageLayout sRGBil = new ImageLayout();
        sRGBil.setColorModel(sRGBcm);
        // then avoid the incorrect conversion to sRGB on the way to the display
        // by using format to tag the image as sRGB without changing the data
        RenderingHints sRGBhints = new RenderingHints(JAI.KEY_IMAGE_LAYOUT, sRGBil);
        ParameterBlockJAI sRGBpb = new ParameterBlockJAI("format");
        sRGBpb.addSource(pi);
        sRGBpb.setParameter("datatype", pi.getSampleModel().getDataType());
        pi = JAI.create("format", sRGBpb, sRGBhints); // replace color model with sRGB
        // RGB numbers are unaffected and can now be sent without conversion to the display
        // disguised as sRGB data. The platform monitor calibration profile is bypassed
        // by the JRE because sRGB is the default graphics configuration color model profile
        JFrame frame = new JFrame();
        Container contentPane = frame.getContentPane();
        contentPane.setLayout(new BorderLayout());
        DisplayJAI d = new DisplayJAI(pi); // Graphics2D could be used here
        contentPane.add(new JScrollPane(d),BorderLayout.CENTER);
        frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
        frame.setSize(600,600);
        frame.setVisible(true);
}

Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
Thanks for any help!
Michael

Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
PS RGB Workspace: ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient? Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values. If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour. With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase. Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

Does Finder cover flow ignore monitor profile/wide gamut for JPG?

Hi,
beeing a proud (?) owner of a wide gammut display I use a special monitor profile to see correct colour which of course only works in applications which support it. I expect the Finder to be such an application at it mostly is.
ButI found on my System with Lion 10.7.3 that my JPGs display wrong/oversaturated in the finder cover flow.
This is independant of embedded or not embedded ICC profiles in the JPGs, but just an issue with the selected monitor profile.
The error is NOT observed e.g. for JPEG 2000 files!
The error is NOT observed for other image display options within the finder, so only the cover flow is effected!
Further I can not remember to have seen it earlier in Snow Leopard.
Can anybody also see this issue?
Thanks for any feedback!

I don't have a Wide Gamut monitor, just a 24" iMac/2007, here one jpg in Preview on left & Cover Flow on right...
If you have GraphicConverter you might check the ExifTool info...
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number         : 8.68
---- System ----
File Name                       : GoogleEarth3.jpg
Directory                       : /Users/******/Downloads
File Size                       : 32 kB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2012:04:02 19:39:27-07:00
File Permissions                : rw-r--r--
---- File ----
File Type                       : JPEG
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
Image Width                     : 497
Image Height                    : 382
Encoding Process                : Progressive DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version                    : 1.01
Resolution Unit                 : inches
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
---- XMP-x ----
XMP Toolkit                     : XMP Core 4.4.0
---- Composite ----
Image Size                      : 497x382

Correct export color space for wide gamut monitors.

Running a photography studio I have 4 typical scenarios of how clients or end users will see my photo work. I create and edit the photos using LR 3 on a HP 2475w (wide gamut) monitor. I'm aware that there are color shifts, but trying to figure out which export color space to use to be most consistent.
A) Wide Gamut monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
B) Wide Gamut monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
C) Standard monitor using color managed software or browser such as Firefox.
D) Standard monitor NOT using color managed software such as IE 8.
A) gives the best results and that's what I run myself. No matter the color space that I export (sRGB, aRGB, or my custom calibrated ICC) the images appear to be correct 100%
B) gives mixed results...the hosting site for my photos seems to oversaturate a bit when I view the photos in their preview size which is what my clients see, when I view the original photo in full resolution (this feature disabled for my clients to avoid them downloading full rez copies of images), then the images appears a bit dull (70%). When I try this same scenario using aRGB export, it looks better (90-95%). When I export it using my monitor profile then the photo is spot on 100% however my monitor profile shows the photo incorrectly when viewing it using the standard Windows Vista photo viewer, it appears lighter and less saturated which I guess I expect since it's not color managed.
C) On a standard monitor the photos all look the same regardless of color space export so long as I use a color managed browser such as Firefox.
D) This gives pretty much the same breakdown of results as scenario B above. At the moment, it appears that when I use my custom ICC profile which is the calibration of my monitor...I get the best web results.
However my custom ICC profile gives me the worst local results within my windows viewer and when my clients load the photos on their machines, no doubt they will look just as bad on theirs regardless of which monitor they use. So aRGB seems to be the best choice for output. Anyone else do this? It's significantly better when viewing in IE on both Wide Gamut and Standard LCD's when compared to sRGB.
I would guess that my typical client has a laptop with Windows and they will both view the photos locally and upload them on the web, so it needs to look as close to what it looks like when I'm processing it in LR and Photoshop as possible. I know that a lot of people ask questions about their photos being off because they don't understand that there's a shift between WG and non-WG monitors, but I get that there's a difference...question is which color space export has worked best for others.

I am saying that since images on the internet are with extremely few
exceptions targeted towards sRGB. It is extremely common for those images to
not contain ICC profiles even if they really are sRGB. If they do not
contain ICC profiles in the default mode in Firefox, Firefox (as well as
Safari btw, another color managed browser), will not convert to the monitor
profile but will send the image straight to the monitor. This means that on
a wide gamut display, the colors will look oversaturated. You've no doubt
seen this on your display, but perhaps you've gotten used to it. If you
enable the "1" color management mode, Firefox will translate every image to
the monitor profile. This will make the colors on your display more
realistic and more predictable (since your monitor's very specific
properties no longer interfere and the image's colors are displayed as they
really are) for many sites including many photographic ones. This is most
important on a wide gamut display and not that big of a deal on a standard
monitor, which usually is closer to sRGB.
It seems you are suggesting that for a wide-gamut display it is better to
try using your own monitor's calibration profile on everything out there,
assuming on images posted with a wider gamat it will get you more color
range while there would be nothing lost for images posted in sRGB.
Indeed. The point of color management is to make the specific
characteristics of your monitor not a factor anymore and to make sure that
you see the correct color as described in the working space (almost always
sRGB on the web). This only breaks down when the color to be displayed is
outside of the monitor's gamut. In that case the color will typically get
clipped to the monitor's gamut. The other way around, if your original is in
sRGB and your monitor is closer to adobeRGB, the file's color space is
limiting. For your monitor, you want to make the system (Firefox in this
case) assume that untagged files are in sRGB as that is what the entire
world works in and translate those to the monitor profile. When you
encounter adobeRGB or wider files (extremely rare but does happen), it will
do the right thing and translate from that color space to the monitor
profile.
Wide gamut displays are great but you have to know what you are doing. For
almost everybody, even photographers a standard gamut monitor is often a
better choice. One thing is that you should not use unmanaged browsers on
wide gamut displays as your colors will be completely out of whack even on
calibrated monitors. This limits you to Firefox and Safari. Firefox has the
secret option to enable color management for every image. Safari doesn't
have this. There is one remaining problem, which is flash content on
websites. Flash does not color manage by default and a lot of flash content
will look very garish on your wide gamut display. This includes a lot of
photographer's websites.

Help with colour profiles and wide gamut monitor

Hi there,
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature but I would really appreciate it if someone could explain what settings I should be using in Photoshop to get accurate colours. I had a look around and couldn't find any other discussions that answered this exactly.
My set up is a Dell 2408WFP monitor which is wide-gamut. I have calibrated this using a huey Pro calibrator (therefore have an accurate system colour profile). My photos are in Canon sRGB space, set by Digital Photo Professional (obviously easily changed if need be).
What I would like is to be able to preview what my photos will look like on a standard sRGB display. When I open a photo in Photoshop with all the settings on their default it looks extremely washed out, very low contrast and saturation. This is nothing like what the photos look like outside of Photoshop, and also not what the photos look like on other (normal gamut) displays. I have tried using the "proof colours" settings. When I have "proof setup" set to Internet Standard sRGB the colours look dreadful, oranges become blood-red, definitely not what I am getting when I view the image on a standard monitor. If I have it set to Monitor RGB then I get colours that look like my monitor outside of Photoshop -- this is the closest out of the three to the result I am actually getting on standard gamut displays. However I know it is not accurate because I know my monitor is wide gamut and therefore more has more contrast (and this is the case).
So what combination of photo colour space, proof colour space, and proof colours settings should I be using? My main priority is just the Joe Average using his TN panel monitor on facebook, I accept that on my monitor they will look slightly different. Settings for print don't concern me at the moment.
Thanks for the help. To anyone who will suggest that I read up on colour profiles... I have, and I understand them to an extent, but there are so many variables here that I am getting lost (monitor profile, photo profile, photoshop settings, DPP settings, faststone viewer's settings, browser's lack of awareness...)
Andrew

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
thekrimsonchin wrote:
I know this issue must crop up a lot due to its confusing nature
You have no idea.
What I'm reading is that you want Photoshop, with its color management enabled, to display your sRGB photos as they would be seen on a true sRGB monitor - i.e., accurately.
Something to always keep in mind, when everything's set right and working properly: Your sRGB image displayed on your wide gamut monitor without color management (e.g., by Internet Explorer) will look bolder and brighter (more color-saturated) than the same image displayed in Photoshop with color-management. There is no getting around this, because the sRGB profile is not equivalent to the monitor profile. Do not expect them to look the same.
It's hard, without being there and seeing what you're seeing, to judge whether your sRGB images are undersaturated compared to what's seen on other monitors. I do know, as one with sRGB monitors myself, that images can look quite vibrant and alive in the sRGB color space.
What we can't know is whether your judgment that your color-managed sRGB images are undersaturated is correct in an absolute sense, or whether you're just feeling the difference between seeing them on your monitor in non-color-managed apps and Photoshop.
Photoshop normally does its color management like this: It combines the information from the color profile in your document with the color profile of the monitor, which it retrieves from a standard place in Windows, and creates a transform used to display the colors.
To have it do this you would NOT want the Proof Colors setting enabled. It is the default behavior.
-Noel
P.S., I don't recall whether DPP is color-managed, but you might consider using Photoshop's raw converter, which definitely shows color-managed output, per the settings I described above.
P.P.S., Your calibrator/profiler should have put the monitor profile in the proper place and set all the proper stuff up in Windows. Is it specifically listed as compatible with the version of Windows you're running?

Wide Gamut Monitors & 10.6 Default Monitor RGB

Hi, an Adobe employee just told me Snow Leopard 10.6x defaults untagged and unmanaged color, that SL "uses sRGB for untagged images/graphics, and converts to the profile for each display”.
I no longer have a WIDE GAMUT monitor to test myself.
Can a few people with wide gamut displays running 10.6x and Safari 5 please go to
www(dot).gballard.net/photoshop/srgbwidegamut.html
and roll over the tagged and untagged sRGB images at the top of the page.
And post back if they "match" to prove or disprove his statement?
(By his statement, the tagged and untagged rollovers should "match."
Also, if they shift, how does the untagged sRGB change in appearance?
Thanks (I am trying to get my page updated)...

That's expected, a wide gamut monitor will be a lot redder.
Yes. Just a lot more color range and gamut to view than a "standard" monitor.
Tagged) Photoshop/Safari is reading the embedded profile and CONVERTING to Monitor RGB.
Actually, that's what the OS or Photoshop always does. No matter what you're viewing in Photoshop, and no matter what the CMYK, RGB or grayscale working spaces are set at, the color you view is always your monitor profile, which is the last conversion done before displaying the image in Photoshop to the screen. Which is why I use my monitor profile as my working RGB space. I want my images to contain the color data of the device I'm viewing, not a canned space forced to fit. Here's what I mean. This image is Adobe RGB and my monitor profile overlaid. It's mostly a top down view. That was the best orientation I could turn the 3D map to for the example.
The ghosted map is the monitor space. As you can see, if I were to use Adobe RGB as my working space, I'd be losing all of the color I could be using that extends beyond Adobe RGB (reds through pinks, greens), since Adobe RGB would limit how far I could saturate those colors, as it has to stay within the limits of the profile. On the other side of the coin, the left side shows how much of Adobe RGB extends beyond my monitor space. The even brighter pinks through bright cyans across the top left.
But I don't care about that color. I already get all the saturation I can reasonably use for a photo. I mean, just how unnaturally bright do you want someone's lime green shirt to look? Using a color space your monitor can't display is also a very bad idea in my opinion. Say you're happy with the color you see on your current monitor. Then you get a new monitor at some point with an even wider color range. Suddenly, those bright pinks are way more saturated than you remember. What's wrong? Nothing. Your new monitor is just showing you values that were already in your Adobe RGB tagged image your previous monitor was incapable of displaying. I would much, much rather use my monitor profile for my RGB images. Then when I do move to any even wider range monitor, ColorSync/Photoshop will be able to properly map the color to fit the new monitor profile so the images look identical, or nearly so, as they did on the monitor I was using before.
In short, I consider canned profiles such as Adobe RGB, sRGB, ColorMatch RGB, etc. completely useless. None of them represent the device (monitor) in front of you. Only a properly created monitor profile is accurate to that device.
If the Adobe theory were true, you would NOT see a brighter, redder image on the rollover (they would "match").
Sorry, -g. By, So far, it sounds like his theory is true., I just meant that my tests were following his theory up to that point. After that though, it falls apart.
Can you tell me if Photoshop> Assign Profile (your custom EIZO monitor profile) displays like the Safari untagged rollover (especially level of saturated reds)?
Yes, but it looks that that to start with if I open the untagged image and tell PS to leave the color as is. So PS/ColorSync is already doing the only thing it can do with the color, mapping it to fit the monitor profile.

Problem: Color Management/Save for Web on Wide Gamut Monitor

Hi,
I've got a problem with color management - I thought I understood it, but it seems as if didn't. So I'm trying to kindly ask for help.
I'm printing, and also trying to save an image for Web.
My setup:
- Win 7, CS 5
- Calibrated Wide Gamut Monitor (eizo cg223w)
- Photoshop set to ProPhoto (I don't want to start a discussion adobergb vs prophoto)
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
- Viewing in Firefox 3.6 with Color Management enabled
Problem:
Image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/311345/luchs-1024.jpg
If I compare the file in Firefox and Photoshop, the Firefox presentation is slightly more saturated - and I have no idea why.
I thought it should work with the above workflow.
Here is a screenshot where you can clearly see a difference (Note: the additional over-saturation here is caused by the wide gammut monitor when taking screenshots, in reality its not as dramatic as that): http://imgur.com/MFPbU but you can clearly see the difference.
I would be very very thankful for any pointers what I'm doing wrong in my workflow!
Thanks in advance,
Christoph

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
ch_bla wrote:
- Monitor calibrated
- Edit under ProPhoto RGB, 16 bit raw files
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
Is this the preferred way?
It's a reasonable and correct way to do it, assuming you want to embed a profile in the images.
Since at least in some browsers and cases the colors selected within the HTML elements must match image colors, one can sometimes make a case for not embedding any profile at all, but that's really looking backwards. Browsers are moving forward toward not only managing colors in images but also in the HTML elements themselves. If you want your images accurately portrayed in as many places as possible you're doing the right thing looking forward.
Personally I embed the sRGB profile in my web images, as you are doing. And I check things primarily with IE and Safari.
Unlike you, I prefer to edit using the sRGB color space, but that's just personal preference. I find it more convenient to use File - Save As instead of File - Save For Web & Devices, and I get caught by gotchas less often this way. Your preference ensures you don't lose any colors at the extremes of the gamut while editing and it could easily be argued that that's better, depending on what image products you produce.
As for the article you mentioned, anyone who would set their preferred working space to Monitor RGB or use Proof Colors in normal editing is asking for trouble, and may not understand color management at all.
-Noel

Firefox 3.6 color management incorrect on wide-gamut monitors?

Hi,
I'm having a problem with sRGB JPEGs exported from Lightroom (2.7) that I don't actually think is LR's fault, but was wondering if anyone here has experienced this.
What I'm finding is that these sRGB JPEGs don't display correctly on my wide-gamut Dell 2408WFP monitor under Windows 7 in Firefox 3.6.9 or in the Windows image viewer. Now, this isn't the standard problem people used to complain about on wide-gamut monitors, where sRGB images came out looking oversaturated (pinkish) in FF because older versions of FF didn't do color management; the newer Firefox seems to be doing color management in general. The problem I'm seeing in my photos is that dark areas are becoming darker and losing detail, and midrange shadows are turning into a grayish green.
What's odd is that these JPEGs look fine in Safari on the same machine and the same monitor (and they also look fine if I load them into PS). That suggests to me that Firefox (and Windows) are doing something wrong, probably related to the fact that the monitor is wide-gamut.
Has anyone encountered this problem?
Thanks,
nj

Jim,
I think you are right in saying that it is a crap shoot. There are some interesting points in your post though.
The general public will be viewing with a monitor and browser that are not color managed. Won't my v4 images diplay fairly well under this situation (at least much better than with ff3.6 and a monitor with a v4 profile)?
That will work just fine indeed. It is arguable whether it will look "better". The variation between monitors is much larger than the benefit you gain from using v4. One thing that will work better is the out of sRGB gamut colors. You won't get the posterization using the v4 sRGB profile that you get with the v2 sRGB. For some images (think shots of flowers) that might be a major benefit. If all your colors are in sRGB that is obviously not a benefit at all. The big disadvantage of using v4 sRGB is that it adds quite a few extra kilobytes (about 60) to your image. For example, I just exported from Lightroom a simple web sized image at 1000 pixels long side at good quality and in v4 it was 262 kB, while in v2 sRGB it weighs in at only 209 kB. I see no real difference between these images on my wide-gamut monitor. This difference in filesize can be important and at smaller sizes is really going to matter.
What about a wide gamut monitor that's not color managed, running a browser that doesn't support v4?
The v4 sRGB image will look just as badly oversaturated as the normal sRGB one. Try it and you'll see. Perhaps slightly less oversaturated but the difference is very small in general. The one thing that you should realize of course is that if these users are running a non-managed browser on a wide gamut display, they are likely conditioned to oversaturated images and probably will never even notice. These users are lost anyway. It's best not to even try to target them. Target normal users who generally run unmanaged browsers on unmanaged sRGB-like displays. The variation between these displays is far larger than the slight advantage you get from using sRGB v4 and in my mind at least it is not worth the added size in the picture and the loss of color management in Firefox. Of course, you might have different priorities.
P.S. the numbers of users using unmanaged browsers are waning quite quickly if I am to believe my website's stats - IE is way down and both Safari and Firefox are up. Chrome (not managed) is coming up too but not as fast as IE is decreasing. Apparently (I haven't tried as I don't do windows) the latest IE does respect embedded color profiles, but alas it doesn't translate to the monitor profile. That is of course basically useless.

Soft proofing problem with wide-gamut monitor

Hi,
I've just upgraded to a wide-gamut monitor (Dell U2713H).
I set the colour-space to adobe RGB when using Lightroom (I'm on LR5).
When I select soft proofing , my picture goes grey (that is, where I was displaying the photo in the border, then changes to a uniform grey within the proofing border). If I click on 'create proof copy' the picture then displays.
When the picture is grey and I move my mouse over the image, I can see the RGB% values change, as if there is an image there.
Previously, I had a (rather) low-end viewsonic and had no problems - Soft-Proofing worked fine. All I did was install the new monitor.
I'm running windows 7, nvidia 8800GT card, 8gb memory. No system changes prior/after changing the monitor.
Everything else on the monitor works fine (better than fine, actually, it is a great monitor)
Soft-proofing in photoshop (CS6) works fine, for what that is worth.
I'm a bit stumped. Can anyone help?
hans

1234ewqrd wrote:
I set the colour-space to adobe RGB when using Lightroom (I'm on LR5).
What do you mean by this? Are you selecting Adobe RGB as color profile for you rmonitor? Or are you talking about selecting Adobe RGB as softproofing color space in Lr?
The fact that your images are grey in Lr is a strong indication that your new monitor is not calibrated and is way off the chart. It might be brand new but that does not mean that its tonality and color display is correct for photo editing in Lr.
Calibration is done with a piece of hardware called a spectrometer and the accompanying software. Brand names are Spyder, ColorMunki, GretaghMacbeth. After calibration the software creates a profile that is used by the monitor.
You don't select any other profile than the profile created by calibration and profiling for photo editing - irrespective of which program you use for photo editing.
In the meantime - as a temporary remedy and until you get the calibration tools - you can set your monitor to sRGB. Be aware that sRGB is a much smaller color space than what you rmonitor is able to display; with sRGB you basically prevent the monitor from displaing wide gamut.
See here on how to set the monitor to sRGB:
http://members.lightroomqueen.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1137/188/how-do-i- change-my-monitor-profile-to-check-whether-its-corrupted
http://forums.adobe.com/message/4977176#4977176
Everything else on the monitor works fine (better than fine, actually, it is a great monitor)
You have no way of telling if the monitor works fine, i.e. if the monitor has the correct intensity (brightness) and if it displays the colors correctly, i.e. as a true representation of the color numbers. Our brain automatically adjusts colors to what they ought to be. What we see is basically unreliable for photo editing. Only a calibrated monitor will display the colors correctly.
Also, when you calibrate select an intensity (brightness) of araound 110 cd/m2 - irrespective of what the software suggests. Often monitors are way to bright which results in prints that are too dark.

How to have posted images display as sRGB on wide-gamut monitors.

I understand an sRGB profile is necessary for posting images but I need help on how to do that with Photoshop CS2 and my new wide-gamut monitor (HP LP2475w with Spider3Express calibration). Before doing a "save for web" and posting, I "convert to profile" to either "sRGB IEEE61966-2.1" or "sRGB with hardware configuration derived from calibration" (it makes no difference which), but I see then a significant color shift in the posted images when I view them through Firefox 3.6 (with operating color management software -verified on other posted images) and the same color shift with IE6 (which has NO color management software). So, Firefox is NOT RECOGNIZING my posted images with the sRGB profiles that I thought I was embedding in them in Photoshop. So my question boils down to: WHAT EXACTLY DO I HAVE TO DO IN PHOTOSHOP SO FIREFOX WILL RECOGNIZE THE POSTED IMAGES AS sRGB and display them 'correctly' on wide-gamut monitors??
Thank you very much.
-Jeff

ISSUE RESOLVED. Photoshop CS2 was not embedding an sRGB profile in the images I was posting. I needed to check the "ICC Profile" checkbox in "save for web" to make that actually happen (after I did "convert to profile" sRGB).
I also have switched to "Full Color Management" Value 1 (hidden) in Firefox 3.6 so that Firefox now assumes any untagged image is sRGB standard and then converts those, and all other images which ARE tagged, to my calibrated monitor profile. This definitely looks to me like the way to operate with a wide-gamut monitor although I understand it is still recommended to always tag images for posting as sRGB and not embed any other profile for color consistency over color accuracy. At least if there are some out there with wider-gamut tags, I should get some benefit.
Have I got it right ?
Thanks,
Jeff

Wide gamut monitors and prepping files for website

This question is for those who are colour management savvy and understand the issues with prepping sRGB profiled files for the web. I thought I was pretty good at this stuff, but found out I'm not as good as I thought....
Problem - prepping my images for my own website using a wide gamut monitor (NEC 2690 with SpectraView calibrating software).
Issue - when viewing said images after placing in website, on wide gamut monitor, reds are over saturated and colour not as it was in prepped file. My "other" monitor is a laptop screen (profiled, but still......). I do need to get an sRGB monitor (the NEC "regular" 24" or an Apple), but funds are tight right now.
I'm pretty sure all my workflow is good - profiled monitor (gamma 2.2), colour settings in Photoshop (I change over to n. American web/internet work space when prepping files for web), converting files to sRGB etc.
It's when I go to Save For Web.
I am embedding the ICC profile (for Safari and Firefox users), but when previewing the image in the browser (Safari) the image is as described above - over saturated in the reds etc. It looks the same after load onto my website and viewing in colour managed browser (Safari and Firefox).
Is this simply an issue of the wide gamut monitor "stretching" the available sRGB numbers to fit the (almost) aRGB space on the monitor?
Or is this something to do with the Monitor RGB (or is that the same thing......)????
Or am I missing something else???
any explanation of what is happening from a colour management point of view - and how best to deal with it - would be greatly appreciated. Also any books/articles/threads.
Thanks!
Oh yes, I'm using CS3.

I'm using the Spider Pro to calibrate my monitor and everything looks great in Photoshop, Illustrator and Firefox 3.5 with color management turned on. But the lack of color management in Fireworks is still a problem because I'm not seeing the colors the way they will look on most people's monitors. I can't design unless I can see what most people will be seeing.
Fireworks should be using that ICC profile that my calibrator generated but instead its sending the colors to the monitor raw. This is what's causing the over-saturation. This really is quite unacceptable.

Windows, wide-gamut does Safari Convert to monitor profile?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for