Is Your Browser Color Managed?

[gray_wolf]

Interesting but page is 5 years old

https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 02:12:41 -0500, gray_wolf <g_w...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Interesting but page is 5 years old
>
>https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/

My browser is Firefox and I believe it is color managed.

My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was
written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1 to
manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be fairly
accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose for them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[dale]

On 5/19/17 3:12 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
> Interesting but page is 5 years old
>
> https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/

doesn't W3C assume sRGB?

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 12:26:45 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 5/19/17 3:12 AM, gray_wolf wrote:
>> Interesting but page is 5 years old
>>
>> https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/
>
>doesn't W3C assume sRGB?

That can be expected to change with the coming flood of wider gamut
monitors onto the market.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <nbtuhcdi7srcm7l6e...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>
> >> https://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/
> >
> >doesn't W3C assume sRGB?
>
> That can be expected to change with the coming flood of wider gamut
> monitors onto the market.

coming? the floodgates have been open for a while.

hundreds of millions of devices with wide gamut displays are already
out there, with more appearing every single day.

[dale]

RIMM and ERIMM are available to them ..., leads to the same workflow as
sRGB without a display profile selection, in addition to a compromise
default

if you are going to rework the whole thing, may as well use an
appearance model, would be nice if ICC standardized light boxes/etc.

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| My browser is Firefox and I believe it is color managed.
|

Still a small factor, I think. People have different
OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings...
If a page depends on the browser recognizing color
profiles then the webmaster doesn't know what
they're doing. Webpages are simply not designed
for that kind of precision. Nor are computers, for
that matter. It's one thing to calibrate your own
computer to your printer. It's another to expect
that you can pass on that accuracy to someone
else's machine.

Interestingly, when I first went to that page I
saw the yellow car. I then tried changing the Firefox
pref for gfx.color_management.mode, trying to
figure out what prefs might affect the display, but
nothing changed. Actually, I tried the setting to
always apply color management. Today I see the
purple car in both Firefox and Pale Moon. Yet it
was only in PM that I made any settings change
in the first place, and I later changed that back
to the setting to only apply color management for
tagged images.

I also see a purple car when I download the image
and view it with various software. The author didn't
explain how the purple vs yellow shows. When I look
at the image bytes I see a simple JFIF, no EXIF data.

[nospam]

In article <ofpv9v$3t7$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | My browser is Firefox and I believe it is color managed.
> |
>
> Still a small factor, I think. People have different
> OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings...

exactly the problem that colour management solves.

> If a page depends on the browser recognizing color
> profiles then the webmaster doesn't know what
> they're doing.

nonsense.

it show that the webmaster *does* know what they're doing and that they
want people to see accurate images, which is why the images have
embedded profiles.

> Webpages are simply not designed
> for that kind of precision.

your webpages might not be, but plenty are.

> Nor are computers, for
> that matter.

nonsense.

> It's one thing to calibrate your own
> computer to your printer.

and the wrong way to do it.

> It's another to expect
> that you can pass on that accuracy to someone
> else's machine.

something which works quite well.

[dale]

On 5/20/17 1:47 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> I also see a purple car when I download the image
> and view it with various software. The author didn't
> explain how the purple vs yellow shows. When I look
> at the image bytes I see a simple JFIF, no EXIF data.

png and tiff support embedded profiles

might be nice to embed abstract profiles of the edits, in addition, that
way you always have the original to purpose otherwise

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[dale]

might be a good archival solution

--
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 13:47:12 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote
>
>| My browser is Firefox and I believe it is color managed.
>|
>
> Still a small factor, I think. People have different
>OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings...

Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote:

"My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was
written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1
to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be
fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose
for them."

My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them.

>If a page depends on the browser recognizing color
>profiles then the webmaster doesn't know what
>they're doing. Webpages are simply not designed
>for that kind of precision.

Of course not! Any old splash of color will do.

>Nor are computers, for
>that matter. It's one thing to calibrate your own
>computer to your printer.

You are giving a very strong impression of somebody who has not even
the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. Only a complete
innocent would try to get their printer colors right by doing things
to their computer. They do things *with* their computer so as to send
the correct color signals to their printer. This requires that first
the printer, the paper in use and the ink, be used to derive a color
profile for the printing.

>It's another to expect
>that you can pass on that accuracy to someone
>else's machine.

Of course you can, if that other machine is properly calibrated and
color managed.

>
> Interestingly, when I first went to that page I
>saw the yellow car. I then tried changing the Firefox
>pref for gfx.color_management.mode, trying to
>figure out what prefs might affect the display, but
>nothing changed. Actually, I tried the setting to
>always apply color management. Today I see the
>purple car in both Firefox and Pale Moon. Yet it
>was only in PM that I made any settings change
>in the first place, and I later changed that back
>to the setting to only apply color management for
>tagged images.

Your problem is that you don't understand what you are doing. Fiddling
with settings is not the answer.

>
> I also see a purple car when I download the image
>and view it with various software. The author didn't
>explain how the purple vs yellow shows. When I look
>at the image bytes I see a simple JFIF, no EXIF data.
>

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| > Still a small factor, I think. People have different
| >OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings...
|
| Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote:
|
| "My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was
| written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1
| to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be
| fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose
| for them."
|
| My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them.
|

I wasn't talking about that. My point was the
part that *you* snipped. :)

"It's one thing to calibrate your own

computer to your printer. It's another to expect

that you can pass on that accuracy to someone
else's machine."

In other words, when dealing with graphics on your
own machine, calibration is relevant. When dealing
with webpages or transferring graphics, one just
has to settle for a range. Browser, OS, monitor,
settings, graphics driver, a and of course a person's
vision will all affect what's seen. You can only adjust
for your own view. (Most monitors I see default to
too much saturation and too bright. I don't know why.
I'm guessing the device companies are trying to wow
customers with "richness".)

Years ago there were web-safe colors to attempt
some kind of standard. Everyone agreed they'd try
to do their best to have those colors show the same
on all machines. They were the hex codes made up
of 00 33 66 99 CC FF. (0033FF, CC6699, etc) The
idea was that if you stuck with only those colors
you could sorta, kinda depend on people viewing your
webpage all seeing about the same colors. But even
that was just an approximation. Color is also relative
to lighting, surrounding colors, etc. Cream next to
orange looks white, while next to white it looks yellow.
Which is the real color?

So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices
in order to print accurately what you see on your
monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once
you send images to others, who view them on other
devices, all bets are off.

[nospam]

In article <ofr0cm$11f$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices
> in order to print accurately what you see on your
> monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once
> you send images to others, who view them on other
> devices, all bets are off.

what you're saying is wrong.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 23:11:50 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote
>
>| > Still a small factor, I think. People have different
>| >OSs, different monitors, different monitor settings...
>|
>| Why did you write that, even after snipping the bit where I wrote:
>|
>| "My monitors have been color magaed since before that article was
>| written - except for now while I wait for the necessary X-Rite i1
>| to manage my new monitors. Nevertheless, I believe them to be
>| fairly accurately managed for whatevere color profile I may choose
>| for them."
>|
>| My monitor settings are as close to right as I can get them.
>|
>
> I wasn't talking about that. My point was the
>part that *you* snipped. :)
>
>"It's one thing to calibrate your own
>computer to your printer. It's another to expect
>that you can pass on that accuracy to someone
>else's machine."

I diodn't snip that. Its there in my reply. You can't see it in your
current reply because *you* snipped it.

>
> In other words, when dealing with graphics on your
>own machine, calibration is relevant. When dealing
>with webpages or transferring graphics, one just
>has to settle for a range. Browser, OS, monitor,
>settings, graphics driver, a and of course a person's
>vision will all affect what's seen. You can only adjust
>for your own view. (Most monitors I see default to
>too much saturation and too bright. I don't know why.
>I'm guessing the device companies are trying to wow
>customers with "richness".)

Thats why devices such as http://www.datacolor.com/photography-design/
and http://tinyurl.com/lolsetm exist.

>
> Years ago there were web-safe colors to attempt
>some kind of standard. Everyone agreed they'd try
>to do their best to have those colors show the same
>on all machines. They were the hex codes made up
>of 00 33 66 99 CC FF. (0033FF, CC6699, etc) The
>idea was that if you stuck with only those colors
>you could sorta, kinda depend on people viewing your
>webpage all seeing about the same colors. But even
>that was just an approximation. Color is also relative
>to lighting, surrounding colors, etc. Cream next to
>orange looks white, while next to white it looks yellow.
>Which is the real color?

Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many
devices could only display 256 colors. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#Web-safe_colors

>
> So what I'm saying is, you can calibrate your devices
>in order to print accurately what you see on your
>monitor, but that's the only relevant calibration. Once
>you send images to others, who view them on other
>devices, all bets are off.

First, we are talking about photography, for which web colours are not
sufficient. Second all bets are off if you are sufficiently behind the
times to be not using a color-managed work flow with the color
profiles of calibrated equipment. See
http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Guide_to_Color_Management.jpg
and
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/color_managed_raw_workflow.pdf
>
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many
| devices could only display 256 colors.

That was meant as an example of the problems
with online rendering to a wide variety of hardware
and software.

| First, we are talking about photography, for which web colours are not
| sufficient. Second all bets are off if you are sufficiently behind the
| times to be not using a color-managed work flow with the color
| profiles of calibrated equipment.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We're not talking
about photography. Did you read the original link?
It's all about trying to get accurate display
*in browsers*, and specifically about the possible
advantage of using color profiles with images. In
the course of the article, the author demonstrates
how even different browsers, given the same
conditions (same OS, color management,
monitor, etc) can actually render different hues
for the exact same color value.
(See the rows of smaller images halfway down the
page. He's pointing out that even with browsers
that handle color management, the actual hues
rendered may vary.)

I was reinforcing the article, stressing that browser
display of images, or any colors, on websites is never
exact and trying to make it so is futile. It's like sharing
a recipe and trying to ensure your friend ends up tasting
exactly what you taste. You can suggest where to buy
each ingredient. You can specify what stove to use....
But that quickly becomes untenable. And even if your
friend matches your process exactly, he might have a
cold when he eats the end result and complain that
your recipe is bland.

The article author suggests recommending to Windows
users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
Good luck with that, as the saying goes. It's roughly
analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.

I ran into a related issue last week, which I
commented on in SD's thread of Yosemite pictures. His
images seemed slightly blurred. I download one for a closer
look and loaded it in IrfanView. It looked better. So
I lined up IV and Firefox next to each other onscreen.
The Firefox version was noticeably less saturated
and less sharp. I don't know how it does that. The
images are identical. Essentially they're bitmaps, grids
of pixel values. If the value of the 3rd pixel down and
3rd pixel across is, say, B6C8DE (pale sky blue) then
when the software calls Windows to paint that pixel
onscreen it seems that it should always display the
same way on the same screen. But it doesn't. I can
see that if I retrieve the color of that pixel it won't
be B6C8DE. It will be entirely different. Maybe
something like C6D3E1! The only explanation I can think
of is that the Mozilla people are doing some kind of
second-guessing calculation with the colors.

So you can adjust between devices on your end, so
that your printer gives you what you see onscreen, but
once you share an image with others, you can't control
the variations in what they see. Thus, all bets are off. :)

|
http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Guide_to_Color_Management.jpg

As I said, you're talking about hardware there and
I'm not arguing with you. The OP was about rendering
in browsers. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly.

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| what you're saying is wrong.

Ah. A most fascinating, informative and well argued point. :)

[nospam]

In article <ofs1be$m6b$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many
> | devices could only display 256 colors.
>
> That was meant as an example of the problems
> with online rendering to a wide variety of hardware
> and software.

not a very good example, since it doesn't apply for several reasons.

> | First, we are talking about photography, for which web colours are not
> | sufficient. Second all bets are off if you are sufficiently behind the
> | times to be not using a color-managed work flow with the color
> | profiles of calibrated equipment.
>
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We're not talking
> about photography.

note which newsgroup this thread is in.

> Did you read the original link?
> It's all about trying to get accurate display
> *in browsers*, and specifically about the possible
> advantage of using color profiles with images. In
> the course of the article, the author demonstrates
> how even different browsers, given the same
> conditions (same OS, color management,
> monitor, etc) can actually render different hues
> for the exact same color value.

that's the very problem colour management solves.

> (See the rows of smaller images halfway down the
> page. He's pointing out that even with browsers
> that handle color management, the actual hues
> rendered may vary.)

the link has been snipped so i don't know what images you're
referencing, but you're probably not understanding what it is you're
looking at, along with colour management in general.

> I was reinforcing the article, stressing that browser
> display of images, or any colors, on websites is never
> exact and trying to make it so is futile.

it's not futile at all. in fact, it's rather straightforward.

while the results may not be 'exact' between multiple browsers (or
other apps, nothing special about a browser) they can be close enough
to where the images are indistinguishable, outside of pixel peeping,
and even then, the differences would be minor.

> It's like sharing
> a recipe and trying to ensure your friend ends up tasting
> exactly what you taste. You can suggest where to buy
> each ingredient. You can specify what stove to use....
> But that quickly becomes untenable. And even if your
> friend matches your process exactly, he might have a
> cold when he eats the end result and complain that
> your recipe is bland.

no. it's not like that at all.

> The article author suggests recommending to Windows
> users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
> Good luck with that, as the saying goes.

clearly an outdated article, since safari for windows has long been
discontinued.

you clearly don't understand the reason why safari was suggested, which
is because safari uses embedded profiles.

its also not the only browser that does that, so therefore it's not
required.

> It's roughly
> analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.

nope. not even close to that.

> I ran into a related issue last week, which I
> commented on in SD's thread of Yosemite pictures. His
> images seemed slightly blurred. I download one for a closer
> look and loaded it in IrfanView. It looked better. So
> I lined up IV and Firefox next to each other onscreen.
> The Firefox version was noticeably less saturated
> and less sharp. I don't know how it does that. The
> images are identical. Essentially they're bitmaps, grids
> of pixel values. If the value of the 3rd pixel down and
> 3rd pixel across is, say, B6C8DE (pale sky blue) then
> when the software calls Windows to paint that pixel
> onscreen it seems that it should always display the
> same way on the same screen. But it doesn't. I can
> see that if I retrieve the color of that pixel it won't
> be B6C8DE. It will be entirely different. Maybe
> something like C6D3E1! The only explanation I can think
> of is that the Mozilla people are doing some kind of
> second-guessing calculation with the colors.

they aren't guessing at all.

more than likely, they're applying a colour profile.

however, that doesn't explain the blurriness you describe, which could
be due to the image being poorly resized to fit into the browser
window.

> So you can adjust between devices on your end, so
> that your printer gives you what you see onscreen, but
> once you share an image with others, you can't control
> the variations in what they see. Thus, all bets are off. :)

completely and utterly wrong.

> http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Guide_to_Color_Management.jpg
>
> As I said, you're talking about hardware there

other than a colour puck to do the calibration, no.

> and
> I'm not arguing with you.

you certainly aren't agreeing with him or anyone else.

> The OP was about rendering
> in browsers. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly.

you don't have a point to make.

you don't understand colour management *at* *all* nor do you want to
learn about it.

[nospam]

In article <ofs430$v0m$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | what you're saying is wrong.
>
> Ah. A most fascinating, informative and well argued point. :)

several people have already explained why you're wrong, and i just did
so again in another post.

tl;dr you haven't a clue about colour management.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 08:34:23 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote
>
>| Web-safe colors are *ancient*. They date from the days when many
>| devices could only display 256 colors.
>
> That was meant as an example of the problems
>with online rendering to a wide variety of hardware
>and software.
>
>| First, we are talking about photography, for which web colours are not
>| sufficient. Second all bets are off if you are sufficiently behind the
>| times to be not using a color-managed work flow with the color
>| profiles of calibrated equipment.
>
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We're not talking
>about photography. Did you read the original link?

I did, and it was discussing photographs and it even contained
photographs which were the subject of discussion.

>It's all about trying to get accurate display
>*in browsers*, and specifically about the possible
>advantage of using color profiles with images.

And it shows what you get when you put up an image with no ICC profile
- which that test image lacks.

>In
>the course of the article, the author demonstrates
>how even different browsers, given the same
>conditions (same OS, color management,
>monitor, etc) can actually render different hues
>for the exact same color value.

Which is why images should contain color profiles if you want accurate
reproduction of colours.

> (See the rows of smaller images halfway down the
>page. He's pointing out that even with browsers
>that handle color management, the actual hues
>rendered may vary.)
>
> I was reinforcing the article, stressing that browser
>display of images, or any colors, on websites is never
>exact and trying to make it so is futile. It's like sharing
>a recipe and trying to ensure your friend ends up tasting
>exactly what you taste. You can suggest where to buy
>each ingredient. You can specify what stove to use....
>But that quickly becomes untenable. And even if your
>friend matches your process exactly, he might have a
>cold when he eats the end result and complain that
>your recipe is bland.
>
> The article author suggests recommending to Windows
>users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
>Good luck with that, as the saying goes. It's roughly
>analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.

That advice is many years out of date. My web browser (Firefox) is
color managed, my screens have been color calibrated for nearly 10
years and Windows has had one form of color management or another
since 1995.

>
> I ran into a related issue last week, which I
>commented on in SD's thread of Yosemite pictures. His
>images seemed slightly blurred. I download one for a closer
>look and loaded it in IrfanView. It looked better. So
>I lined up IV and Firefox next to each other onscreen.
>The Firefox version was noticeably less saturated
>and less sharp. I don't know how it does that. The
>images are identical. Essentially they're bitmaps, grids
>of pixel values. If the value of the 3rd pixel down and
>3rd pixel across is, say, B6C8DE (pale sky blue) then
>when the software calls Windows to paint that pixel
>onscreen it seems that it should always display the
>same way on the same screen. But it doesn't. I can
>see that if I retrieve the color of that pixel it won't
>be B6C8DE. It will be entirely different. Maybe
>something like C6D3E1! The only explanation I can think
>of is that the Mozilla people are doing some kind of
>second-guessing calculation with the colors.

Firefox is fully color managed and SD will be able to confirm whether
or not he included a color profile with his picture. And don't forget
you have Dropbox in between.

>
> So you can adjust between devices on your end, so
>that your printer gives you what you see onscreen, but
>once you share an image with others, you can't control
>the variations in what they see. Thus, all bets are off. :)
>
>|
>http://www.brotherjet.com/support/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Guide_to_Color_Management.jpg
>
> As I said, you're talking about hardware there and
>I'm not arguing with you. The OP was about rendering
>in browsers. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clearly.
>

I've been talking about rendering in browser also.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <oea4icpjphon9i3b7...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> > The article author suggests recommending to Windows
> >users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
> >Good luck with that, as the saying goes. It's roughly
> >analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.
>
> That advice is many years out of date. My web browser (Firefox) is
> color managed, my screens have been color calibrated for nearly 10
> years and Windows has had one form of color management or another
> since 1995.

what form was it in 1995?
wikipedia says 1997, 4 years after macos did.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management#Operating_system_level>
Apple's classic Mac OS and macOS operating systems have provided
OS-level color management APIs since 1993, through ColorSync.

Since 1997 color management in Windows is available through an ICC
color management system (ICM).

As of 2005, most web browsers ignored color profiles. Notable
exceptions were Safari, starting with version 2.0, and Firefox
starting with version 3. Although disabled by default in Firefox 3.0,
ICC v2 and ICC v4 color management could be enable by using an
add-on or setting a configuration option.

As of 2012, notable browser support for color management is:
€ Firefox: from version 3.5 enabled by default for ICC v2 tagged
images, version 8.0 has ICC v4 profiles support, but it needs
to be activated manually.
€ Internet Explorer: version 9 is the first Microsoft browser to
partly support ICC profiles, but it does not render images correctly
according to the Windows ICC settings (it only converts non-sRGB
images to the sRGB profile) and therefore provides no real color
management at all.
€ Google Chrome: uses the system provided ICC v2 and v4 support on
macOS, and from version 22 supports ICC v2 profiles by default on
other platforms.
€ Safari: has support starting with version 2.0.
€ Opera: has support since 12.10 for ICC v4.
€ Pale Moon supported ICC v2 from its first release, and v4 since
Pale Moon 20.2 (2013).

looks like mayayana's pet browser is colour managed and he doesn't even
know it.

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 20:43:10 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <oea4icpjphon9i3b7...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> > The article author suggests recommending to Windows
>> >users that they install Safari before viewing your photos.
>> >Good luck with that, as the saying goes. It's roughly
>> >analogous to telling your friend what stove to use.
>>
>> That advice is many years out of date. My web browser (Firefox) is
>> color managed, my screens have been color calibrated for nearly 10
>> years and Windows has had one form of color management or another
>> since 1995.
>
>what form was it in 1995?
>wikipedia says 1997, 4 years after macos did.

I was relying on
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms969981.aspx which says:

"Microsoft Corporation's first implementation of color management
support was released in the Microsoft® Windows® 95 operating system
as Integrated Color Management (ICM) 1.0, an API to which
third-party applications can write. This version of ICM was
designed to address the needs of applications that work with RGB,
to work seamlessly for the end user, and to enable simple support
from application developers."

Windows 95 was of course released on Aug 24 1995.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| >In
| >the course of the article, the author demonstrates
| >how even different browsers, given the same
| >conditions (same OS, color management,
| >monitor, etc) can actually render different hues
| >for the exact same color value.
|
| Which is why images should contain color profiles if you want accurate
| reproduction of colours.
|

I'll try one more time to clarify this because it's
an important point. Even if you don't get it, some
people will.

As I said, the article is pointing
out that *even with color management and use of
profiles* there will be differences in display between
browsers. He even shows a sample image, illustrating
his main point, that you just can't control what other
people see.

From the description below that image:

"Note that even the browsers that recognize nonstandard color profiles don't
all implement the monitor color profile the same way, with each successive
browser bringing up the black levels (and IE9 really pumps the
saturation!)."

And browsers are just one factor.
You're applying the logic of calibrating hardware
to the vagaries of software. Yes, you can use
color management to coordinate your printer with
your monitor. But you cannot, no matter how hard
you try, control what other people see when they
view your photo.

Even if you insisted that all recipients calibrate
their hardware before they can view your images,
which obviously wouldn't be realistic, you still can't
be sure of what they'll see. (And that, of course, still
doesn't take into account variations in color perception
between people. I'm, only pointing out software
differences here, which is a relatively small part of
the equation.)

| Firefox is fully color managed and SD will be able to confirm whether
| or not he included a color profile with his picture. And don't forget
| you have Dropbox in between.

That wasn't the point of that example. I was
pointing out that the same image was showing
differently in 2 different programs on the same
computer. Dropbox is not "in between". I viewed
the Dropbox-derived image in Firefox and then
right-click-saved it to disk to view it in IrfanView.
Neither image came directly from SD. They're the
same file.
They looked different, and it wasn't a color issue.
I can't explain it. The only thing I can think of is
that maybe Firefox is using its own graphics libraries
and, for some reason, adjusting display. Normally
software would be sending image pixel values to
the screen using the Windows GDI library. There
shouldn't be any difference. A pixel is a pixel.

Maybe it's me, but anyone on Windows can test
this easily enough. You could download his
DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think. Maybe
they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
saturation and sharpness clearly look different
to me. You're not curious to know whether different
software might convey such differences? (Probably
having nothing to do with color management.)

I think part of the issue here is that people who
do work on computers would like to think that digital
work can be made relatively immutable. It just
doesn't work that way. Office people like to think
that PDFs and DOCs are immutable vehicles for
copyrighted material. They're not. Photographers
would like to think that JPGs are relatively immutable
vehicles for their photos. They're not. That's just
how the medium works. The JPG graphic image data
is just a grid of numeric pixel values. Graphic editing
is just the most obvious example of how mutable the
image is.

Of course, printed media are not so immutable as
they seem, either. Your photo will look different
under glass than without; different under halogen
light than under daylight; different to each person;
different depending on the direction light is coming
from; different due to the colors used for the mat
and frame. We imagine a physical print is immutable
because it's a physical object. But even our color
perception is just an approximation. We don't have
cones for perceiving yellow, for example. Which is
why it's so hard to get a pure yellow that doesn't
tip toward green or red. Because yellow itself is
a relationship between the greens and reds that
our eye registers. And probably everyone has had
the experience of viewing a flag and then staring
at a white wall to see a flag in opposing colors.
Those colors are not there. They exist only as a
quirk of our physiology.

[Eric Stevens]

Is your computer screen calibrated?

Do you have the necessary plugins?

>
> Maybe it's me, but anyone on Windows can test
>this easily enough. You could download his
>DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think.

I would like to but I can't find the original link.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

Since that is my JPEG, I am happy to oblige;
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg>

>> Maybe
>> they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
>> saturation and sharpness clearly look different
>> to me. You're not curious to know whether different
>> software might convey such differences? (Probably
>> having nothing to do with color management.)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <og6lcv$iok$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> As I said, the article is pointing
> out that *even with color management and use of
> profiles* there will be differences in display between
> browsers. He even shows a sample image, illustrating
> his main point, that you just can't control what other
> people see.

only if the browsers aren't colour managed.

>
> And browsers are just one factor.
> You're applying the logic of calibrating hardware
> to the vagaries of software.

browsers are software. it could be an image viewer, photo editor or
some other app. doesn't matter.

> Yes, you can use
> color management to coordinate your printer with
> your monitor.

you can, but that's a bad idea and not how it should be done.

it also indicates that you don't understand colour management.

> But you cannot, no matter how hard
> you try, control what other people see when they
> view your photo.

while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you
absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across
multiple devices.

> Even if you insisted that all recipients calibrate
> their hardware before they can view your images,
> which obviously wouldn't be realistic, you still can't
> be sure of what they'll see.

wrong.

> (And that, of course, still
> doesn't take into account variations in color perception
> between people. I'm, only pointing out software
> differences here, which is a relatively small part of
> the equation.)

people perceive colours in the same way.

if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.

> They looked different, and it wasn't a color issue.
> I can't explain it. The only thing I can think of is
> that maybe Firefox is using its own graphics libraries
> and, for some reason, adjusting display. Normally
> software would be sending image pixel values to
> the screen using the Windows GDI library. There
> shouldn't be any difference. A pixel is a pixel.

one app is colour managed and the other isn't. simple as that.

add in your lack of understanding of colour management and you end up
with a complete mess.

> Maybe it's me,

it is.

> but anyone on Windows can test
> this easily enough. You could download his
> DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think. Maybe
> they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
> saturation and sharpness clearly look different
> to me. You're not curious to know whether different
> software might convey such differences? (Probably
> having nothing to do with color management.)

a difference in sharpness is due to a shitty resizing algorithm in one
(possibly both) of the apps.

saturation is a colour management issue.

[PeterN]

True

>
>> Even if you insisted that all recipients calibrate
>> their hardware before they can view your images,
>> which obviously wouldn't be realistic, you still can't
>> be sure of what they'll see.
>
> wrong.

See below

>
>> (And that, of course, still
>> doesn't take into account variations in color perception
>> between people. I'm, only pointing out software
>> differences here, which is a relatively small part of
>> the equation.)
>
> people perceive colours in the same way.
>
> if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
> bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.
>

Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
just as taste, and hearing do.
<http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html>

>
>> They looked different, and it wasn't a color issue.
>> I can't explain it. The only thing I can think of is
>> that maybe Firefox is using its own graphics libraries
>> and, for some reason, adjusting display. Normally
>> software would be sending image pixel values to
>> the screen using the Windows GDI library. There
>> shouldn't be any difference. A pixel is a pixel.
>
> one app is colour managed and the other isn't. simple as that.
>
> add in your lack of understanding of colour management and you end up
> with a complete mess.
>
>> Maybe it's me,
>
> it is.
>
>> but anyone on Windows can test
>> this easily enough. You could download his
>> DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think. Maybe
>> they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
>> saturation and sharpness clearly look different
>> to me. You're not curious to know whether different
>> software might convey such differences? (Probably
>> having nothing to do with color management.)
>
> a difference in sharpness is due to a shitty resizing algorithm in one
> (possibly both) of the apps.
>
> saturation is a colour management issue.
>

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <og7vb...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN

<"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:

> >
> >> (And that, of course, still
> >> doesn't take into account variations in color perception
> >> between people. I'm, only pointing out software
> >> differences here, which is a relatively small part of
> >> the equation.)
> >
> > people perceive colours in the same way.
> >
> > if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
> > bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.
>
> Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
> just as taste, and hearing do.

nope. this was well established long ago not to be true.

> <http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html>

In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells

duh. they need a study to figure out that infecting some of the cells
in an eye will affect perception?

the fact remains that people with normal vision see colours the same.

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| > As I said, the article is pointing
| > out that *even with color management and use of
| > profiles* there will be differences in display between
| > browsers. He even shows a sample image, illustrating
| > his main point, that you just can't control what other
| > people see.
|
| only if the browsers aren't colour managed.
|

You just snipped the quote making exactly the
opposite point. Read the article and look at the
comparison pictures. 3 yellow cars, all different
hues. 3 different color-managing browsers. Why
is this simple point so hard to grasp?

[Mayayana]

"PeterN" <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote

| Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
| just as taste, and hearing do.
| <http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html>
|

That's one of several uncontrollable factors that
I was trying to point out to Eric. I used to have a
friend who took up painting and was surprisingly
good at it. He was doing still life. I said I though his
work was very good, but didn't understand why his
pears were purple and various other things had been
painted the wrong colors. It turned out he was color
blind and had never known it. Yet his paintings were
beautifully done, looking very realistic. He just wasn't
painting the colors that other people saw. It was
intriguing, but he was embarassed by the whole thing
and stopped painting, so I never had a chance to
figure out how he was painting so right and so wrong
at the same time.
Up until that point, it never would have occurred
to me, if I said something like, "Isn't that a beautiful
coral?", that he was actually seeing a very different
color. And what does that mean? Does he see something
equally exquisite but more like frog green? I don't know.
Where would be the objective vantage point to decide?
Is green to him the same as green to me? Or does it
"feel" like coral?

[nospam]

In article <og815j$27c$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

looks like *you* need to reread it, and also read a book or two on
colour management.

start with real world colour management:
<http://colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/>

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you
| absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across
| multiple devices.
|

No, you can't. As the article shows, even if you
use color management on your own devices, IE may
show a different image from Firefox. (That's the quote
you snipped. If you want to disagree with the author
that's one thing, but you could at least read the
article we're talking about.)

But getting back to the original point, I wasn't
questioning the value of color management locally.
I was only saying that once it comes to the Web
the idea of controlling what people see is not realistic.
The author mentions that sRGB should be used for
the Web. So what value does color management in
the browser have, unless you're viewing something
like a friend's art photographs with an embedded
color profile other than sRGB?

A real world example:

Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He
takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera.
He then decides to post some online for family to see.
First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the
pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to
save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does
he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default?
So why embed an sRGB profile?

Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress
and he's got a picture of that to post. But something's
wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there
seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look
cranberry. So he adjusts the hue.

So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a
limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way
he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by
saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want
to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts
to something like Dropbox, they might further compress
or shrink for the same reason.

Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in
several ways from the original shot. What advantage did
color management give him? It helped to ensure that he
saw on his monitor the most accurate possible colors
as captured by the camera. Whatever those are. He
thought Susan's dress needed to be altered. Was that
a problem with his eyesight? Or was the shot tinged?
Or was he so taken by Susan's behind that he imagined,
in "hindsight", let's say, that her dress was brighter than
it actually was?

No matter. The image goes online. Now 20 family members
see it. It's unlikely that even one of those people has
installed the color profile for their monitor, much less
calibrated their monitor with an external device. They
have different browsers, different eyes, different OSs,
different monitors. They're all looking at a notably
downgraded version of an altered photo of Susan's
dress. What purpose did it serve that Eric calibrated
his monitor? Almost none. It only helped him to get
the colors he wanted for his own eyes, on his own
computer, as he looked at the image of Susan colored
by his own imagination of what he saw at the party. And
as the article author pointed out, even on his machine,
his color managed browser is probably not showing him
the exact same colors that Photoshop is showing him.

Then his cousin Ed writes and says, "Nice pictures.
But how did Susan's orange dress come out red?"
Where's the discrepancy? It's anyone's guess.

You're trying to achieve an absolute objectivity where
none exists. With color management locally you can
achieve some degree of correlation, but you can't
translate that to other devices and software, and
on the Web you've already settled for a relatively
low quality image where exact color matching is not
very relevant.

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| > You just snipped the quote making exactly the
| > opposite point. Read the article and look at the
| > comparison pictures. 3 yellow cars, all different
| > hues. 3 different color-managing browsers. Why
| > is this simple point so hard to grasp?
|
| looks like *you* need to reread it

Yet another informative, insightful and well-argued
point. You're a fountain of enlightenment. :)

[nospam]

In article <og83j8$6os$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you
> | absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across
> | multiple devices.
> |
> No, you can't.

you clearly can't, but others sure as hell can.

> As the article shows, even if you
> use color management on your own devices, IE may
> show a different image from Firefox. (That's the quote
> you snipped. If you want to disagree with the author
> that's one thing, but you could at least read the
> article we're talking about.)

only slightly, and that's because ie uses a different cme.

the point of the article, which you still don't understand, is that the
yellow cars are yellow and not purple.

> But getting back to the original point, I wasn't
> questioning the value of color management locally.
> I was only saying that once it comes to the Web
> the idea of controlling what people see is not realistic.

again, the word you want is not 'control' and it's absolutely is

realistic.

> The author mentions that sRGB should be used for
> the Web. So what value does color management in
> the browser have, unless you're viewing something
> like a friend's art photographs with an embedded
> color profile other than sRGB?

historically, srgb has been suggested for the web because most people
*aren't* colour managed.

however, a significant number of people have a calibrated workflow
(particularly photo pros and enthusiasts) and/or a a wide gamut display
(possibly more than one), therefore they can benefit from images that
are *not* srgb.

> A real world example:

one that you made up, so it's not real world.

> Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He
> takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera.
> He then decides to post some online for family to see.
> First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the
> pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to
> save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does
> he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default?
> So why embed an sRGB profile?

actually, knowing what software he uses, he's likely going to work with
melissa, possibly converting for the masses, although he might export
as something better.

and i'm quite sure you won't grok what i meant. others, however, will,
particularly eric.

> Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress

yes, she certainly was.

> and he's got a picture of that to post.

so does everyone else. :)

> But something's
> wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there
> seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look
> cranberry. So he adjusts the hue.

this is where you go off the rails.

> So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a
> limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way
> he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by
> saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want
> to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts
> to something like Dropbox, they might further compress
> or shrink for the same reason.

jpg doesn't necessarily mean dithered, nor is it about intentionally
downgrading images.

> Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in
> several ways from the original shot. What advantage did
> color management give him?

accurate colours, for everyone viewing the photos.

the rest of your silly made up story snipped.

go read a book or two on colour management and try to learn something
for a change.

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article <og83j8$6os$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>
> > while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you
> > absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across
> > multiple devices.
> No, you can't. As the article shows, even if you
> use color management on your own devices, IE may
> show a different image from Firefox. (That's the quote
> you snipped. If you want to disagree with the author
> that's one thing, but you could at least read the
> article we're talking about.)

Let’s start with the understanding that none of us, not even the most
fastidious of the color managed workflow fiends among us, can control the
viewing environment an online shared image is viewed on. It is of no
consequence if the image is viewed on a smart phone, a tablet, a Mac, or a
WIN machine, regardless of viewing software. If the creator of the image
edits with a color managed workflow, he/she should be confident that he/she
has shared an image faithful to his/her intentions.

Producing prints faithful to the edited/adjusted intent, is a totally
different proposition and shouldn’t be a part of this particular
discussion. Perhaps we can return to that as a separate subject, even though
it has been discussed in this NG many times before.

>
> But getting back to the original point, I wasn't
> questioning the value of color management locally.
> I was only saying that once it comes to the Web
> the idea of controlling what people see is not realistic.
> The author mentions that sRGB should be used for
> the Web. So what value does color management in
> the browser have, unless you're viewing something
> like a friend's art photographs with an embedded
> color profile other than sRGB?
>
> A real world example:

A real world example for me would entail shooting in RAW, adjusting and
editing that RAW file using LR, or ACR+PS in ProPhoto RGB, or one or another
of the apps I might be using. Once the edit/adjustment was complete to my
satisfaction I would export using the export dialog of the controlling
software. That is usually an export to JPEG with sRGB embedded.

When shared online I know for most, that the recipient’s OS + browser of
choice, and monitor used is not going to make an awkward extrapolation from
Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto RGB to sRGB. The image delivered should be consistent
with my intent. However, I can’t be responsible for an uncalibrated monitor
at the receiving end, so if the online viewer reports an inconsitancy he/she
perceives, I can make a reasonable assumption that there might well be an
issue with their viewing environment, not mine.

When it comes to me viewing an image/artwork, I have no idea of the workflow
they employ, the colorspace they used for editing/adjustments, or the
colorspace they used for the shared file. If they used something other than
sRGB there is a possibility that the results I see might have some
inconsistencies, if I’m lucky they might not. What I know for sure is the
browsers I use, Safari, and Chrome are going to deliver an sRGB image which
might choke on a file with wider gamut colorspace. It might be OK, or it
might be awful.

> Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He
> takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera.
> He then decides to post some online for family to see.
> First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the
> pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to
> save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does
> he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default?
> So why embed an sRGB profile?

You convert to sRGBfrom a wide gamut colorspace, and embed it because sRGB is
going to be the default for the recipient, and if A-RGB or ProPhoto RGB is
delivered there is a good possiblity all sorts of inconsistancies will be
seen. Most likely banding rather than serious color discrepancies.

>
> Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress
> and he's got a picture of that to post. But something's
> wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there
> seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look
> cranberry. So he adjusts the hue.
>
> So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a
> limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way
> he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by
> saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want
> to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts
> to something like Dropbox, they might further compress
> or shrink for the same reason.

That is a different issue, but for the most part Dropbox and Adobe CC seem to
deliver files they have not sat on. What is done on a personal web site or
blog is something else again.

Yup! ...and that isn’t worth getting an ulcer over.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
inconsistency of unknown values?

There can only be consistency with a standard. Your output is the
standard in this case, and your actual output is what you see on your
monitor. I can't see your monitor, so I have no idea if the image on
my monitor is consistent with that. I can't report an inconsistency
when I have no standard to use to compare.

All the viewer can report is whether or not he likes the rendition. If
he doesn't like it, it is not at all indicative that it's not what you
intended. He may be viewing exactly what you intended, and still not
like it.

Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
something completely different from your intended appearance.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[android]

In article <qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> inconsistency of unknown values?

The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
--
teleportation kills

[Tony Cooper]

This discussion has been about calibrated monitors, and the Duck's
comments were about consistency in viewing an image on different
monitors.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 17:06:30 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

--- snip ---

>>
>> Is your computer screen calibrated?
>>
>> Do you have the necessary plugins?
>>>
>>> Maybe it's me, but anyone on Windows can test
>>> this easily enough. You could download his
>>> DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think.
>>
>> I would like to but I can't find the original link.
>
>Since that is my JPEG, I am happy to oblige;
><https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg>
>
>>> Maybe
>>> they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
>>> saturation and sharpness clearly look different
>>> to me. You're not curious to know whether different
>>> software might convey such differences? (Probably
>>> having nothing to do with color management.)

Well! That was interesting!

I've downloaded the image via Dropbox and also directly as a JPG.

I then loaded the JPG into Photoshop and also the Windows viewer.
After a certain amount of twiddling I finished up with three images
almost exactly the same size, side by side on the screen. The
Photoshop and Firefox/Dropbox images were so similar that for
practical purposes they were identical. No doubt determined pixel
peeping would determine differences. The Windows viewer showed more
detail in the shadows and the greens were somewhat greener. I thought
it looked the best overall.

I twice tried to take a screen print and dump it into a Photoshop file
but twice I got nothing. In fact, the first time I tried it the
computer locked up and I had to resort to turning it off. Yet on other
occasions I have had no problems doing a screen dump. Most peculiar.

I notice that the colour space used by Savageduck was sRGB while the
screen on which I was using things was set to AdobeRGB. The screens
make use of an internal color matrix rather than relying on something
inside the computer. I am wondering whether or not Photoshop and
Firefox are paying attention to Savageduck's color profile while
Windows is just pouring it into my screen which displayed it as
AdobeRGB.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[android]

In article <lldfic12srb25qe24...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2017 06:49:01 +0200, android <he...@there.was> wrote:
>
> >In article <qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> >> any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> >> inconsistency of unknown values?
> >
> >The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> >intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
>
> This discussion has been about calibrated monitors, and the Duck's
> comments were about consistency in viewing an image on different
> monitors.

I'm aware of the topic of the discussion and my comment stands.
--
teleportation kills

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>):

Why?

> The viewer doesn't have any idea at all what you intended.

Agreed. However, if all of your work is done in a color managed environment
converted to sRGB on export and JPEG conversion for online sharing, the
viewer should see an image as you intended. For the most part they might well
see an image which is not 100% identical to the original edit, but close
enough that any subtle differences will be irrelevant.

> How can the viewer report an inconsistency of unknown values?

All the viewer can do is accept that the poster of the image has made
adjustments to his/her liking for that particular subject/scene. If there is
something wrong such as a color tone, saturation level, banding in color
fields, etc., to the viewer’s eye, it is worth commenting on, and querying
the issue. That way the image creator can at least clarify their intent
and/or methodology.

>
> There can only be consistency with a standard. Your output is the
> standard in this case, and your actual output is what you see on your
> monitor.

Agreed.

> I can't see your monitor, so I have no idea if the image on
> my monitor is consistent with that. I can't report an inconsistency
> when I have no standard to use to compare.

You can certainly report that something about the image doesn’t look right
to you. That opens the discussion, and via feedback, response, and
constructive criticism an answer might be reached. Provided individuals on
either end of the exchange are open to that discussion without entering a
flame war.

>
> All the viewer can report is whether or not he likes the rendition. If
> he doesn't like it, it is not at all indicative that it's not what you
> intended. He may be viewing exactly what you intended, and still not
> like it.

First establish that the image as shared is as intended.
After that there is only individual taste, and we all know there is no
accounting for taste. In this NG that happens all the time, it can be
frustration when, what is a perfectly good image is ruined when shared simply
due to resizing and heavy JPEG compression, which has nothing to do with a
color managed workflow, but presents an online image which is nothing like
the original edit.

>
> Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
> something completely different from your intended appearance.

Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewer’s
perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you
intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and green
sky.

...and if you were shooting IR all bets are off.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

I didn't disagree with your comment, but it adds nothing to the
discussion.

However, there is a second way to determine consistency: two or more
people, one of which provides the standard, with their own laptops
sitting in the same room under the same conditions. Two or more
screens can be compared.

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, android wrote
(in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):

...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?
I might well send proofs to a client, or friends or add specific prints. I
might, and I have sent select prints to family members, or friends.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[android]

In article <rrefichm2vi0v2st2...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2017 07:10:48 +0200, android <he...@there.was> wrote:
>
> >In article <lldfic12srb25qe24...@4ax.com>,
> > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 May 2017 06:49:01 +0200, android <he...@there.was> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> >> >> any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> >> >> inconsistency of unknown values?
> >> >
> >> >The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> >> >intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
> >>
> >> This discussion has been about calibrated monitors, and the Duck's
> >> comments were about consistency in viewing an image on different
> >> monitors.
> >
> >I'm aware of the topic of the discussion and my comment stands.
>
> I didn't disagree with your comment, but it adds nothing to the
> discussion.

Sure it does, and it ends it... :-))

>
> However, there is a second way to determine consistency: two or more
> people, one of which provides the standard, with their own laptops
> sitting in the same room under the same conditions. Two or more
> screens can be compared.

There are no two identical screens. As said:

> >> >The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> >> >intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.

--
teleportation kills

[android]

In article <0001HW.1ED7F57B00...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> (in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):
>
> > In article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> > > any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> > > inconsistency of unknown values?
> >
> > The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> > intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
>
> ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
> quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?

Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them
reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average
internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on...

> I might well send proofs to a client, or friends or add specific prints. I
> might, and I have sent select prints to family members, or friends.
--

teleportation kills

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<nvcfic5gkfpuj3baa...@4ax.com>):

When I export to JPEG for online sharing I make the assumption that the
viewer is going to use a browser which will default to sRGB. Photoshop and
Firefox should both render in sRGB. Making a change from sRGB to A-RGB can
result in issues such as banding due to the mismatched gamuts.

If you want a wide gamut image file from me, ask for it, and you will get a
TIFF, PSD, DNG, or other RAW file. TIFF or PSD will be in either ProPhoto
RGB, or A-RGB, the DNG or RAW I will leave up to you.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, android wrote

(in article<here-E28C0E.0...@news.individual.net>):

> In article<0001HW.1ED7F57B00...@news.giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> > (in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):
> >
> > > In article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> > > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> > > > any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> > > > inconsistency of unknown values?
> > >
> > > The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> > > intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
> >
> > ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
> > quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?
>
> Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them
> reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average
> internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on...

Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
workflow?
If they are going to get an image for online viewing then it will be in sRGB.

I work from RAW or TIFF in ProPhoto RGB using my calibrated display. The only
time I print sRGB JPEGs is when somebody has sent me a JPEG they want
printed.
I print to my Epson R2880 (it is still going strong) using printer/paper
specific icc profiles. I use Epson, Red River, and Ilford papers. Doing
things that way I get great prints which in many ways exceed what I see on my
display.

>
> > I might well send proofs to a client, or friends or add specific prints. I
> > might, and I have sent select prints to family members, or friends.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[android]

In article <0001HW.1ED7FB5400...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> (in article<here-E28C0E.0...@news.individual.net>):
>
> > In article<0001HW.1ED7F57B00...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> > > (in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):
> > >
> > > > In article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> > > > > any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> > > > > inconsistency of unknown values?
> > > >
> > > > The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> > > > intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
> > >
> > > ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
> > > quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?
> >
> > Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them
> > reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average
> > internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on...
>
> Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
> workflow?

It's internet standard...
--
teleportation kills

[android]

In article <0001HW.1ED7FB5400...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> (in article<here-E28C0E.0...@news.individual.net>):
>
> > In article<0001HW.1ED7F57B00...@news.giganews.com>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 25, 2017, android wrote
> > > (in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):
> > >
> > > > In article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
> > > > > any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
> > > > > inconsistency of unknown values?
> > > >
> > > > The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
> > > > intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
> > >
> > > ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
> > > quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?
> >
> > Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them
> > reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average
> > internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on...
>
> Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
> workflow?

It's internet standard... And you did wanna use the internet, right?
--
teleportation kills

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 22:25:20 -0700, Savageduck

You're wandering afield. Your original statement, which prompted my
comment, was "so if the online viewer reports an inconsitancy he/she

perceives, I can make a reasonable assumption that there might well be
an issue with their viewing environment, not mine."

You are stating that any comment from a viewer that reports an
inconsistency can be assumed to be a problem at the viewer's end.

An image that "doesn't look right" is not necessarily an image that is
inconsistent with your standard. For example, in many of your images
the grass in the image "doesn't look right" to me. California grass
is different from Florida grass in color. I may be seeing what you
intended, but still not feel the image is right. In this case, the
inconsistency is the viewer's perception of what is right.

In some of your photographs you've made the sky more dramatic in post.
I don't know if you've done that or if that's what the sky actually
looked like that day. If I think the result is not quite right,
that's not an issue where what I view is not consistent with what you
intended.

The best you can expect is to attempt to level the playing field by
having both the sender and the viewer viewing the image under the same
conditions as far as the delivered image goes.

>> All the viewer can report is whether or not he likes the rendition. If
>> he doesn't like it, it is not at all indicative that it's not what you
>> intended. He may be viewing exactly what you intended, and still not
>> like it.
>
>First establish that the image as shared is as intended.
>After that there is only individual taste, and we all know there is no
>accounting for taste. In this NG that happens all the time, it can be
>frustration when, what is a perfectly good image is ruined when shared simply
>due to resizing and heavy JPEG compression, which has nothing to do with a
>color managed workflow, but presents an online image which is nothing like
>the original edit.
>>
>> Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
>> something completely different from your intended appearance.
>
>Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewer’s
>perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you
>intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and green
>sky.
>
>...and if you were shooting IR all bets are off.
--

[Savageduck]

For online viewing, not printing.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[android]

In article <2017052523112329662-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

And online viewing was your original problem...
--
teleportation kills

[Savageduck]

You don't read everything that is written do you?

I will share JPEGs for online viewing in sRGB, but I don't print from
JPEG or use sRGB for my print workflow, which has nothing to do with
the internet.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[android]

In article <20170525231507560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

And the original topic was... Drum drum drum!

"Is Your Browser Color Managed?"
--
teleportation kills

[Savageduck]

Yup! That would be a reasonable assumption.
Now the viewer should describe the inconsitancy he/she perceives.

> You are stating that any comment from a viewer that reports an
> inconsistency can be assumed to be a problem at the viewer's end.

Tell me what is troubling you and we might come to a consensus as to
whether or not you are seeing my intended image, or if I have made some
gross illogical adjustment, or if it is a taste issue, or a problem
with the viewer's system.

> An image that "doesn't look right" is not necessarily an image that is
> inconsistent with your standard.

Agreed. I see quite a number of images which don't look right to me,
and I have no doubt that some of my images might not look right to some
viewers. Some of that might be my editing/adjustment, some of it might
be taste, but whatever it is I know that I am working with a regularly
calibrated display with a color managed work flow.

> For example, in many of your images
> the grass in the image "doesn't look right" to me. California grass
> is different from Florida grass in color. I may be seeing what you
> intended, but still not feel the image is right. In this case, the
> inconsistency is the viewer's perception of what is right.

Agreed. Florida and California are quite different. Right now, the
grass around here which was a a vivid saturated green, has turned to
straw just in time for our fire season.

> In some of your photographs you've made the sky more dramatic in post.
> I don't know if you've done that or if that's what the sky actually
> looked like that day. If I think the result is not quite right,
> that's not an issue where what I view is not consistent with what you
> intended.

Yup! I have made adjustments to the sky using grad filters, and those
images will be quite different from the unprocessed RAW files.
Sometimes I have not needed to adjust the sky at all. I guess you might
say that was part of my intention.

> The best you can expect is to attempt to level the playing field by
> having both the sender and the viewer viewing the image under the same
> conditions as far as the delivered image goes.

I guess the easiest way to do that is to just take "me" out of ther
interpretation and just share the RAW file, or perhaps a SOOC JPEG. I
might actually do more of just that since I am getting pretty good SOOC
JPEGs of of my X-T2.

>
>>> All the viewer can report is whether or not he likes the rendition. If
>>> he doesn't like it, it is not at all indicative that it's not what you
>>> intended. He may be viewing exactly what you intended, and still not
>>> like it.
>>
>> First establish that the image as shared is as intended.
>> After that there is only individual taste, and we all know there is no
>> accounting for taste. In this NG that happens all the time, it can be
>> frustration when, what is a perfectly good image is ruined when shared simply
>> due to resizing and heavy JPEG compression, which has nothing to do with a
>> color managed workflow, but presents an online image which is nothing like
>> the original edit.
>>>
>>> Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
>>> something completely different from your intended appearance.
>>
>> Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewer’s
>> perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you
>> intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and green
>> sky.
>>
>> ...and if you were shooting IR all bets are off.


--

Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, android wrote

(in article<here-898EA0.0...@news.individual.net>):

Problem?
What problem?
I am not the one with a problem.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On May 25, 2017, android wrote

(in article<here-B46801.0...@news.individual.net>):

...and that question opens a wide field of discussion with regard to color
management, workflows, display calibration, and image evaluation, all leading
to thread drift within the general area of the original topic. What we
learned is many of us use more than one browser, and sometimes the results
differ from one to the other.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[android]

In article <0001HW.1ED804D000...@news.giganews.com>,

Oki...
--
teleportation kills

[android]

In article <0001HW.1ED8061F00...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> What we
> learned is many of us use more than one browser, and sometimes the results
> differ from one to the other.

Oki...
--
teleportation kills

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:28:35 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <og7vb...@news3.newsguy.com>, PeterN
><"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> (And that, of course, still
>> >> doesn't take into account variations in color perception
>> >> between people. I'm, only pointing out software
>> >> differences here, which is a relatively small part of
>> >> the equation.)
>> >
>> > people perceive colours in the same way.
>> >
>> > if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
>> > bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.
>>
>> Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
>> just as taste, and hearing do.
>
>nope. this was well established long ago not to be true.
>
>> <http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html>
>
> In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
> colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
> infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells
>
>duh. they need a study to figure out that infecting some of the cells
>in an eye will affect perception?
>
>the fact remains that people with normal vision see colours the same.

Extraordinary! It so happened that at the moment I read that I had
http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html up in
my browser. Of course you won't believe that article.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:44:53 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>
>| > As I said, the article is pointing
>| > out that *even with color management and use of
>| > profiles* there will be differences in display between
>| > browsers. He even shows a sample image, illustrating
>| > his main point, that you just can't control what other
>| > people see.
>|
>| only if the browsers aren't colour managed.
>|
>
> You just snipped the quote making exactly the
>opposite point. Read the article and look at the
>comparison pictures. 3 yellow cars, all different
>hues. 3 different color-managing browsers. Why
>is this simple point so hard to grasp?
>
But what kind of color management?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 22:26:17 -0400, "Mayayana"

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
>"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>
>

>| while you can't 'control' anything (nor was that ever a goal), you
>| absolutely can ensure that an image is visually consistent across
>| multiple devices.
>|
> No, you can't. As the article shows, even if you
>use color management on your own devices, IE may
>show a different image from Firefox. (That's the quote
>you snipped. If you want to disagree with the author
>that's one thing, but you could at least read the
>article we're talking about.)
>

> But getting back to the original point, I wasn't
>questioning the value of color management locally.
>I was only saying that once it comes to the Web
>the idea of controlling what people see is not realistic.
>The author mentions that sRGB should be used for
>the Web. So what value does color management in
>the browser have, unless you're viewing something
>like a friend's art photographs with an embedded
>color profile other than sRGB?
>
> A real world example:
>

> Say Eric has a family get-together next month. He
>takes pictures, shooting in RAW with a good camera.
>He then decides to post some online for family to see.
>First, he's probably going to work with sRGB, since the
>pictures are going online. Then he's probably going to
>save to JPG, since the pictures are going online. Does
>he need an embedded profile? Isn't sRGB default?
>So why embed an sRGB profile?

Because sRGB might be a so-called default but a great number of
devices and applications can't even hit sRGB but instead do something
else. The profile that is embedded probably won't exactly be sRGB and
will need correction to display as sRGB. And all of this will be
wasted if the screen can't display sRGB, which is usually the case.
That's why you calibrate the screen to find out what it really does.
>
> Cousin Susan was wearing a very sexy red minidress
>and he's got a picture of that to post. But something's
>wrong. He remembers it tomato red. In the photo there
>seems to be a shadow or blue tinge making it look
>cranberry. So he adjusts the hue.
>
> So.... he's got an image that's already dealing with a
>limited color gamut, it's been adjusted to look the way
>he remembers the scene, and he's dithered colors by
>saving to JPG. If he has his own website he might want
>to shrink the images to save on traffic cost. If he posts
>to something like Dropbox, they might further compress
>or shrink for the same reason.
>
> Going online, the image has thus been downgraded in
>several ways from the original shot. What advantage did
>color management give him? It helped to ensure that he
>saw on his monitor the most accurate possible colors
>as captured by the camera. Whatever those are. He
>thought Susan's dress needed to be altered. Was that
>a problem with his eyesight? Or was the shot tinged?
>Or was he so taken by Susan's behind that he imagined,
>in "hindsight", let's say, that her dress was brighter than
>it actually was?
>
> No matter. The image goes online. Now 20 family members
>see it. It's unlikely that even one of those people has
>installed the color profile for their monitor, much less
>calibrated their monitor with an external device. They
>have different browsers, different eyes, different OSs,
>different monitors. They're all looking at a notably
>downgraded version of an altered photo of Susan's
>dress. What purpose did it serve that Eric calibrated
>his monitor? Almost none. It only helped him to get
>the colors he wanted for his own eyes, on his own
>computer, as he looked at the image of Susan colored
>by his own imagination of what he saw at the party. And
>as the article author pointed out, even on his machine,
>his color managed browser is probably not showing him
>the exact same colors that Photoshop is showing him.
>
> Then his cousin Ed writes and says, "Nice pictures.
>But how did Susan's orange dress come out red?"
>Where's the discrepancy? It's anyone's guess.
>
> You're trying to achieve an absolute objectivity where
>none exists. With color management locally you can
>achieve some degree of correlation, but you can't
>translate that to other devices and software, and
>on the Web you've already settled for a relatively
>low quality image where exact color matching is not
>very relevant.
>
>
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote

| However, there is a second way to determine consistency: two or more
| people, one of which provides the standard, with their own laptops
| sitting in the same room under the same conditions. Two or more
| screens can be compared.
|

But of course that has no real world application.
And even then it wouldn't be surprising to get a
conversation like.....

# That's a nice blue.

@ Blue? You mean the green?

# Green? Is that what you see.
What do you mean by green?

Are they both seeing the same color and naming
it differently, or are they seeing different colors.

An interesting example of something similar made
the rounds online awhile back:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/27/the-dress-blue-black-white-gold-vision-psychology-colour-constancy

[Mayayana]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

| > You are stating that any comment from a viewer that reports an
| > inconsistency can be assumed to be a problem at the viewer's end.
|
| Tell me what is troubling you and we might come to a consensus as to
| whether or not you are seeing my intended image, or if I have made some
| gross illogical adjustment, or if it is a taste issue, or a problem
| with the viewer's system.
|

I think there's an issue of context here, which is part
of the original point. If you share a high quality photo
with photographer friends, or maybe a publisher, you
may assume they have a calibrated monitor on their end
and you can coordinate what OS/software they use to
view the image.
So if they see some problem it's likely to be an issue on
their end and perhaps you can straighten it out.

If you post a JPG online, to share or use on a webpage,
any inconsistency is not the viewer's "problem". It's your
problem if you expected precision. Presumably you're doing
your best to make a consistent presentation, but you have
to accept the context and recognize that your audience
will see various things. It's just the nature of the medium.

| > For example, in many of your images
| > the grass in the image "doesn't look right" to me. California grass
| > is different from Florida grass in color. I may be seeing what you
| > intended, but still not feel the image is right. In this case, the
| > inconsistency is the viewer's perception of what is right.
|
| Agreed. Florida and California are quite different.

I think of you as a notably talented photographer.
You've posted photo after photo that have been
beautifully done. One of my favorites is a photo you
took of a swan that appeared to be swimming through
liquid obsidian.
But now, with this discussion, I realize that my color
management is so poor I was probably just looking
at a photo of that crummy California grass and it was
distorted on my monitor. :)

[Savageduck]

I can't take credit for the shot you described, the shooter must be
PeterN, Tony, or some other yet to be IDed photographer.

> But now, with this discussion, I realize that my color
> management is so poor I was probably just looking
> at a photo of that crummy California grass and it was
> distorted on my monitor. :)

As soon as we get to late May mid-June the hills around my home, and
the "green strip" behind my house are far from green and closer to
"California gold" in color.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <og9am8$k8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> An interesting example of something similar made
> the rounds online awhile back:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/feb/27/the-dress-blue-b
> lack-white-gold-vision-psychology-colour-constancy

you *really* don't understand colour.

<https://twitter.com/Sci_Phile/status/862009299274485760>

more optical illusions:
<http://brainden.com/images/same-color-illusion-big.png>

<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-
the-green/>

<http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2006/06/15/black-and-white-to-color/>

and a really weird one:
<http://i.imgur.com/mN4Dy.png>

[nospam]

In article <ai1gicp9sdn06qad9...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >> (And that, of course, still
> >> >> doesn't take into account variations in color perception
> >> >> between people. I'm, only pointing out software
> >> >> differences here, which is a relatively small part of
> >> >> the equation.)
> >> >
> >> > people perceive colours in the same way.
> >> >
> >> > if someone says they see bright red, another person will also see
> >> > bright red, not azure, lemon, russet or grey.
> >>
> >> Individual perceptions of color may vary from one individual to another,
> >> just as taste, and hearing do.
> >
> >nope. this was well established long ago not to be true.
> >
> >> <http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html>
> >
> > In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
> > colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
> > infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells
> >
> >duh. they need a study to figure out that infecting some of the cells
> >in an eye will affect perception?
> >
> >the fact remains that people with normal vision see colours the same.
>
> Extraordinary! It so happened that at the moment I read that I had
> http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html up in
> my browser. Of course you won't believe that article.

it's not that i don't believe it, it's that what it's about is not
relevant to normal vision.

In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly

infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells. The virus inserted
a gene into the DNA of the green cones it infected that converted
them into red cones.

obviously, if you infect and modify someone's physiology, things will
be different. duh.

ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.

and if you're going to mention colour blindness, that is also well
understood. there are even ways for those without colour blindness to
visualize what a colour blind person can see.

eizo has an option on some of its displays
<http://www.color-blindness.com/2007/06/22/monitor-simulates-colorblind-
vision/>
Eizo went even one step further and introduced this simulations into
some of their LCD monitors as a hardware solution. This gives you a
realtime transition, which doesnšt need any CPU time and is working
even with fast moving movies.

[nospam]

In article <og9dl0$v5h$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > You are stating that any comment from a viewer that reports an
> | > inconsistency can be assumed to be a problem at the viewer's end.
> |
> | Tell me what is troubling you and we might come to a consensus as to
> | whether or not you are seeing my intended image, or if I have made some
> | gross illogical adjustment, or if it is a taste issue, or a problem
> | with the viewer's system.
>
> I think there's an issue of context here, which is part
> of the original point. If you share a high quality photo
> with photographer friends, or maybe a publisher, you
> may assume they have a calibrated monitor on their end
> and you can coordinate what OS/software they use to
> view the image.

no need to coordinate what os/software they use.

this is particularly true on a mac where *everything* is colour
managed. even the icons.

> So if they see some problem it's likely to be an issue on
> their end and perhaps you can straighten it out.

actually it's at your end, since they'll see what you saw. that's the
point of colour management.

there could be *other* problems though, such as not being able to read
a certain file type.

> If you post a JPG online, to share or use on a webpage,
> any inconsistency is not the viewer's "problem". It's your
> problem if you expected precision. Presumably you're doing
> your best to make a consistent presentation, but you have
> to accept the context and recognize that your audience
> will see various things. It's just the nature of the medium.

if the viewer has a non-calibrated system, then it absolutely is their
problem, one which they can easily solve too.

[Tony Cooper]

That, to me, isn't the objective of photography as a hobby. What I
want to accomplish is to take a photograph of an interesting subject
and process that photograph in such a way that presents it in a manner
that appeals to me.

I have no particular interest in seeing what someone else can do with
my original file. Nor do I have any particular interest in seeing
what I can do with someone else's photograph.

If I do my end of it right, and post up that image for others to see,
any critical comments I expect will have to with composition,
sharpness, perspective, and distractions in the image.

True color is not usually discernable by the viewer unless there's
something in the image that the viewer has knowledge of. A viewer
might know what a professional baseball player's uniform color should
be, but most hobby photography doesn't contain such benchmarks.

Mind you, I'm not talking about saturation or intensity of color; I'm
talking about replication of true color.

Also, don't take this as me diminishing the need for color management
or monitor calibration. That's something the originator of the image
should be concerned with, but not often something that comes into play
when sharing images online.

>>>>
>>>> Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
>>>> something completely different from your intended appearance.
>>>

>>> Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewer?s

>>> perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you
>>> intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and green
>>> sky.
>>>

If I see pink foliage and green sky, my assumption is that the
originator intended some treatment for effect. Those effects are not
the result of poor color management or an uncalibrated monitor. The
difference between viewing the output of a color-managed workflow with
calibrated monitors on both ends, and viewing an image where neither
condition exists, is much more subtle than that. So subtle that it is
often unnoticed.

When it comes to color in a photograph, most of the problems are
created in post or the colors are not brought out in post. When we
see a photo online that has color problems we are usually viewing an
image that has been uploaded by someone who lacks skill in post or has
tried to achieve some look and not done it right.

It's usually pretty obvious. But, we don't look at that image and
think that the originator's color management/monitor calibration
protocol was defective. We look at and think he's been ham-handed
with the sliders.

In summary, I think that a color-managed workflow and a calibrated
monitor can be essential to the originator of an image to achieve the
best result. I don't think it has much impact on how our images are
viewed by others when the image is posted online. Other factors have
more impact.

[android]

In article <260520171058163859%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> if the viewer has a non-calibrated system, then it absolutely is their
> problem, one which they can easily solve too.

Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
unaware of the problem.
--
teleportation kills

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 09:33:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>| However, there is a second way to determine consistency: two or more
>| people, one of which provides the standard, with their own laptops
>| sitting in the same room under the same conditions. Two or more
>| screens can be compared.
>|
>
> But of course that has no real world application.
>And even then it wouldn't be surprising to get a
>conversation like.....
>
># That's a nice blue.
>
>@ Blue? You mean the green?
>
># Green? Is that what you see.
> What do you mean by green?
>
> Are they both seeing the same color and naming
>it differently, or are they seeing different colors.

Quite so. And one saying the colors are over-saturated and the other
vehemently denying that.

And, in neither case the image on the screens presenting the actual
colors of the subject photographed.

[Tony Cooper]

I think I posted this one of mine, but I think he's remembering it in
more favor than it was received at the time.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellanea/i-vG332SJ/0/b3bb8511/O/2011-10-04-411.jpg

[Savageduck]

On May 26, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in article<4pfgicdee7ttvidb0...@4ax.com>):

That has pretty much been my goal, and one of my reasons for my interest in
many of the different image editing options, regardless of my normal LR CC/PS
CC workflow. However, there have been times the appeal of SOOC JPEGs have
been appealing.

>
> I have no particular interest in seeing what someone else can do with
> my original file. Nor do I have any particular interest in seeing
> what I can do with someone else's photograph.

There are times I might see someone else's photograph, and be curious to see
what my approach and/or interpretation might produce. At the end of the day
it seems that becomes a personal thing and one is always going to favor one's
own work. Sometimes there is the element of an editing/adjustment challenge.

>
> If I do my end of it right, and post up that image for others to see,
> any critical comments I expect will have to with composition,
> sharpness, perspective, and distractions in the image.

The issue with presenting an image online to be subjected to comment, is
still the intent of the creator of the image. Not every image is intended to
be a clear, sharp, documentary shot, and once you move into the realm of
photography as art other issues, not the least of which are interpretation,
and personal taste arise.

>
> True color is not usually discernable by the viewer unless there's
> something in the image that the viewer has knowledge of. A viewer
> might know what a professional baseball player's uniform color should
> be, but most hobby photography doesn't contain such benchmarks.
>
> Mind you, I'm not talking about saturation or intensity of color; I'm
> talking about replication of true color.

All the photographer can do is deliver an image that is true to his/her
vision and purpose, a color managed workflow can aid in this. If the image is
presented as an example of self expression, it isn't going to matter one bit
whether their workflow is color managed or not.

>
> Also, don't take this as me diminishing the need for color management
> or monitor calibration. That's something the originator of the image
> should be concerned with, but not often something that comes into play
> when sharing images online.

In that I agree. There is never a guarantee that any image is going to be
viewed as intended, but that is out of the hands of the photographer. For the
photographer using a color managed workflow he/she can be reasonable sure
that the image is going to be viewed within the bounds of his/her intent.

> > > > >
> > > > > Conversely, he may think it's a brilliant rendition while looking at
> > > > > something completely different from your intended appearance.
> > > >
> > > > Then accept the praise, because you are ignorant of the viewer?s
> > > > perception, and you can only assume that the image was delivered as you
> > > > intended. Unless the viewer starts talking about the pink foliage, and
> > > > green
> > > > sky.
>
> If I see pink foliage and green sky, my assumption is that the
> originator intended some treatment for effect.

Let's just say that was an exaggerated statement for some sort of hyperbolic
effect on my part, but with some of the stuff Peter shares anything could
happen. ;-)

> Those effects are not
> the result of poor color management or an uncalibrated monitor. The
> difference between viewing the output of a color-managed workflow with
> calibrated monitors on both ends, and viewing an image where neither
> condition exists, is much more subtle than that. So subtle that it is
> often unnoticed.

...and for any of us that is the best we can expect.

>
> When it comes to color in a photograph, most of the problems are
> created in post or the colors are not brought out in post. When we
> see a photo online that has color problems we are usually viewing an
> image that has been uploaded by someone who lacks skill in post or has
> tried to achieve some look and not done it right.

There is that, or as Peter says, it is his artistic expression.

>
> It's usually pretty obvious. But, we don't look at that image and
> think that the originator's color management/monitor calibration
> protocol was defective. We look at and think he's been ham-handed
> with the sliders.

...or we wonder at what he/she could possibly have been thinking.

>
> In summary, I think that a color-managed workflow and a calibrated
> monitor can be essential to the originator of an image to achieve the
> best result. I don't think it has much impact on how our images are
> viewed by others when the image is posted online.

Ultimately it doesn't.

A color managed workflow is actually more important when it comes to
printing.

I know that most of the people I share my work with have no idea what a color
managed/calibrated system is. I would also hazard a guess that less than a
handful of the usual suspects in this NG actually use a fully color managed
workflow/system.

> Other factors have more impact.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On May 26, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in article<m6kgic194f3ea5bdt...@4ax.com>):

Just acknowledge that you have now received at least one favorable comment
for an image that isn’t bad.

I don’t recall making any comment one way, or another when you first posted
it.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

I've posted a swan-on-water, but would another type of bird on darker
water appeal more:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellanea/i-DjZKq7F/0/0da890b6/XL/2016-03-25-45-XL.jpg

[Mayayana]

"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote

| >I can't take credit for the shot you described, the shooter must be
| >PeterN, Tony, or some other yet to be IDed photographer.
|
| I think I posted this one of mine, but I think he's remembering it in
| more favor than it was received at the time.
|
|
https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellanea/i-vG332SJ/0/b3bb8511/O/2011-10-04-411.jpg
|

Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas

[nospam]

In article <ogadbn$emd$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.

however, there is this:

User Comment : (C)2009 Jill Florie

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 19:44:14 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I took that photo at Lake Eola in Orlando in October, 2011 (which is
shown in the EXIF. At that time, I was using a Nikon D60 camera body
that I purchased used from Keh. I no longer have the D60 and now use
a D300 that I also purchased used from Keh.

I have no idea who "Jill Florie" is unless she was the previous owner
of the D60.

The swan in the photo is an Australian black swan as shown on this
page about Lake Eola:

http://www.cityoforlando.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Swan_trifold.pdf

[nospam]

In article <vufhicttsn6jgpn4t...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>
> >> https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellanea/i-vG332SJ/0/b3bb8511/O/2011-10-04-41

> >> 1.j
> >> pg
> >> |
> >> Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
> >> Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
> >> out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
> >> striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
> >> blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
> >> The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas
> >
> >check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.
> >
> >however, there is this:
> >
> >User Comment : (C)2009 Jill Florie
>
> I took that photo at Lake Eola in Orlando in October, 2011 (which is
> shown in the EXIF. At that time, I was using a Nikon D60 camera body
> that I purchased used from Keh. I no longer have the D60 and now use
> a D300 that I also purchased used from Keh.
>
> I have no idea who "Jill Florie" is unless she was the previous owner
> of the D60.

couldn't afford a new camera?

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 25 May 2017 22:44:54 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On May 25, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<nvcfic5gkfpuj3baa...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2017 17:06:30 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ---
>> > >
>> > > Is your computer screen calibrated?
>> > >
>> > > Do you have the necessary plugins?
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe it's me, but anyone on Windows can test
>> > > > this easily enough. You could download his
>> > > > DSF4740-E.jpg and see what you think.
>> > >
>> > > I would like to but I can't find the original link.
>> >
>> > Since that is my JPEG, I am happy to oblige;
>> > <https://www.dropbox.com/s/448rl27c57zsiye/DSF4740-E.jpg>
>> >
>> > > > Maybe
>> > > > they'll look exactly the same to you. But the
>> > > > saturation and sharpness clearly look different
>> > > > to me. You're not curious to know whether different
>> > > > software might convey such differences? (Probably
>> > > > having nothing to do with color management.)
>>
>> Well! That was interesting!
>>
>> I've downloaded the image via Dropbox and also directly as a JPG.
>>
>> I then loaded the JPG into Photoshop and also the Windows viewer.
>> After a certain amount of twiddling I finished up with three images
>> almost exactly the same size, side by side on the screen. The
>> Photoshop and Firefox/Dropbox images were so similar that for
>> practical purposes they were identical. No doubt determined pixel
>> peeping would determine differences. The Windows viewer showed more
>> detail in the shadows and the greens were somewhat greener. I thought
>> it looked the best overall.
>>
>> I twice tried to take a screen print and dump it into a Photoshop file
>> but twice I got nothing. In fact, the first time I tried it the
>> computer locked up and I had to resort to turning it off. Yet on other
>> occasions I have had no problems doing a screen dump. Most peculiar.
>>
>> I notice that the colour space used by Savageduck was sRGB while the
>> screen on which I was using things was set to AdobeRGB. The screens
>> make use of an internal color matrix rather than relying on something
>> inside the computer. I am wondering whether or not Photoshop and
>> Firefox are paying attention to Savageduck's color profile while
>> Windows is just pouring it into my screen which displayed it as
>> AdobeRGB.
>
>When I export to JPEG for online sharing I make the assumption that the
>viewer is going to use a browser which will default to sRGB. Photoshop and
>Firefox should both render in sRGB. Making a change from sRGB to A-RGB can
>result in issues such as banding due to the mismatched gamuts.

I started off by assuming that all three applications would make use
of the same color profile, but clearly they do not. I have since
switched my screen back to sRGB and found that the differences
persist, although not nearly so marked.

I have spent another hour trying to produce a screen dump which will
show all three renditions of your file side by side but I just cannot
get it to work. All three applications seem to do something which
interacts with one of the others. I can get two out of three depending
on what I do with PS Autoselect and which way I hold my tongue.
>
>If you want a wide gamut image file from me, ask for it, and you will get a
>TIFF, PSD, DNG, or other RAW file. TIFF or PSD will be in either ProPhoto
>RGB, or A-RGB, the DNG or RAW I will leave up to you.

Of course, but this was not a question which required a wide gamut to
answer. All we needed was a source image and several different ways to
view it. My experiments have generated more questions than they have
answers. I am still trying to discover the details of the way(s) that
Windows handles colors. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <jsehicdtbd6hjdmna...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> I am still trying to discover the details of the way(s) that
> Windows handles colors. :-(

so is microsoft :)

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 10:58:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You have taken a very selective quote from the article. There is much
more to ithan just the work with monkeys.

>
>ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.

By definition. But how many extraordinary people with abnormal vision
see colors differently and don't even know that they do?

>
>and if you're going to mention colour blindness, that is also well
>understood. there are even ways for those without colour blindness to
>visualize what a colour blind person can see.
>
>eizo has an option on some of its displays
><http://www.color-blindness.com/2007/06/22/monitor-simulates-colorblind-
>vision/>
> Eizo went even one step further and introduced this simulations into
> some of their LCD monitors as a hardware solution. This gives you a
> realtime transition, which doesnšt need any CPU time and is working
> even with fast moving movies.

You should see
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11862311
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <i8ihicpb94f4q5p8m...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>
> >> Extraordinary! It so happened that at the moment I read that I had
> >> http://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html up in
> >> my browser. Of course you won't believe that article.
> >
> >it's not that i don't believe it, it's that what it's about is not
> >relevant to normal vision.
> >
> > In work published in the journal Nature in 2009, Neitz and several
> > colleagues injected a virus into the monkeys' eyes that randomly
> > infected some of their green-sensitive cone cells. The virus inserted
> > a gene into the DNA of the green cones it infected that converted
> > them into red cones.
> >
> >obviously, if you infect and modify someone's physiology, things will
> >be different. duh.
>
> You have taken a very selective quote from the article. There is much
> more to ithan just the work with monkeys.

yep. you're focused on exceptions. i'm focused the norm.

<http://dba.med.sc.edu/price/irf/Adobe_tg/models/cie.html>
CIE has two specifications for a standard observer: the original 1931
specification and a revised 1964 specification. In both cases the
standard observer is a composite made from small groups of
individuals (about 15-20) and is representative of normal human color
vision. Both specifications used a similar technique to match colors
to an equivalent RGB tristimulus value:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#CIE_standard_observe
r>
Due to the distribution of cones in the eye, the tristimulus values
depend on the observer's field of view. To eliminate this variable,
the CIE defined a color-mapping function called the standard
(colorimetric) observer, to represent an average human's chromatic
response within a 2° arc inside the fovea. This angle was chosen
owing to the belief that the color-sensitive cones resided within a
2° arc of the fovea. Thus the CIE 1931 Standard Observer function is
also known as the CIE 1931 2° Standard Observer. A more modern but
less-used alternative is the CIE 1964 10° Standard Observer, which is
derived from the work of Stiles and Burch, and Speranskaya.

> >ordinary people with normal vision see colours the same way.
>
> By definition. But how many extraordinary people with abnormal vision
> see colors differently and don't even know that they do?

not enough to matter.

> >and if you're going to mention colour blindness, that is also well
> >understood. there are even ways for those without colour blindness to
> >visualize what a colour blind person can see.
> >
> >eizo has an option on some of its displays
> ><http://www.color-blindness.com/2007/06/22/monitor-simulates-colorblind-
> >vision/>
> > Eizo went even one step further and introduced this simulations into
> > some of their LCD monitors as a hardware solution. This gives you a
> > realtime transition, which doesnšt need any CPU time and is working
> > even with fast moving movies.
>
> You should see
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11862311

what about it?

[Savageduck]

On May 26, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote

(in article<vufhicttsn6jgpn4t...@4ax.com>):

I guess the lesson here is; Check the menus settings in used cameras.

There is no guarantee that KEH has reset anything. That also goes for your
D300.

>
> The swan in the photo is an Australian black swan as shown on this
> page about Lake Eola:
>
> http://www.cityoforlando.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Swan_trifold.pdf

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 08:04:58 +0200, android <he...@there.was> wrote:

>In article <0001HW.1ED7FB5400...@news.giganews.com>,

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>

>> On May 25, 2017, android wrote
>> (in article<here-E28C0E.0...@news.individual.net>):
>>
>> > In article<0001HW.1ED7F57B00...@news.giganews.com>,

>> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> >

>> > > On May 25, 2017, android wrote
>> > > (in article<here-06AA5F.0...@news.individual.net>):
>> > >
>> > > > In article<qabficdfav36fmhe9...@4ax.com>,
>> > > > Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I am still baffled by this type of thinking. The viewer doesn't have
>> > > > > any idea at all what you intended. How can the viewer report an
>> > > > > inconsistency of unknown values?
>> > > >
>> > > > The only way to get the capture presented to the viewer the way you
>> > > > intended it to be perceived is with a high quality print.
>> > >
>> > > ...and that might be a solution, but who here is prepared to produce high
>> > > quality prints to mail around the globe for a Usenet discussion?
>> >
>> > Dunno! Anyways, one have to have reasonable expectations on them
>> > reproduction capabilities at the other end when dealing with the average
>> > internet viewer. Use sRGB as colorspace and so on...
>>
>> Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
>> workflow?
>
>It's internet standard...

It's only Internet standard because for a long time it was an
acceptable color space which most displays might almost fill (although
even now most of the cheaper screens fall short). There is now a flood
of higherquality displays starting to emerge on the market and I
suspect that sRGB's days as 'the' standard are numbered.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 26 May 2017 20:24:05 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Thanks for your usual valuable contribution to a thread.

My first dslr was a Nikon D40 that I bought new from Ritz Camera on
sale. I traded that in on a D60 from Keh and never had a problem with
it. I later traded that in for a D300 to Keh. It's been an excellent
buy for the money. Serves my needs quite well.

I've bought new lenses from Adorama and B&H, and used ones from Keh. I
have nothing but good words for any of those three. If Keh rates the
camera or lens as excellent, that's what you can expect.

If you have ever actually done any photography, you'd know that it's
the results the photographer gets and not the source or cost of the
camera.

Results are demonstratable. All you have to do is post them here. If
you're not ashamed to have them viewed, of course.

[nospam]

In article <3qlhictgtknjpe7gf...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >>
> >> Why would I use sRGB for high quality prints when it isn’t part of my
> >> workflow?
> >
> >It's internet standard...
>
> It's only Internet standard because for a long time it was an
> acceptable color space which most displays might almost fill (although
> even now most of the cheaper screens fall short). There is now a flood
> of higherquality displays starting to emerge on the market and I
> suspect that sRGB's days as 'the' standard are numbered.

dci-p3 is the emerging standard, with a couple hundred million devices
already out there.

[Eric Stevens]

I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| I have spent another hour trying to produce a screen dump which will
| show all three renditions of your file side by side but I just cannot
| get it to work. All three applications seem to do something which
| interacts with one of the others. I can get two out of three depending
| on what I do with PS Autoselect and which way I hold my tongue.

Usually it works to just press PrtScr. If one of
the programs is interfering (Irfan View does that)
then you might be able to use Alt + PrtScr to get
one window at a time. (It captures the active
window.)

[Eric Stevens]

Then there is
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yx7n7i038j94ioq/LR--00210.jpg?dl=0
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| > Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
| > Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
| > out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
| > striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
| > blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
| > The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas
|
| check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.
|

I'm talking about the pelican photo.

[nospam]

In article <ogalr6$fj$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.

here it is again:

> > https://photos.smugmug.com/Miscellanea/i-vG332SJ/0/b3bb8511/O/2011-10-04-411.jpg

> >
> > Interesting. That has a mythical look about it.
> > Maybe I owe someone an apology. Actually it turns
> > out it was a Pelican that I remembered. A very
> > striking, crisp, dynamic combination of whites and
> > blacks, with bright orange beak and feet.
> > The EXIF data lists - Artist: sas
>
> check again. there is no artist tag in that photo.
>

[Savageduck]

On May 26, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article <ogalja$vl4$1...@dont-email.me>):

I just used a neat little app “SnapNDrag” to select a screen area with
resized Safari, Chrome, and Preview windows with the image in question.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/2m0z0egyva9c8i5/screenshot_50.jpg>

With SnapNDrag it is simple enough to capture the entire screen, a selected
window, a selection of a screen area, or a timed screen shot. While all of
that can be done with keyboard commands, using the app makes life simple. For
now it is a Mac only app.
<http://www.yellowmug.com/snapndrag/>

--

Regards,
Savageduck

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| > I'm talking about the pelican photo.
|
| the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.
|

How do you manage to get so confused? I mentioned
to SD that I really liked a swan photo I thought was his.
It turned out it's a pelican photo, taken 12/22/2013 by
sas. There's no link. I saved a copy. It has nothing
to do with Tony's swan photo. Can you understand that?

[Eric Stevens]

What has not been mentioned (or has even been overlooked?) in this
discussion so far is that color management entails more than colors.
It also includes brightness and gray scale. The impact of many
monochrome images depends on the subtle rendering of grays and a
screen which telescopes the steps of a gray scale at one end or
another will not do justice to images the details of which have been
carefully developed in both the photograph and post processing.

An uncalibrated display will always cause the viewer to miss the full
impact of the finished image.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <oganpn$55m$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | > I'm talking about the pelican photo.
> |
> | the link you snipped, you mean? no artist tag.
>
> How do you manage to get so confused?

because you keep snipping relevant content.

> I mentioned
> to SD that I really liked a swan photo I thought was his.
> It turned out it's a pelican photo, taken 12/22/2013 by
> sas. There's no link. I saved a copy. It has nothing
> to do with Tony's swan photo. Can you understand that?

how did you save a copy if there was no link?

you're *very* confused.

post the relevant message id or the link to the photo.

[Mayayana]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote

| >Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
| >the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
| >unaware of the problem.
|
| I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
| can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
| different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.

That reminds me of the derision that used to be
common in web design circles for young "artists"
who would produce websites and add a note like,
"Best viewed at 800x600 in Internet Explorer 5".
It epitomized the approach of asking people to
appreciate "my art", as opposed to the approach
of trying to make a functional website.

Your version of that is, "Please view this photo
on Windows 10 in Photoshop with a calibrated
monitor, or don't view it at all!"

[Eric Stevens]

I wasn't aware that last one. I will try it later.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <ogaoh5$7h4$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | >Nope! It's your problem since you're picture ain't communicating with
> | >the viewer as expected, especially since they most likely are blissfully
> | >unaware of the problem.
> |
> | I go along with nospam and say that it is the viewer's problem. Noone
> | can be expected to try and tailor their image to all the widely
> | different uncalibrated monitors which exist in the wider world.
>
> That reminds me of the derision that used to be
> common in web design circles for young "artists"
> who would produce websites and add a note like,
> "Best viewed at 800x600 in Internet Explorer 5".
> It epitomized the approach of asking people to
> appreciate "my art", as opposed to the approach
> of trying to make a functional website.

the sign of an incompetent web designer.

> Your version of that is, "Please view this photo
> on Windows 10 in Photoshop with a calibrated
> monitor, or don't view it at all!"

that's not what it means at all.

what it means is that people are free to use whatever hardware and
software they want, and as long as the display is calibrated, the
images will look how the creator intended.

since many devices are calibrated out of the box (although to a 'lab
standard' rather than individually, which is 'good enough' for most
people), there's really nothing for the end user to do but enjoy.

[Mayayana]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

| how did you save a copy if there was no link?
|

A couple of years ago this photo was posted.
I thought it was by SD, but I may be wrong. At
the time I saved a copy because I thought it was
a beautifully made image. A pelican, apparently
coming in for a landing. Black background. Black
water. White pelican with black on the wings.
Very dramatic. Nothing to do with any links
or images in this thread. I mentioned it and Tony
posted a couple of images he thought might be
it. They were not. I'm explaining this only because
someone other than you might understand and
remember the image. It could be that it wasn't
even linked in this newsgroup, but I thought it was.

For you, I would suggest that maybe you should
try to get some sleep.

[nospam]

In article <ogaos9$86n$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> | how did you save a copy if there was no link?
> |
> A couple of years ago this photo was posted.

then how is anyone supposed to know what photo it was? particularly
when you replied to a post which contained a link to a photo.

> I thought it was by SD, but I may be wrong. At
> the time I saved a copy because I thought it was
> a beautifully made image. A pelican, apparently
> coming in for a landing. Black background. Black
> water. White pelican with black on the wings.
> Very dramatic. Nothing to do with any links
> or images in this thread.

if it was posted, there had to be a link. this isn't a binary group.

> I mentioned it and Tony
> posted a couple of images he thought might be
> it. They were not. I'm explaining this only because
> someone other than you might understand and
> remember the image. It could be that it wasn't
> even linked in this newsgroup, but I thought it was.

so you admit there was a link.

> For you, I would suggest that maybe you should
> try to get some sleep.

for you, i would suggest you read a book on colour management.