Getting your web images to display correctly on my monitor

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    How many people "think" they've got their images just right so they'll
    display on the millions of monitors out there in windowsville only to
    get a load of flames about calibrating your monitor properly? Let's
    not forget also the rubbish about LCD's not displaying images properly
    either.
    rocket this year, claiming my images were "off". At least 2 of them
    defiantly claim "their" monitors are properly calibrated. Well...

    The curious thing about this is that Windows is an uncalibrated
    environment. Unless someone has purposely calibrated their colours and
    gamma (dynamic range) for my system, there is no guarantee they'll see
    my images the way I do.

    A fellow in Europe has produced an ICC profile to overcome much of the
    problem in using sRGB for web images, There is a false belief is that
    in using sRGB, you will create a near enough image so everyone will
    see it close to the way you created it. Not so if you used an exotic
    colourspace in Photoshop and saved for web!

    sRGB starts clipping shadow detail well into the grey space and often
    blows away the highlights in it's intent to meet a 1931 standard that
    has never changed. There is plenty of good sound reasoning to edit
    your Photoshop images in a linear colourspace. Of course this doesn't
    produce a web image everyone can see the way you made it.

    Along comes "NativePC.ICC" colour profile. This profile overcomes the
    unmanaged Windows environment's limitations and lets you see the
    shadow detail otherwise lost when looking at an image with a web
    browser.

    I made a page (yeah, I know - Woopie!) to show the difference between
    using Photoshop's "Save for web" (which uses sRGB) and converting an
    image to nativepc.icc before uploading. The rest of my theory will
    unfold according to the replies (or lack of them) from viewers of the
    images.
    http://www.ryadia.com/PFF/June/display-4-web.htm

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D_Mac

    Mr.T Guest

    Not so. People many *choose* to have an uncalibrated environment.
    It seems you are one of them.
    Agreed, since you don't even believe yours can be calibrated.
    IF you are using "an exotic color space" THEN you are NOT using sRGB color
    space obviously!
    Converting from one color space to another should be carefully checked for
    the desired result.
    Of course it doesn't, that's why converting color spaces should be done
    properly to give the desired result.
    The fact that Windows *does* have color management for ICC profiles already,
    proves you wrong. But why would you want to use a generic one rather than a
    custom measured one, and who the hell would imagine a generic one would be
    better?

    However NO profile will give the same details of a 16 bit image when viewed
    as an 8 bit jpeg, as most web images are. And all monitors vary as to their
    performance regardless of profile, otherwise we could all use the cheapest
    monitor available and your "magic" color profile to supposedly give the same
    results as a professional monitor.

    Still, if you are happy, there is no reason why you shouldn't use it. You
    will still have NO idea though what others will necessarily be seeing.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Aug 15, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D_Mac

    PixelPix Guest


    Exactly.... regardless of the profile/application used, it means
    nothing unless we are all "physically" calibrated to a "known
    standard" and even then there will be variation due to the limitations
    of some display units.
     
    PixelPix, Aug 15, 2007
    #3
  4. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    Before going further... I use an EIZO ColorEdge CG19 monitor which I
    calibrate monthly with an Eye one system.

    Now Russell,
    As a percentage of web surfers, how many would you guess are using
    calibrated monitors?
    How many do you guess are actually using an ICC profile to set up
    their monitor in the first place?
    How many, still in percentages, would you expect can see any detail at
    all in shadows down under 50.50.50 of your images?

    These are not my statistics ...Less than 8% of surveyed web surfers
    had calibrated monitors.
    Less than 16% actually knew what an ICC profile was.

    If both you and "T" don't think an early solution exists by impeding
    an ICC profile intended to overcome sRGB's limitations, maybe you
    ought to start your own little club of elitists?

    If either of you think Windows is a managed colour environment, maybe
    one of you can explain how ANY 15 pin, VGA monitor you connect to a
    windows PC will work, regardless of whether or not it has a management
    profile?

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #4
  5. D_Mac

    PixelPix Guest

     
    PixelPix, Aug 15, 2007
    #5
  6. D_Mac

    Noons Guest



    Oh, I hate sRGB. Always use adobergb. Mostly because
    it's what my printer uses best.
    These:
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/pumpiron.jpg
    and
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/calimero.jpg
    are both in adobergb.

    I'm pretty happy with them.
     
    Noons, Aug 15, 2007
    #6
  7. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    This is simply not true, assuming you have calibrated your system
    properly.

    If you want to claim that most people have uncalibrated monitors I'll
    agree with you.
    If you want to claim that sRGB isn't the best color space I'll agree
    with you.
    But when you make misstatements such as the one above, I have to call
    bullshit.

    I like to edit in the ProPhoto color space myself, but it gives funky
    results on the web if you don't convert to sRGB first.

    I needed to get some prints made so I was at Ritz Camera talking to
    the lab guy who ran their printers. One would assume he'd have a good
    grasp of things like color spaces and gamuts, right? So I asked him,
    "What color space should I save my pics in before you guys print
    them?"

    He thought about it for a second and said, "Uh, I think we use JPG."

    I shook my head and walked away.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 15, 2007
    #7

  8. For the Ritz Cameras of this world, sRGB is the safest. 98.4% of
    everything they process comes in in that format, so unless you
    personally get to know Operator 14 and can make sure only he runs your
    prints, stick with that format, in, uh, JPEG....;)

    Many home printers really expect sRBG as well, so unless you have PS or
    Lightroom or another color managed application manage the color (vs.
    letting the printer driver do it), you might be better off printing from
    the sRBG space.

    ProPhoto's wider gamut cannot yet be used effectively, but one day it
    will, as printer technology advances. You can always "down gamut", ie.
    from ProPhoto to aRGB to sRGB, but you can't go the other way. Saving
    the RAW file is a good idea, because by 2020 we'll have SuperExtra
    ProPhoto color space and printers to handle it, and software to match,
    so you can squeeze more out of the capture.
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 15, 2007
    #8
  9. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    I don't think the printer "expects" anything. It prints what it gets.
    It makes sense to print from the wider gamut ProPhoto space assuming
    you have proofed your colors in PS to make sure that nothing is out of
    gamut.
    Good point. Just another reason to shoot RAW.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 15, 2007
    #9
  10. D_Mac

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Like LAB, of course. :)
     
    Paul Mitchum, Aug 15, 2007
    #10
  11. In some respects, however, one can judge the calibration of one's monitor
    just by looking at a large number of pictures on it.....I have to assume
    that when I look at 100 pictures, and they all look pretty good, and then I
    look at one person's photo and it is so dark that I can't see any detail in
    the shadows, that that person's monitor is miscalibrated, and mine is OK.
     
    William Graham, Aug 15, 2007
    #11
  12. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    This is exactly why I made the post Russell.
    MOST = 92% of Internet surfers. So until Microsoft actually come up
    with a method these users can "manage" their colour with, using a
    profile that goes a long way towards overcoming the issues of systems
    with no colour management in place makes good sense, does it not?
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #12
  13. Both of the linked images have no color space information in them whatsoever,
    meaning that normally they will be either displayed without any color management
    at all, or assumed to be sRGB by default (applies to Web browsers and most other
    viewers). This begs the question: what exactly do you mean when you say the they
    are in AdobeRGB? I can only assume that you prepared them as AdobeRGB images and
    then saved them without color space information (what a strange thing to do). If
    that's the case, these images are displayed with notably distorted colors. And
    if you are still "happy" with the way they display, this only means that you
    simply don't see the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB or don't care about
    it. I don't understand how under these circumstances you can "hate" one or
    "love" another...
     
    Andrey Tarasevich, Aug 15, 2007
    #13
  14. Sorry, but you whole post is just an illogical mishmash caused by your lack of
    understanding of the difference between "calibration" and "profiling", and
    between "profile" and "color space".
     
    Andrey Tarasevich, Aug 15, 2007
    #14
  15. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    So instead of converting to sRGB, why not convert to a more suitable
    colour space?
    Uncalibrated windows computers will not show the last 3 steps of a
    contrast wedge. Converting to nativePC instead of sRGB opens up the
    shadows to those who ordinarily would only see black in them.
    Your initial statement that what I sad was not true is an oxymoron.
    Your statement itself was simply not true unless a condition was
    applied to it. Windows does not have any colour management whatsoever
    - unless a person with knowledge of how to get colour management
    working on a Windows PC actually goes to the trouble of setting it
    up... less than 10% of all computer users.

    If you really want to get a handle on what is going on in the world
    outside Chattanooga, you could do worse than research how people
    actually see your images. An excellent start would be with someone who
    has done all the research first and actually developed (free)
    alternatives. He also owns a "totally digital D60"... http://www.aim-dtp.net/
    When you went to Ritz, you spoke to someone purposefully put at the
    front counter. When people like you go into a mini-lab, you often
    expect to get $1.50 a print expertise for 10ยข a print. Owners of cheap
    (and often nasty) high volume labs employ inexperienced people they
    can train to do only what they need to, in order to avoid
    confrontations like you nearly had.

    Bret, you have a Epson pigment printer. Why not print your own? You'll
    get way more "Professional looking" results and I can send you a
    mirror to argue with about the cost!

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #15
  16. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    Your post is equally a mis match. I absolutely do understand all these
    things.
    What I think you fail to understand is that someone else in the world
    took a survey and discovered over 90% of monitors used for surfing are
    not calibrated - for sRGB or anything else. To work with this
    information, a colourspace profile that makes allowances for the fact
    most monitors are not calibrated, makes good sense. Perhaps the
    language barrier has something to do with your lack of comprehension?

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #16
  17. D_Mac

    D_Mac Guest

    The second image is a classic example of why you should use an
    embedded profile and why also it should be nativePC profile.
    nearly all the shadow detail is unavailable to a viewer with an
    uncalibrated monitor.

    Doug
     
    D_Mac, Aug 15, 2007
    #17
  18. D_Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    <snip comments on colour profiling>
    What I want to know is, how do you calibrate a TFT monitor? A 2cm change in
    the position of my head means the difference between seeing all the shadows
    and losing 3-5 steps of highlights, or seeing all the highlights and losing
    3-5 steps of shadow! I've tried numerous TFTs, including the exhorbitantly
    expensive Sony's at work, and they all suffer the problem. Laptops? complete
    and utter waste of time for accurate colours.

    Must find a space in the new house I can set up my old CRT monitor.
     
    Doug Jewell, Aug 15, 2007
    #18
  19. D_Mac

    PixelPix Guest

    and my point is that most user's monitors are "off standard", in a
    vast variety of different ways, so there is no way that you can make
    the statement "The only way to guarantee your pictures will display as
    you see them on anyone's monitor!"

    A single profile may open up the the shadows on a sRGB monitor, but
    with soooooo many other monitor variables involved, the image will
    almost certainly not look the same as it does on yours..... hence
    "physical" calibration to a "known standard" is still the ONLY way to
    get close to seeing things the same.
     
    PixelPix, Aug 16, 2007
    #19
  20. D_Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Because almost everybody viewing these pics on the web will see them
    as sRGB. What good is that other profile you mentioned if it is just
    gonna get converted to sRGB anyway?
    I print one every once in awhile, on the rare occasion that I'm not
    out of paper or at least one color ink. Hey that reminds me, I need
    to order some more Premium Luster.

    But the sad fact is that a print on my Epson 2200 can't hang with a
    good glossy print from a Fuji Frontier. Also, I am limited to 13"
    wide on my 2200, but the larger Epsons at the photo place will go to
    24" or even 44". I think HP released a printer that will print 60"
    wide. Man, you could make some bitchin panoramas with that bad boy!
    Well, not you, specifically.
     
    Annika1980, Aug 16, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.