Just out of interest........

[John 2]

Now that's interesting. I convert images to sRGB for competition purposes but tend to leave them as Adobe RGB for posting here. Am I right in thinking that for Firefox users at least, I would be better converting posts to sRGB?

[Mike Buckley]

Am I right in thinking that for Firefox users at least, I would be better converting posts to sRGB?

I think the only safe thing to do is to embed the sRGB profile. Once you've done that, you've controlled everything within your control.

[Simon Garrett]

I think the only safe thing to do is to embed the sRGB profile. Once you've done that, you've controlled everything within your control.

Agreed.

The choice of browser doesn't really affect the choice of colour space you use. If you want see accurate colour, don't use IE. End of.

If you have a wide-gamut monitor, I recommend Firefox. The reason: most web stuff is sRGB without embedded profiles, and will look over-saturated without colour management on a wide-gamut monitor. Firefox is the only browser prepared to colour-manage images or graphic elements not containing an embedded profile. For normal-gamut monitors (monitors with a gamut close-ish to sRGB) then Firefox, Chrome or Safari are all fine.

[Saorsa]

Now that's interesting. I convert images to sRGB for competition purposes but tend to leave them as Adobe RGB for posting here. Am I right in thinking that for Firefox users at least, I would be better converting posts to sRGB?

Given the number of browsers and the different characteristics of various monitors, you can't be too concerned about how your image might get presented. After all, every other image will be processed the same way on the judging display.

If your own monitor is calibrated for your system then other calibrated monitors should look very nearly identical.

[John 2]

Well that makes life a bit easier. I use an ASUS 24in Pro Art graphics screen. It was rated as having the closest native sRGB profile of any monitor when I bought it 2 yrs ago. It's now about about 2 years old and although I check it occasionally with a Spyder 3 Pro, I have never had to adjust it.

Brian, it does matter. Most competitions, both domestic and international, are judged using projectors calibrated to sRGB because it is the only way to ensure a like for like comparison provided of course, the competitors accurately use the same colour space.

[Simon Garrett]

Given the number of browsers and the different characteristics of various monitors, you can't be too concerned about how your image might get presented. After all, every other image will be processed the same way on the judging display.

If your own monitor is calibrated for your system then other calibrated monitors should look very nearly identical.

That's true, but you can maximise the chances that an image will look OK on unmanaged browsers and uncalibrated and unprofiled monitors by posting sRGB images.

Most monitors have very approximately sRGB colour space. This means, without any colour management, sRGB images will look roughly OK on most unmanaged browsers and monitors.

[tao2]

http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2012/03/16/831.html

for Firefox users - ye can experiment after installing this or there is a (think it's called)" color management" addon which gives GUI inteface.

[MrB]

I've used Opera for many years and see no reason to change - it does everything I need it to do, quickly and efficiently.

Cheers.
Philip

[Dave Humphries]

Must be an OS problem. I'm using Windows 7. There is in fact an add on called deskCut for Firefox that supposedly puts a shortcut onto the desktop but having installed it and tried it, no desktop icons appear either on the Desktop or in Windows Explorer. Thankfully however, shortcuts created by IE will still work so that if I need more I can still create them by reverting to IE temporarily.

Hi John,

I think you may just need to change the computer's default browser to be FireFox, not IE.
Thereafter, any previously made desktop shortcuts should open FireFox (FF) instead of IE.

That's how I have it on my Windows 7 PC (and the 8.1 touchscreen laptop, and the Android phone)

I tried Chrome, but couldn't get on with it and, as Mike said above, it also has some image issues in common with IE.

Opera didn't suit my brain either I'm afraid, so yes, I am usually a FF man, but really have to use IE at work.

Welcome to the FF club

What I like, having two screens, is the ability to drag a tab to the second screen and drop it there, where it opens as a new window, allowing side-by-side referencing between two web pages/pictures/whatever (or even just for playing YouTube videos while here at CiC). The tab can just as easily be dropped back to the main window when you've finished too - which you want to do before closing, so it remembers all those open tabs next time you switch on.

And another thing that's great is syncing bookmarks (not tabs unless you want to) between two computers.

I'm sure other browsers may be able to also, but I like FF


Isn't a "spell checker" something they use at Hogwarts?

[John 2]

Thanks for the additional comments.

Robert for that . I need to take some time to understand it fully bu it looks useful.

Dave, that where I started in this thread. Having tried FF for arious reason, I was surprised at its ability to reproduce images. The problem I have raised over short-cuts is that FF doesn't have the native ability to create new ones and the available add-on doesn't seem to work. It does respond to those originally created in IE. The spell checker just needed the appropriate dictionary to be loaded - so I waved the magic wand and it now works.

[John 2]

Thanks for the additional comments.

Robert thanks for that . I need to take some time to understand it fully but it looks useful.

Dave, that's where I started in this thread. Having tried FF for various reasons, I was surprised at its ability to reproduce images. I don't find IE as bad as some have indicated but I'm sold. The problem I have raised over short-cuts is that FF doesn't have the native ability to create new ones and the available add-on doesn't seem to work. It does respond to those originally created in IE. The spell checker just needed the appropriate dictionary to be loaded - so I waved the magic wand and it now works.

[ajohnw]

I've used Opera for many years and see no reason to change - it does everything I need it to do, quickly and efficiently.

Cheers.
Philip

I'm running Opera 9.8 ! but then I run Linux and the all new version isn't suitable for me at the moment. Last time I looked it hadn't caught up with the original It mIght not even be available yet.

I just tested it's colour management here

http://cameratico.com/tools/web-brow...nagement-test/

Passed. It's also pretty clearly using my installed profiles.

John
-

[Simon Garrett]

I'm running Opera 9.8 ! but then I run Linux and the all new version isn't suitable for me at the moment. Last time I looked it hadn't caught up with the original It mIght not even be available yet.

I just tested it's colour management here

http://cameratico.com/tools/web-brow...nagement-test/

Passed. It's also pretty clearly using my installed profiles.

John
-

I don't think that's a complete test. IE passes that test, and IE is not properly colour managed (it ignores monitor profiles).

I think it's showing that the browser respects profiles embedded in the web images (like the test at http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter), but it's not testing installed monitor profiles.

[ajohnw]

I thought that windows had fixed this aspect with 7 and even updated XP. The best way to tell really is to view your own images against a colour managed application. One problem I find with that is background colour can make a significant difference especially in relationship to apparent brightness which in turn can even make colours look different.

There is a better similar page here. It even includes prophoto.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...anagement.html

Being honest though at times I wonder why some one might carefully adjust there images in aRGB etc and then post them on the web. It makes more sense to work in sRGB for that. Wide gamut monitors are still thin on the ground.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

The best way to tell really is to view your own images against a colour managed application. One problem I find with that is background colour can make a significant difference

One solution is to configure the color-managed application to display the background in a color that is similar to the background being displayed on the Internet. Otherwise, make a screenshot of the display on the Internet and then display the screenshot side-by-side with the image displayed in the color-managed app.

[Ady]

I thought that windows had fixed this aspect with 7 and even updated XP...
...There is a better similar page here. It even includes prophoto.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/a...anagement.html

The link John provided (thanks John) suggests that all is well with IE 11 on Windows 8.1, though I feel I may have just made myself (even more) unpopular having advertised the fact that I use IE on Windows 8.1

Cheers,
A

PS I'm using a wide gamut display

[Simon Garrett]

Sorry, but this isn't right. IE11 doesn't colour-manage properly, not even with W8.

What all those test pages show is that the browser is taking note of embedded profiles. IE since 8 does that.

None of those pages show that the browser is using monitor profiles, and IE definitely doesn't. Not even IE11, not even on W8. Really!

Proper colour management involves two profiles: the profile of the image you are displaying, and the profile of the monitor. Using both profiles, a colour-managed application maps colours from the colour space of the image (using the image profile) to the colour space of the monitor (using the monitor profile).

IE uses image profiles, but always maps to sRGB, ignoring the monitor profile. I've no idea why it does that, as it's pretty useless behaviour, but that's what it does.

If you have a well-calibrated monitor, and the monitor has a native colour space very close to sRGB, then IE will show the right colours. Otherwise - and especially with a wide-gamut monitor - IE will show erroneous colour. In fact, its faulty colour management absolutely guarantees false colour with most monitors!

[ajohnw]

Sorry, but this isn't right. IE11 doesn't colour-manage properly, not even with W8.


Proper colour management involves two profiles: the profile of the image you are displaying, and the profile of the monitor. Using both profiles, a colour-managed application maps colours from the colour space of the image (using the image profile) to the colour space of the monitor (using the monitor profile).

IE uses image profiles, but always maps to sRGB, ignoring the monitor profile. I've no idea why it does that, as it's pretty useless behaviour, but that's what it does.
!

I think you have unrealistic expectations here. The web is sRGB not aRGB or anything else. The basic idea of colour management in a browser is to produce as accurate as they can be sRGB images from what it is given to display. Any local system calibration then displays it as sRGB.

Since this cropped up people seem to assume that an aRGB image will be displayed correct as it will be corrected by it's profile. Unfortunately its a fact that colours exist in both sRGB and aRGB that the other can not display.

As an aside I have no interest in wide gamut monitors until such time a true 10bit monitors become widely available. Currently all of the ones I am aware of use 8+2 dithering. If and when this happens I suspect neither aRGB or sRGB will be adequate. I see the general introduction of colour management as a step towards this and obviously if done in the right way a 10bit monitor will show both aRGB and sRGB correctly but without the coarseness of aRGB colouring.

One thing for sure something needs doing. The web is stuck with a system more suited to CRT monitors and not the TFT types that most use these days.

John
-

[Simon Garrett]

I think you have unrealistic expectations here. The web is sRGB not aRGB or anything else. The basic idea of colour management in a browser is to produce as accurate as they can be sRGB images from what it is given to display. Any local system calibration then displays it as sRGB.

We could get lost in a quagmire of terminology here, but what you say doesn't quite align with my understanding of colour management. The web is not inherently sRGB - you can use any colour space you like - but I quite agree that the vast majority of images on the web are sRGB - probably more than 99%.

I'm not sure that the idea of colour management in a browser is to show sRGB images accurately, but in any case, IE doesn't do that. IE will colour-manage any colour space of image (not just sRGB), but does not colour manage the image to the monitor colour space. Rather, it converts the image colour space to sRGB. This is rather a waste of time given that 99% of web images are already sRGB.

In general, you can't calibrate a monitor to sRGB. Calibration (in most monitors) corrects only tone curve and white point. The colour space can't be altered in most monitors. Profiling (done with calibration) measures the colour space of the monitor, and puts the information in the profile. Colour management requires that the program uses both the image profile and the monitor profile to get the right colours on the monitor. IE doesn't do that, which is why on most monitors IE will display the wrong colours.

Since this cropped up people seem to assume that an aRGB image will be displayed correct as it will be corrected by it's profile. Unfortunately its a fact that colours exist in both sRGB and aRGB that the other can not display.

There are colours in Adobe RGB that are not in sRGB, but not the other way around. sRGB is a subset of Adobe RGB.

However, the large majority of pixels in the large majority of images have colours within sRGB colour space. Colours outside sRGB colour space are not all that common in nature. I have two monitors: one around sRGB colour space, and one a bit wider than Adobe RGB. Most of my 40,000 raw images look the same on both monitors (with proper colour management). In general, only small areas of most natural images have pixels with colours outside sRGB.

As an aside I have no interest in wide gamut monitors until such time a true 10bit monitors become widely available. Currently all of the ones I am aware of use 8+2 dithering. If and when this happens I suspect neither aRGB or sRGB will be adequate. I see the general introduction of colour management as a step towards this and obviously if done in the right way a 10bit monitor will show both aRGB and sRGB correctly but without the coarseness of aRGB colouring.

I don't notice any courseness on my wide-gamut monitor, and I have looked for it! I think I have normal colour vision, but yours may be better.

But given that most pixels in most images are within sRGB, the advantage of a wide-gamut monitor is a bit marginal.

[Ady]

Sorry, but this isn't right. IE11 doesn't colour-manage properly, not even with W8...
...None of those pages show that the browser is using monitor profiles, and IE definitely doesn't. Not even IE11, not even on W8. Really!

...IE uses image profiles, but always maps to sRGB, ignoring the monitor profile. I've no idea why it does that, as it's pretty useless behaviour, but that's what it does.

...IE will show erroneous colour. In fact, its faulty colour management absolutely guarantees false colour with most monitors!

Hi Simon,

OK I get it, IE doesn't do colour management properly/at all on any version of Windows. You won't get any argument from me as I've never paid too much attention to the technicalities of colour management, but despite not being right what I see looks OK. Most of my work ends up in print and output has always been perfectly satisfactory, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Maybe I should but my only real concern is for my clients, none of whom have ever complained, all have been happy to pay their invoices and most come back for more.

However, if I run into problems in the future you are more than welcome to say 'I told you so' and teach me the error of my ways.

All the best,
A