Is Your Browser Color Managed?

On May 26, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 26 May 2017 09:38:17 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

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.

I agree completely. A color managed workflow is just as important for B&W
images as for color. There is a reason why straight gray scale B&W
conversions are not particularly good, and lack the character of a more
thoughtful conversion where color response is addressed.

It is always going to be better to use a calibrated display, including a
properly set gamma, and color temperature for all work on any display. Too
many folks will screw up a display that is within the bounds of what might be
a “good� calibration, by making their own, to taste adjustments to gamma,
contrast, temp, and hue without a thought to proper calibration.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Fri, 26 May 2017 21:40:27 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display...-space/dci-p3/

"The DCI P3 Color Space is an RGB color space that was introduced in
2007 by the SMPTE. The color space features a color gamut that is
much wider than sRGB. All Digital Cinema Projectors are capable of
displaying the DCI P3 color space in its entirety. As of 2013 there
is only one commercially available monitor capable of displaying
the entire DCI P3 color gamut, the Dolby Professional Reference
Monitor PRM-4200."

Sounds as though it might be a stretch too far for the immediate
future.

See also https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/color-space/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display...-space/dci-p3/

"The DCI P3 Color Space is an RGB color space that was introduced in
2007 by the SMPTE. The color space features a color gamut that is
much wider than sRGB. All Digital Cinema Projectors are capable of
displaying the DCI P3 color space in its entirety. As of 2013 there
is only one commercially available monitor capable of displaying
the entire DCI P3 color gamut, the Dolby Professional Reference
Monitor PRM-4200."

Sounds as though it might be a stretch too far for the immediate
future.

this may come to you as a big surprise, but the year is 2017, *not*
2013.

currently, nearly all apple products have a wide gamut dci-p3 display,
including the iphone 7/7+, ipad pro 9.7", imac 4k, imac 5k and macbook
pro '16, as well as products from other companies.

See also https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/color-space/

see also:
http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_Pro9_ShootOut_1.htm
The Absolute Color Accuracy of the iPad Pro 9.7 is Truly Impressive
as shown in these Figures. It is the most color accurate display that
we have ever measured. It is visually indistinguishable from perfect,
and is very likely considerably better than on any mobile display,
monitor, TV or UHD TV that you have.
....
The iPad Pro 9.7 breaks many new records in display performance for:
Highest Absolute Color Accuracy for any display for Both Color Gamuts
(1.35 JNCD), Lowest Screen Reflectance for any mobile display (1.7
percent), Highest Peak Brightness in a full size Tablet for any
Picture Level (511 nits), Highest Contrast Rating in High Ambient
light (301), and Smallest Color variation with Viewing Angle (all
under 2.0 JNCD).
....
The Next Generation of Displays* ** Better Performance in Ambient
Light
Right now the iPads are the unrivaled record holders for display
performance in ambient light as a result of their record low screen
Reflectance of 1.7 to 2.6 percent, significantly lower than the 4.5
to 6.5 percent Reflectance currently found in all other current
competing Tablets and Smartphones.

On Fri, 26 May 2017 23:46:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
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.

https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display...-space/dci-p3/

"The DCI P3 Color Space is an RGB color space that was introduced in
2007 by the SMPTE. The color space features a color gamut that is
much wider than sRGB. All Digital Cinema Projectors are capable of
displaying the DCI P3 color space in its entirety. As of 2013 there
is only one commercially available monitor capable of displaying
the entire DCI P3 color gamut, the Dolby Professional Reference
Monitor PRM-4200."

Sounds as though it might be a stretch too far for the immediate
future.

this may come to you as a big surprise, but the year is 2017, *not*
2013.

currently, nearly all apple products have a wide gamut dci-p3 display,
including the iphone 7/7+, ipad pro 9.7", imac 4k, imac 5k and macbook
pro '16, as well as products from other companies.

See also https://www.noteloop.com/kit/display/color-space/

see also:
http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_Pro9_ShootOut_1.htm
The Absolute Color Accuracy of the iPad Pro 9.7 is Truly Impressive
as shown in these Figures. It is the most color accurate display that
we have ever measured. It is visually indistinguishable from perfect,
and is very likely considerably better than on any mobile display,
monitor, TV or UHD TV that you have.
...
The iPad Pro 9.7 breaks many new records in display performance for:
Highest Absolute Color Accuracy for any display for Both Color Gamuts
(1.35 JNCD), Lowest Screen Reflectance for any mobile display (1.7
percent), Highest Peak Brightness in a full size Tablet for any
Picture Level (511 nits), Highest Contrast Rating in High Ambient
light (301), and Smallest Color variation with Viewing Angle (all
under 2.0 JNCD).
...
The Next Generation of Displays* ** Better Performance in Ambient
Light
Right now the iPads are the unrivaled record holders for display
performance in ambient light as a result of their record low screen
Reflectance of 1.7 to 2.6 percent, significantly lower than the 4.5
to 6.5 percent Reflectance currently found in all other current
competing Tablets and Smartphones.

I didn't think we were just talking about iPads. As you quote above:

"It is visually indistinguishable from perfect, and is very likely
considerably better than on any mobile display, monitor, TV or UHD
TV that you have."

It still sounds that as far as monitor screens are concerned its time
has not yet come.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 May 2017 22:31:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Mayayana
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.

All you hvae to do is read back up the thread. I know that on good
authority. That's what you keep telling me when I complain about you
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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 26 May 2017 22:35:51 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" 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!"

Don't be ridiculous.

"For best results, please view this photo on a color-managed computer
with a calibrated monitor."

I suppose there are still computers out there which are not color
managed. It's almost certain that there are many monitors out there
which are not calibrated.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Tony Cooper" wrote

| Another popular bird to photo in Florida is the Sandhill Crane. Like
| the pelican, they're big and you can walk right up to them. They will
| walk (not fly) away from you at a fast pace, though, so it can be hard
| to get a face-on shot like this:
|
| https://photos.smugmug.com/Birds/i-P...8-10-27-X3.jpg
|
| I prefer the common birds, though:
|
| https://photos.smugmug.com/Birds/i-7...2009-04-16.jpg
|
| They don't get the attention.
|

I didn't realize you were so much for the birds.
Nice shots. Those are your photos? And both
saturated? The crow looks hyper-saturated while
the shells look about right. Maybe because the shells
and sand don't have a lot of color to intensify.

I wonder about the "author byline" in the IPTC
data of the second one. It looks like a chunk of
EXIF data.

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| 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!"
|
| Don't be ridiculous.
|
| "For best results, please view this photo on a color-managed computer
| with a calibrated monitor."
|



| I suppose there are still computers out there which are not color
| managed. It's almost certain that there are many monitors out there
| which are not calibrated.

Or more accurately, it's almost certain there
are some monitors out there that are calibrated.
But probably not on tablets and phones and
laptops and computers not used primarily for
graphics. Just as the average person is watching
TV on a garishly saturated flatscreen, it's not
even relevant to most people, much less worth
an investment of time and money.

I always install the color profile for my monitor
and then adjust until things look right to my eye.
Heresy in this crowd, I know, but the expense of
calibration is not worth it to me, and I have a
good eye for color. I do wonder, though, just
how far off the average monitor is, if its color
profile is installed. There's a lot of talk about
calibration but I've never seen any kind of
analysis about just how much difference it makes.

On May 27, 2017, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

"Eric wrote

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!"
Don't be ridiculous.

"For best results, please view this photo on a color-managed computer
with a calibrated monitor."


I suppose there are still computers out there which are not color
managed. It's almost certain that there are many monitors out there
which are not calibrated.

Or more accurately, it's almost certain there
are some monitors out there that are calibrated.
But probably not on tablets and phones and
laptops and computers not used primarily for
graphics. Just as the average person is watching
TV on a garishly saturated flatscreen, it's not
even relevant to most people, much less worth
an investment of time and money.

I always install the color profile for my monitor
and then adjust until things look right to my eye.
Heresy in this crowd, I know, but the expense of
calibration is not worth it to me, and I have a
good eye for color. I do wonder, though, just
how far off the average monitor is, if its color
profile is installed. There's a lot of talk about
calibration but I've never seen any kind of
analysis about just how much difference it makes.

For you the only way to demonstrate the difference in realtime, is to make an
A-B comparison between your display using your “adjusted until things look
right using your good eye for color� method, and a display calibrated with
one of the tools available from X-Rite, or Spyder (or even with a
before/after with your monitor). What you will find are startling
differences.

Most eyeball adjusted monitors typically present a “warmer� display
temperature which effects whites, and hue.

I used to believe I had a pretty good eye for adjusting my displays using the
built-in tools (including provided color profiles) and what I thought looked
good to me. I was wrong. The first time I used an X-Rite colorimeter and
software to calibrate my display/monitor I was amazed that I had been so
wrong. I learned my lesson, and now I am not comfortable doing any color
critical work on a display/monitor which shows the symtoms of being
uncalibrated, or “eyeball� adjusted.

Invariably if you make an eyeball adjustment to make things look right to
your eye, you will be wrong, and your display/monitor will be uncalibrated.
You might get close, but there is the strong likelihood that you are going to
be wrong.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

| Another popular bird to photo in Florida is the Sandhill Crane. Like
| the pelican, they're big and you can walk right up to them. They will
| walk (not fly) away from you at a fast pace, though, so it can be hard
| to get a face-on shot like this:
|
| https://photos.smugmug.com/Birds/i-P...8-10-27-X3.jpg
|
| I prefer the common birds, though:
|
| https://photos.smugmug.com/Birds/i-7...2009-04-16.jpg
|
| They don't get the attention.
|

I didn't realize you were so much for the birds.
Nice shots. Those are your photos? And both
saturated? The crow looks hyper-saturated while
the shells look about right. Maybe because the shells
and sand don't have a lot of color to intensify.

I wonder about the "author byline" in the IPTC
data of the second one. It looks like a chunk of
EXIF data.


Yes, those are my shots. I shoot what I see if I think it makes an
interesting shot. I never go out with the intention of photographing
birds, though.

The second shot was taken in 2009 with my original dslr: a Nikon D40.
I did some post manipulation in PS on it a long time ago, but I don't
remember what I did.

you don't have to remember. it's all in the exif.

you cranked the brightness, vibrancy and clarity, along with some other
adjustments (the ones w/0 skipped).

and to answer mayayana's question about saturation, vibrancy is a smart
saturation control, so the saturation is indeed boosted. a lot.

Color Temperature : 4800
Tint : -5
Exposure : +0.05
Shadows : 9
Brightness : +65
Color Noise Reduction : 25
Fill Light : 45
Vibrance : +42
Highlight Recovery : 6
Clarity : +86
Parametric Shadow Split : 25
Parametric Midtone Split : 50
Parametric Highlight Split : 75
Sharpen Radius : +2.0
Sharpen Detail : 81
Sharpen Edge Masking : 43

you apparently weren't sure of what you were doing:

History Action : saved, converted, derived, saved,
saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved, saved,
converted, derived, saved

I was shooting only .jpgs at the time.

not that time, you weren't.

History Parameters : from image/tiff to
application/vnd.adobe.photoshop, converted from image/tiff to
application/vnd.adobe.photoshop, from application/vnd.adobe.photoshop
to image/jpeg, converted from application/vnd.adobe.photoshop to
image/jpeg

Any photo I post from my SmugMug site is a photo I've shot.

I don't know what the "author byline" is. If I open the file in
Irfanview, the IPTC fields are blank except for "Allowed
placeholders". Dunno what that is.

he's referring to this:

IPTC Digest : ec9be631d30930c997bc75206bd95ae7