Especially over the last year, I have been noticing my images changing in saturation and even hue (and some colors more than others) when posting on this website (and other forums). More notably, I just finished an image of the Columbia River Gorge that has a ton of very specific GREEN variation in it (I have yet to post it in the Landscape Forum - but it is coming). I noticed that the SRGB Jpeg (also embedded) looks perfect in PS on my meticulously calibrated quality monitor but when I posted it here (in an area no one would see for a test look) it looked horrendous! I finally posted a thread about it asking for answers here:
and I came to find that my Internet Explorer is not color managed. I downloaded FIREFOX which is (will ensure SRGB is read as it was intended) and BAM it looked perfect, just as intended. The differences were DRASTIC! The problem is the BROWSERS we choose. To even try to get the image to look right in IE (Internet Explorer 9) I went as far as Hue Shifting the Greens 30 points (NOT 3 folks!) toward Yellow and Desaturated the image by 25 points!!! It still was off (and damaged) but that was about as close as I could get it without further complicated Color Balance moves in PS added to the mix.
WTH (heck)???
This opens a big can of worms!
I am both mad, confused and even slightly humiliated! As an example, I had just given Scott Smorra some careful feedback on his greens on his recent Columbia River Gorge shot (beautiful BTW) and then once I discovered the problem I viewed it in FIREFOX and BAM it was perfect!
What this means (among MANY other things) is ALL (or a great deal) OF MY CAREFUL FEEDBACK on COLOR, HUE and SATURATION has been WRONG! I have used IE since I ever started posting on forums years ago.
Also, if everyone here is not on a color managed BROWSER like FIREFOX or SAFARI and on a calibrated monitor we are all looking at different things even often drastically different!
Why have photography forum folks like myself and millions of others mostly been made clearly aware of the issue? Especially on a forum like this where we are literally splitting hairs over important nuances of Color and Hue?
I have been studying about Color Management for a couple of years (and even do some consulting in the area of profiling for fine art prints, calibrating, color spaces...) and I admit I have seen the issue come up a couple times, but this issue is PROFOUND in relationship to what we do here! I think it might be a good idea to push it to the forefront.
BTW, I want to sincerely APOLOGIZE to everyone I have ever given HUE or SATURATION fine tuning feedback. I was likely WRONG.
Good chance I may never use INTERNET EXPLORER again!
Isn't there maybe a need for the moderators to let everyone know about this issue, because what is the point of fine tuned careful critique if almost everyone is looking at something different? The main reason I came to NPN in the first place is that we get into very Careful Professional Critique more than any forum I have found. But the next question follows: what is the point of Careful Professional Critique if many don't know if their images are being represented correctly, or they don't know if they are seeing others images as the artist intended it to be seen?
There seems to be a big need for a standard. Maybe some kind of disclaimer right on the Galleries (forums) so everyone knows how to be closely on the same page?
Lastly, this is an open discussion. EVERYONE who reads this, please feel very free to contribute with your valued feedback here. We really need to be on the same page as much as possible and maybe by getting this issue out we can more and more?
I'm a Mac guy but I have Parallels, a VM tool, and Windows XP running IE 8.0 for Windows. Looking at Scott Smorra's "Tranquillity" and don't see much difference at all in the colors. It may not be a valid test, because Parallels may be using the Mac system to draw the image. But it makes me think you may have some IE setting wrong.
Hi Jim, thanks for your feedback here. It is in its default setting, which, I assume, is what most would ever have theirs in, which makes the above points extremely valid.
Soon it won't be in its default settings anymore because I am going to DESTROY IT WITH A HAMMER!!! LOL!!!
Thanks for the link to that info., John.
One slight error, though. In the list of color managed browsers, IE9 is noted. IE9 is defeinitely not a color managed browser.
This can be confusing, because IE9 IS color managed in a way, but it's not implemented properly. What IE9 does is ignore your monitor profile, and assume it's sRGB. The closer your monitor is to sRGB, the closer your image will look to "correct". But as we know, monitors and profiles vary pretty widely.
The link Guy posted looks good in IE9 because it's reading the profiles OK, but it's not rendering them correctly. So the quadrants come out the same (the correct results according to the page) but the image colors may still be shifted.
I'm going to quote Scott Smorra on another thread"
"Mark - It's crazy isn't it? I definitely think this is something that needs to be addressed. I remember TK wrote about this issue in comments from some of his images many months ago, but I never saw anything formal about it on the NPN website."
I wonder if something FORMAL should be in the works with a forum that emphasizes careful professional critique (of color and hue even)? Like a disclaimer at the top of the gallery forums...
Hey Mark, I am actually a surprised this is news to you. I thought it was fairly well known. It's gotten better but IE has sucked in a lot of ways for a while
Aside from the critique accuracy issue, this seems like a big deal for photographers who sell their prints online. I would expect most serious photogs will have their color management issues worked out, but your average print buyer won't, and will probably use IE. This reminds of me of a story about music recording engineers; they might have a studio with $100k worth of top-quality audio equipment, but would record a track to tape and play it in their car stereo before finalizing it.
My opinion and advice for Photographers: forget IE and put it to thrash. This browser was never intended to take in attention image color management. But attention: Internet browser should be Color managed only if working in a calibrated monitor, otherwise, turning color management on can provide awful results, anyway.
This reminds of me of a story about music recording engineers; they might have a studio with $100k worth of top-quality audio equipment, but would record a track to tape and play it in their car stereo before finalizing it.
Helio brings up the real issue: it doesn't really matter whether the browser supports ICC profiles or how well if your viewers' monitors are (for the most part) not calibrated.
ICC awareness is obviously very useful to us photographers, who DO calibrate our screens. To the average web user though, it is quite meaningless.
Agreed with Guy...NPN is one thing, but visitors to your personal website aren't likely to have calibrated monitors or worry about color profiles.
Frankly, photographers worry about profiles and the effects on image presentation a lot more than the vast majority of photography consumers would ever do. Not to sell buyers of photography short, but most of them probably wouldn't notice the differences between color profiles. Which is why I don't worry too much about how browsers effect how photos on my website will look on different users' browsers.
Not that big a deal, Mark. Don't get so worked up about a minor thing you can't control. I know how particular you are, and most of these differences will only be noticed by you. Have a beer......
This is a great thread you have going here Mark. I agree with most of what has been said already.
Here is a link to my Columbia River Gorge image which brought on this discussion. If you are using a color calibrated monitor check out the image in both IE and Firefox. In IE you will notice the greens are way oversaturated and lots of the subtle green tones are pushed into oversaturated greens (not my intent). Viewing the image in Firefox on a color calibrated monitor looks pretty much the same as the original tiff file in PS (ie not oversatured with a nice broad range of green tones).
In my mind there are several key points here;
1. When posting images for online viewing, use the "save for web" function in PS.
2. If you are using a color calibrated monitor, I recommend using Firefox or Safari to view online images.
3. NPN should make everyone aware that when commenting on colors/hue/sat and using a color calibrated monitor, you should be using Firefox or Safari. Otherwise the comments about colors/hue/sat are likely not accurate and may cause significant confusion.
4. If you are NOT using a color calibrated monitor, it really doesn't matter which internet browser you use, since they all look about the same.
Jeffrey, I respect your opinion here but point #3 that Scott makes, I think is a pretty big deal.
3. "NPN should make everyone aware that when commenting on colors/hue/sat and using a color calibrated monitor, you should be using Firefox or Safari. Otherwise the comments about colors/hue/sat are likely not accurate and may cause significant confusion. "
This forum is especially based on very careful and very professional critique. When an image is off by 30 pts of hue and 25 pts in saturation on a calibrated monitor due only to the Browser used and most people don't know that this kind of shifting is taking place, I believe the potential confusion is big. If half (or more) of the critique I (or many others) have given here was wrong, that is a pretty big deal. I checked my last two comments on Green waterfall shots in the Landscape Gallery and then viewed the same images in FIREFOX and found my comments/critique were way/off and dead wrong. The one photographer (whose post I commented) went as far as to say he was going to re calibrate his monitor because he could not see the prevalent Green cast I mentioned. I was not the only one to comment on that cast. In FIREFOX his image looked perfect (no strong cast). So, in a lot of cases we are not being overly hair splitting, the differences are even sometimes severe. I propose that people on a forum like this should definitely be made aware of the issue.
I too am surprised that this is a revelation to so many people - its been discussed many times before in replies to questions here on NPN. As a long time Mac user who has been using color managed browsers for many years I've mad this recommendation here plenty of times: Please always embed your intended color profile in any jpeg you post on line (Save for Web will strip it out unless you specify otherwise).
I agree that it would be a good idea if there was a prominent reminder about this at the top of every gallery.
3. "NPN should make everyone aware that when commenting on colors/hue/sat and using a color calibrated monitor, you should be using Firefox or Safari. Otherwise the comments about colors/hue/sat are likely not accurate and may cause significant confusion. "
I think this is avery good idea!
Honestly, I am usually pretty hesitant when it comes to commenting about color of posted images, even though I am using a calibrated and profiled wide-gamut monitor.
It would be great if I did not have this hesitation using IE9. Maybe IE10 will fix the color management issue, once for all. Until then, I'll install FireFox for my critiques at NPN.
Left Fire Fox and accurate (if you are viewing in a calibrated wide gamut monitor via Firefox) Right IE9 and not accurate. I suspect for those who have calibrated monitors that are limited to the SRGB space the differences would be less pronounced.
Posted by Scott Smorra on July 7, 2011 at 11:10 PM
The comparison image demonstrates this issue perfectly. It's nice to see the differences side by side. On my monitor the differences are profound (Firefox looks perfect, IE looks ridiculously oversaturated). It's hard to believe these are the "same" image.
All things considered, I still don't understand the its "not a big deal" comment? It seems big to me. Miscommunication, huge differences in what we are seeing, confusion in feedback. Knowing all my Hue, Saturation feedback over the last 2 years here has been mainly wrong (and not helpful) is at least a little disconcerting. What is even more is all the other potential disconnects others may be having.
"Honestly, I am usually pretty hesitant when it comes to commenting about color of posted images, even though I am using a calibrated and profiled wide-gamut monitor.
Thanks for bringing this topic to the fore, Mark! "
Me too. I am very hesitant now about giving subtle fine tuned professional feedback because good chance the person whose image I am commenting is seeing a very different thing and it will not be helpful! Thus I wonder why this is not addressed more fully?
"I am very hesitant now about giving subtle fine tuned professional feedback because good chance the person whose image I am commenting is seeing a very different thing and it will not be helpful! Thus I wonder why this is not addressed more fully? "
In my opinion, Mark, the only thing we at NPN can do is to encourage members and visitors to use a color managed browser and also to use some method to calibrate their monitors.
Most video drivers have tools that can be used to get fairly reasonable, but not perfectly accurate color and contrast. We cannot expect anyone to spend money for calibration/profiling software and hardware.
So, until the day comes when monitors self-calibrate, create a profile and install it, and all browsers are fully color managed, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Things are much improved from even a few years ago, but there is still a long way to go.
All things considered, I still don't understand the its "not a big deal" comment? It seems big to me.
You're allowed to think it's big Mark. Nothing wrong with attention to detail!
Personally, while I clearly see the difference, it doesn't make or break the image for me. That's why I would say it's not a big deal. In most cases, someone who saw just the right hand image would probably like it every bit as much as if they saw just the left hand image.
You know your photos intimately. Most people don't. It may occur to them that the right image is oversaturated. Or they may think that's how you wanted it (which is really the only problem I see - they don't see it how you wanted them to). But most people won't know or care.
I have read this thread with interest. The problem that you ran into is most noticeable in the case of wide-gamut monitors, as you have found out. While many believe that this is only a software issue, (e.g. a browser not doing the right job dealing with profiles), many experts in the field of computer graphics recognize this as a problem in the way wide-gamut monitors are currently designed. Today's wide-gamut monitors use the same range (0 through 1) to represent a bigger gamut (e.g. Adobe RGB) as they do to represent the gamut of sRGB. That is why a program that is not actually using the monitor's color profile to do the translation ends up showing images with increased saturation and possibly other abnormalities too. A few interesting theories have been proposed to correct this problem in the design of wide-gamut monitors, which involve actually widening the range used by the monitors (i.e. also using the range less than 0 or greater than 1). I won't get into the specifics because it is outside the scope of this discussion (folks who are interested can send me a private email). It is expected that once this problem has been sorted out one won't have to reply on software programs doing the right thing. Or in other words most applications would be able to properly render an sRGB image with its narrow gamut as well as an Adobe RBB image with its wider gamut.
Until that time, the best one can do is use software that supports proper color management (e.g. Photoshop, Firefox, Safari, etc.). It should be understood that images on different monitors will never look quite the same. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on doing very critical reviews of color/tone/saturation for images posted on-line. For such reviews prints are a much better alternative IMHO.
I am glad that you have found the cause of your problem.
Discussion
31 replieshttp://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=65474&CGISESSID=bcf802cc6a81c811f3773281887f6421&u=10392
and I came to find that my Internet Explorer is not color managed. I downloaded FIREFOX which is (will ensure SRGB is read as it was intended) and BAM it looked perfect, just as intended. The differences were DRASTIC! The problem is the BROWSERS we choose. To even try to get the image to look right in IE (Internet Explorer 9) I went as far as Hue Shifting the Greens 30 points (NOT 3 folks!) toward Yellow and Desaturated the image by 25 points!!! It still was off (and damaged) but that was about as close as I could get it without further complicated Color Balance moves in PS added to the mix.
WTH (heck)???
This opens a big can of worms!
I am both mad, confused and even slightly humiliated! As an example, I had just given Scott Smorra some careful feedback on his greens on his recent Columbia River Gorge shot (beautiful BTW) and then once I discovered the problem I viewed it in FIREFOX and BAM it was perfect!
What this means (among MANY other things) is ALL (or a great deal) OF MY CAREFUL FEEDBACK on COLOR, HUE and SATURATION has been WRONG! I have used IE since I ever started posting on forums years ago.
Also, if everyone here is not on a color managed BROWSER like FIREFOX or SAFARI and on a calibrated monitor we are all looking at different things even often drastically different!
Why have photography forum folks like myself and millions of others mostly been made clearly aware of the issue? Especially on a forum like this where we are literally splitting hairs over important nuances of Color and Hue?
I have been studying about Color Management for a couple of years (and even do some consulting in the area of profiling for fine art prints, calibrating, color spaces...) and I admit I have seen the issue come up a couple times, but this issue is PROFOUND in relationship to what we do here! I think it might be a good idea to push it to the forefront.
BTW, I want to sincerely APOLOGIZE to everyone I have ever given HUE or SATURATION fine tuning feedback. I was likely WRONG.
Good chance I may never use INTERNET EXPLORER again!
Isn't there maybe a need for the moderators to let everyone know about this issue, because what is the point of fine tuned careful critique if almost everyone is looking at something different? The main reason I came to NPN in the first place is that we get into very Careful Professional Critique more than any forum I have found. But the next question follows: what is the point of Careful Professional Critique if many don't know if their images are being represented correctly, or they don't know if they are seeing others images as the artist intended it to be seen?
There seems to be a big need for a standard. Maybe some kind of disclaimer right on the Galleries (forums) so everyone knows how to be closely on the same page?
Lastly, this is an open discussion. EVERYONE who reads this, please feel very free to contribute with your valued feedback here. We really need to be on the same page as much as possible and maybe by getting this issue out we can more and more?
I'm a Mac guy but I have Parallels, a VM tool, and Windows XP running IE 8.0 for Windows. Looking at Scott Smorra's "Tranquillity" and don't see much difference at all in the colors. It may not be a valid test, because Parallels may be using the Mac system to draw the image. But it makes me think you may have some IE setting wrong.
Soon it won't be in its default settings anymore because I am going to DESTROY IT WITH A HAMMER!!!
One slight error, though. In the list of color managed browsers, IE9 is noted. IE9 is defeinitely not a color managed browser.
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/graphics/colorprofiles/default.html
Guy
The link Guy posted looks good in IE9 because it's reading the profiles OK, but it's not rendering them correctly. So the quadrants come out the same (the correct results according to the page) but the image colors may still be shifted.
"Mark - It's crazy isn't it? I definitely think this is something that needs to be addressed. I remember TK wrote about this issue in comments from some of his images many months ago, but I never saw anything formal about it on the NPN website."
I wonder if something FORMAL should be in the works with a forum that emphasizes careful professional critique (of color and hue even)? Like a disclaimer at the top of the gallery forums...
Aside from the critique accuracy issue, this seems like a big deal for photographers who sell their prints online. I would expect most serious photogs will have their color management issues worked out, but your average print buyer won't, and will probably use IE. This reminds of me of a story about music recording engineers; they might have a studio with $100k worth of top-quality audio equipment, but would record a track to tape and play it in their car stereo before finalizing it.
LOL, exactly!
ICC awareness is obviously very useful to us photographers, who DO calibrate our screens. To the average web user though, it is quite meaningless.
Guy
Frankly, photographers worry about profiles and the effects on image presentation a lot more than the vast majority of photography consumers would ever do. Not to sell buyers of photography short, but most of them probably wouldn't notice the differences between color profiles. Which is why I don't worry too much about how browsers effect how photos on my website will look on different users' browsers.
Here is a link to my Columbia River Gorge image which brought on this discussion. If you are using a color calibrated monitor check out the image in both IE and Firefox. In IE you will notice the greens are way oversaturated and lots of the subtle green tones are pushed into oversaturated greens (not my intent). Viewing the image in Firefox on a color calibrated monitor looks pretty much the same as the original tiff file in PS (ie not oversatured with a nice broad range of green tones).
In my mind there are several key points here;
1. When posting images for online viewing, use the "save for web" function in PS.
2. If you are using a color calibrated monitor, I recommend using Firefox or Safari to view online images.
3. NPN should make everyone aware that when commenting on colors/hue/sat and using a color calibrated monitor, you should be using Firefox or Safari. Otherwise the comments about colors/hue/sat are likely not accurate and may cause significant confusion.
4. If you are NOT using a color calibrated monitor, it really doesn't matter which internet browser you use, since they all look about the same.
3. "NPN should make everyone aware that when commenting on colors/hue/sat and using a color calibrated monitor, you should be using Firefox or Safari. Otherwise the comments about colors/hue/sat are likely not accurate and may cause significant confusion. "
This forum is especially based on very careful and very professional critique. When an image is off by 30 pts of hue and 25 pts in saturation on a calibrated monitor due only to the Browser used and most people don't know that this kind of shifting is taking place, I believe the potential confusion is big. If half (or more) of the critique I (or many others) have given here was wrong, that is a pretty big deal. I checked my last two comments on Green waterfall shots in the Landscape Gallery and then viewed the same images in FIREFOX and found my comments/critique were way/off and dead wrong. The one photographer (whose post I commented) went as far as to say he was going to re calibrate his monitor because he could not see the prevalent Green cast I mentioned. I was not the only one to comment on that cast. In FIREFOX his image looked perfect (no strong cast). So, in a lot of cases we are not being overly hair splitting, the differences are even sometimes severe. I propose that people on a forum like this should definitely be made aware of the issue.
As far as the beer, that is a given!
Brad, this one is worth it to me.
I agree that it would be a good idea if there was a prominent reminder about this at the top of every gallery.
I think this is avery good idea!
Honestly, I am usually pretty hesitant when it comes to commenting about color of posted images, even though I am using a calibrated and profiled wide-gamut monitor.
It would be great if I did not have this hesitation using IE9. Maybe IE10 will fix the color management issue, once for all. Until then, I'll install FireFox for my critiques at NPN.
Thanks for bringing this topic to the fore, Mark!
--P
Left Fire Fox and accurate (if you are viewing in a calibrated wide gamut monitor via Firefox) Right IE9 and not accurate. I suspect for those who have calibrated monitors that are limited to the SRGB space the differences would be less pronounced.
This should really open some eyes.
--P
All things considered, I still don't understand the its "not a big deal" comment? It seems big to me. Miscommunication, huge differences in what we are seeing, confusion in feedback. Knowing all my Hue, Saturation feedback over the last 2 years here has been mainly wrong (and not helpful) is at least a little disconcerting. What is even more is all the other potential disconnects others may be having.
Thanks for bringing this topic to the fore, Mark! "
Me too. I am very hesitant now about giving subtle fine tuned professional feedback because good chance the person whose image I am commenting is seeing a very different thing and it will not be helpful! Thus I wonder why this is not addressed more fully?
In my opinion, Mark, the only thing we at NPN can do is to encourage members and visitors to use a color managed browser and also to use some method to calibrate their monitors.
Most video drivers have tools that can be used to get fairly reasonable, but not perfectly accurate color and contrast. We cannot expect anyone to spend money for calibration/profiling software and hardware.
So, until the day comes when monitors self-calibrate, create a profile and install it, and all browsers are fully color managed, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Things are much improved from even a few years ago, but there is still a long way to go.
--P
You're allowed to think it's big Mark. Nothing wrong with attention to detail!
Personally, while I clearly see the difference, it doesn't make or break the image for me. That's why I would say it's not a big deal. In most cases, someone who saw just the right hand image would probably like it every bit as much as if they saw just the left hand image.
You know your photos intimately. Most people don't. It may occur to them that the right image is oversaturated. Or they may think that's how you wanted it (which is really the only problem I see - they don't see it how you wanted them to). But most people won't know or care.
But when it comes to a professional photography forum where careful fine tuned critical professional critique is concerned...
I have read this thread with interest. The problem that you ran into is most noticeable in the case of wide-gamut monitors, as you have found out. While many believe that this is only a software issue, (e.g. a browser not doing the right job dealing with profiles), many experts in the field of computer graphics recognize this as a problem in the way wide-gamut monitors are currently designed. Today's wide-gamut monitors use the same range (0 through 1) to represent a bigger gamut (e.g. Adobe RGB) as they do to represent the gamut of sRGB. That is why a program that is not actually using the monitor's color profile to do the translation ends up showing images with increased saturation and possibly other abnormalities too. A few interesting theories have been proposed to correct this problem in the design of wide-gamut monitors, which involve actually widening the range used by the monitors (i.e. also using the range less than 0 or greater than 1). I won't get into the specifics because it is outside the scope of this discussion (folks who are interested can send me a private email). It is expected that once this problem has been sorted out one won't have to reply on software programs doing the right thing. Or in other words most applications would be able to properly render an sRGB image with its narrow gamut as well as an Adobe RBB image with its wider gamut.
Until that time, the best one can do is use software that supports proper color management (e.g. Photoshop, Firefox, Safari, etc.). It should be understood that images on different monitors will never look quite the same. So I wouldn't put too much emphasis on doing very critical reviews of color/tone/saturation for images posted on-line. For such reviews prints are a much better alternative IMHO.
I am glad that you have found the cause of your problem.
Regards