I am sometimes, by web color management. I just posted an image on the Landscape Gallery (http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=181545&CGISESSID=7493c8cd55e0840f26108d82ce959c60&u=31464) and the way people are seeing it is all over the map (whats new). On my monitor it is muted and color correct. On others it is obvious it is not. I am using a new wider gamut Dell ultra-sharp (I have found to be a pretty darn good monitor) calibrated in its "Standard" gamut mode to 130 candelas m2 which should be ideal for desktop LCD (120 is recommended by Spyder but most monitors out there are too bright by default so 130 to even 140 is more appropriate for web according to some gurus) and viewing the image through FIREFOX and the issues don't show themselves in PS or Firefox on MY system. On my system in IE it looks like cra*. I have tried processing for web in the monitors SRGB mode and its Adobe RGB mode (calibrated of course) still with mixed results. I'm no color management dummy, but am just trying to figure out how to hit that "middle of a very wide barn door" (as Bruce Fraser used to say).
Suggestions from color management savvy folks is always helpful, and thank you very much for taking time to improve my life and lower my blood pressure!
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM
For web use process the image the way you want it to appear in whatever colorspace you prefer and then convert your web copy to SRGB (do not use the assign profile command). There is no way that you can be sure that others will see what you saw but that (to the best of my knowledge) will give you the best shot at them seeing 'close' to what you saw. Unfortunately every monitor is different. On my laptop (which I'm using at the moment) I can change the way an image looks by simply changing the angle of the screen. Many desktop screens do the same if you move too far to either side, up or down and most screens are not calibrated. Remember though that the viewer out there in Internetland doesn't know exactly what it looked like to you. If teh color looks believable, they won't notice the discrepancy that you see. If you want to be certain that your audience sees exactly what you see, you'll have to stick to prints.
Mark, the best you can do is make it look good on your calibrated monitor and do all the color management stuff right. You can't do anything about the user end. Yes, you should always convert to sRGB and embed that profile. Some browsers look for a profile and if they don't find it, they assign the monitor profile, or some other default. Others (I believe IE, for example) ignore the embedded profile, and assume sRGB. In either case, you're safe with an embedded sRGB profile. Nothing can be done about monitor profiling.
Look at the bright side: the people who do not use color managed browsers and calibrated monitors are typically not as critical of the colors; if they were, they would know about these things and fix them. Furthermore, the human eye/brain adapts, so if they are used to IE, then they are used to overly saturated images because all the images they see on the web will be over saturated, and yours won't really stand out as over saturated.
To be honest, I did find the processing in your bend shot a little strong - there was no haze, and whenever I've seen such grand vistas, there's always haze. By removing that haze you've increased the contrast to the point where it just doesn't feel so natural anymore. Some of the colors don't seem quite right either, particularly the purples that appear in the cliffs farther back (I think this is a result of bumping contrast to remove the haze, which I suspect was in the original file - haze has a blue tint, when when you increase contrast, those colors can do whacked out things). The dappled nature also looks way too low in contrast for what I expect it should be. I found that to be true on safari (color managed), firefox (color managed), as well as chrome (not color managed), all on a calibrated apple display. To me, it doesn't matter how much or what processing was done, what matters is the end result, and if that doesn't look 'natural' to me, then I suggest making some changes
I don't know what browsers and monitors various NPN users use, but I suspect the majority of them at least understand the situation, especially if they are critiquing color and contrast. Furthermore, their critique should be relative to other critiques they provide, and thus, in a sense, be independent of their color management. What that means is, if their critique for your image suggests the color/contrast is over the top, but they don't provide that kind of critique for others, then it's more likely that their critique is in fact a valid representation of their personal opinion, and not a result of color mis-management.
Posted by Steve Uffman on October 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM
share your frustration. I have a Samsung wide gamut monitor. Images posted on some websites and viewed through various browsers can have huge swings in color cast. I calibrated my monitor with the Spyder 3 using color eyes.The color eyes folks looked at my numbers and said its calibrated well enough. I now am looking at everything that touches Photoshop, Lightroom and Nik to see if there is a setting there that needs to be changed. Feedback I get on the images I post is oversaturated and tinted towards red. Lots of time chasing but to know avail yet.
Discussion
6 repliesSuggestions from color management savvy folks is always helpful, and thank you very much for taking time to improve my life and lower my blood pressure!
But I would advise embedding the SRGB profile into an SRGB image for web.
Look at the bright side: the people who do not use color managed browsers and calibrated monitors are typically not as critical of the colors; if they were, they would know about these things and fix them. Furthermore, the human eye/brain adapts, so if they are used to IE, then they are used to overly saturated images because all the images they see on the web will be over saturated, and yours won't really stand out as over saturated.
To be honest, I did find the processing in your bend shot a little strong - there was no haze, and whenever I've seen such grand vistas, there's always haze. By removing that haze you've increased the contrast to the point where it just doesn't feel so natural anymore. Some of the colors don't seem quite right either, particularly the purples that appear in the cliffs farther back (I think this is a result of bumping contrast to remove the haze, which I suspect was in the original file - haze has a blue tint, when when you increase contrast, those colors can do whacked out things). The dappled nature also looks way too low in contrast for what I expect it should be. I found that to be true on safari (color managed), firefox (color managed), as well as chrome (not color managed), all on a calibrated apple display. To me, it doesn't matter how much or what processing was done, what matters is the end result, and if that doesn't look 'natural' to me, then I suggest making some changes
I don't know what browsers and monitors various NPN users use, but I suspect the majority of them at least understand the situation, especially if they are critiquing color and contrast. Furthermore, their critique should be relative to other critiques they provide, and thus, in a sense, be independent of their color management. What that means is, if their critique for your image suggests the color/contrast is over the top, but they don't provide that kind of critique for others, then it's more likely that their critique is in fact a valid representation of their personal opinion, and not a result of color mis-management.