More color space/monitor issues! :)

So, I am using a Dell Ultrasharp (Dell U2410). I am meticulously calibrated (using Spyder 3 Elite) to 2.2 Gamma, 6500 White point, and 130 brightness (candelas). The monitor is wide gamut viewing approximately 96% of the Adobe RGB space. It has 7 preset modes. Default is called "Standard." It also has Adobe RGB mode. And it has Srgb mode and a couple others (gaming ...). When calibrating my monitor for WEB I keep it in default "Standard" mode. I feel this mode would be most reflective of your average viewer. When I make prints I use completely different settings (I put the monitor in Adobe RGB mode - which is my preferred color space to work on Fujiflex prints) and of course I darken the monitor way down to about 80 candelas. This works excellent for matching prints to my monitor (I also get great custom profiles from my machine/paper combination).

For a living (among other things photography) I do a ton of post work for other fine art landscape photographers. One such client just got a iMac and uses the Spyder 3 pro or elite to calibrate and I am making web images for him. He says he calibrated his iMac with the Spyder 3 to the same settings as myself (my for web settings - 2.2, 6500, and 130). Also, I use "save for web". My web workflow is such: last thing before saving a web image I convert to srgb and then to 8 bit, then go to save for web (I especially like its auto ability to remove all metadata) and use the settings seen in this image (although sometimes I check optimized).

The problem: He seems to be seeing redder and more saturated images, where they are more mute and not reddish in my Photoshop and also when I view them on the web through Safari/Firefox. Of course this has been an issue with MY WEB work as well where a lot of folks viewing my work through various forums either say "spot on" or "too red and too saturated." I just did a little web research and came across information indicating that the iMacs are NOT wide gamut. Apparently they are in the range of 72% of the Argb 1998 space (basically Srgb).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=41317


"The iMac's are simply not "wide gamut" displays. Were never designed for the photographer (CAD designer or graphic artist) but for the "average user". Apple just wants to make money so it has to appeal to a wide demographic. I don't even think the standalone Apple monitors are "wide color gamut". Apple used to be the choice of graphic design houses. I guess that's changing or has changed.

I'm going either with a Mac Pro and a third-party hi-end monitor. Or will jump ship and go buy a Dell desktop & Dell U2711 monitor. Or maybe a NEC Spectra series monitor."


I have been told by a few seemingly color management savvy folks that when we work on our images on calibrated wide gamut monitors (even though we make them SRGB for web) but they are viewed on calibrated narrower gamut monitors, this can become an issue. Too much saturation and red especially gets too red.

I really need to know what is going on here. Any helpful tips to get the issue resolved would be helpful. I had assumed that the iMac and my set up with good calibration using the same software would have put us near an equal match. I will email the person and ask how he is viewing the images...

Thanks in advance.

Mark, there are a few unrelated issues here, some of which may explain the problem. The information about iMac screens is correct. Their gamut and color depth are relatively limited. Still, if your friend's colorspace contains all the possible colors in sRGB (which it should) this should not make a difference when displaying sRGB images.

A few notes about your approach:

1) You should set your monitor to its widest gamut and leave it there. There is no value to switching modes. Once a file is tagged as sRGB and displayed in a color-managed application it should look the same on any calibrated monitor, regardless of how much wider it can go. The file should also appear correct when displayed in applications that are not color managed but that assume all files are in sRGB (like some web browsers). Where problems may occur is if the file is not tagged with a profile but is being displayed in a color-managed application like Photoshop or Firefox, forcing them to guess the correct profile (PS can be configured to ask). Make sure the file is tagged with the correct profile. I also recommend embedding the profile even if it results in a larger file size.

2) There's no need to explicitly convert your file to sRGB and 8-bit other than soft-proofing. The Save for Web module does these things for you. Just make sure the right checkboxes are checked. The JPEG format only supports 8-bit/channel, anyway.

3) Not all colorimeters are perfectly compatible with all monitor/video card hardware. If your prints match your screen, the problem may be on your friend's machine. It's possible the colorimeter is mis-reading colors and producing an incorrect profile or that it is defective. The only way to tell for sure is to try another colorimeter.

4) I sometimes find users who don't really know how to use their custom profiles. One common mistake is to use custom monitor profiles as a Photoshop working space; another is embedding/tagging files with it. A monitor profile is meant to be used by the operating system and should not be explicitly used by any photo editing tools or embedded in image files. Make sure your friend's setup is correct, that his monitor profile is recognized and used by the operating system, etc.

If you want to go above and beyond, have your friend send you his custom monitor profile and use it to soft-proof the image on your machine. See if you get the same issues. Might give you another bit of information to use when troubleshooting.

Hope this helps,
Guy

Thanks Mark for bringing this up and Thank You Guy for such great information.

Interesting topic. I agree with Guy's response. I use an NEC 2690 WUXI monitor calibrated with Spectra View. My target brightness level during calibration is 100 cd/m2. That value provides excellent matches for prints for me. 130 feels pretty bright, but of course your mileage may vary.

Thanks Guy! Very helpful. Some solid tips here.

I'll have to see what is the widest color gamut mode for my monitor. It might be Adobe RGB, but could be "Standard" too. That seems like a great tip.

Yes, I do know the save for web does the conversion to 8 bit and SRGB for me, for some reason I just have not broken the habit of doing it manually...

To be clear I use 130 candelas for web (with the theory that general monitors out there error toward being to bright). Basically, I took the recommendations of two color savvy folks, one said 120 and the other said 130-140 and I split the difference. For web this seems to work good.

For print I go much darker to compensate for the darkness of prints...

2) There's no need to explicitly convert your file to sRGB and 8-bit other than soft-proofing. The Save for Web module does these things for you. Just make sure the right checkboxes are checked. The JPEG format only supports 8-bit/channel, anyway.

I have a question about this. I've always done these steps manually so I can do the color space conversion while I'm still in 16 bit mode based on the assumption that the conversion will be more accurate. Does anyone know in what order "Save for Web" performs these two steps? Does it matter?

Mark, like you, I have always done the conversions manually; mainly out habit, I suppose. It makes sense to convert the color profile before converting the bit depth. I don't know how Save for Web orders these operations.

I do agree with Guy's comments.

This color management game is certainly full of pitfalls and bogeymen, isn't it?

--P

"Mark, like you, I have always done the conversions manually; mainly out habit, I suppose. It makes sense to convert the color profile before converting the bit depth. I don't know how Save for Web orders these operations."

That is the real reason...