Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

62707Re: Full Write-up on Embedding the ICC Color Profile into our Jpgs

Expand Messages
  • Rainer
    Jul 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Addendum:

      If you want to put a icon on your desktop you will find the
      executable file

      WinColor.exe

      in the following directory

      C:\Program Files\Pro Imaging Powertoys\Microsoft Color Control Panel
      Applet for Windows XP

      regards Rainer






      > Hi Neil,
      >
      > Thanks. Now If I understood correctly when you open Photoshop you
      are
      > using as working space sRGB ?
      >
      > FRam what I knoe about Color Management that is not a good idea. It
      > is better to use a working space similar tothe one your monitor is
      > able to display and that in most cases is AdobeRGB or maybe BETA
      RGB
      > or Pro Photo color space.
      >
      > If you already open you images in sRGB you already clipped some
      > colors due to the fact that you are squeezing your image into that
      > color space.
      >
      > From my point of view it is alaway best to use as much colors as
      you
      > can when you process your images. As last step as you say you
      convert
      > (not assign) the finished image into sRGB
      >
      > Microsoft has a nice little application where you can compare in 3D
      > the different color spaces and so you can see which color space is
      > wider and which one is narrower.
      >
      > Here is the link for the download
      >
      > http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Microsoft-Color\
      > -Control-Panel-Applet-for-Windows-XP.shtml
      >
      > This is very interesting.
      >
      > regards Rainer
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Neil, that's a good question- I don't know, but if you look at the
      > > size difference between the embedded versus non-embedded image,
      it
      > is
      > > minor. So perhaps it's some sort of processing/interpretation of
      > the
      > > ICC profile?
      > >
      > > Steve
      > >
      > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Neil Fleming <neilfleming@>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I see only subtle differences on my current monitor,
      > > > Steve. I suspect that would change from
      > > > monitor-to-monitor, though.
      > > >
      > > > I wonder if the "perfomance impact" is due to some
      > > > additional download requirements due to the profile
      > > > being embedded, or to the interpretation of the ICC
      > > > profile once downloaded. The former, I would guess.
      > > >
      > > > ...Neil
      > > >
      > > > --- sc02492 <sc02492@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Sorry, Freudian slip <g>:
      > > > >
      > > > > "With color management turned OFF, open them side by
      > > > > side to see if
      > > > > there is a difference, and then you can assess this
      > > > > more objectively."
      > > > >
      > > > > I obviously meant with color management turned ON.
      > > > > Sorry to confuse.
      > > > >
      > > > > Steve
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "sc02492"
      > > > > <sc02492@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Excellent post, and I completely agree. I made
      > > > > the point on another
      > > > > > website that I could see no difference in my own
      > > > > astroimages on my
      > > > > > website (processed in sRBG space, which most of us
      > > > > do), whether or not
      > > > > > color management was activated in Firefox 3.
      > > > > Certainly for other
      > > > > > color spaces like Adobe RGB, a color managed
      > > > > browser would be useful,
      > > > > > but most of us don't process in Adobe RGB color
      > > > > space. Paul makes the
      > > > > > excellent point that tagging an astroimage in
      > > > > anything other than sRGB
      > > > > > color space should be avoided, since it will
      > > > > introduce even more
      > > > > > variability in how our astroimages appear to
      > > > > others, unless everyone
      > > > > > decides to use a color managed browser.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > That said, all of the images on my website are
      > > > > indeed tagged with sRGB
      > > > > > profiles- this has been my practice all along, the
      > > > > main reason being
      > > > > > that if anyone wanted to open an image in
      > > > > Photoshop, I wanted to
      > > > > > ensure that it looked the same to them (assuming
      > > > > that their monitor is
      > > > > > well calibrated). But if there is also a minor
      > > > > benefit to tagging an
      > > > > > image in sRGB color space, with respect to viewing
      > > > > it in a web
      > > > > > browser, it certainly will do no harm to include
      > > > > it (see end of post
      > > > > > to determine if it makes a difference for you).
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Since I cannot see a difference in astroimaging
      > > > > sites with color
      > > > > > management turned on or off, I'm keeping mine off
      > > > > for now (Firefox 3).
      > > > > > The performance hit with color management turned
      > > > > on, no matter how
      > > > > > small, is irritating to me since the images
      > > > > themselves look no
      > > > > > different on my monitor. However, I would advise
      > > > > people to see for
      > > > > > themselves whether astroimages on various websites
      > > > > look different on
      > > > > > their own monitors, and do whatever they think is
      > > > > best. Don't assume
      > > > > > anything until you've tried it. You can feel free
      > > > > to use my website
      > > > > > as a test, since I can assure you that all of the
      > > > > images were
      > > > > > processed in sRGB color space.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Finally, people may find this useful to test their
      > > > > own system. Here
      > > > > > is one of my own images, processed in sRGB color
      > > > > space in Photoshop
      > > > > > but uploaded untagged:
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > http://www.starrywonders.com/rosettewithoutICCsRGB.jpg
      > > > > >
      > > > > > And here is the same image with an embedded sRGB
      > > > > profile tag:
      > > > > >
      > > > > http://www.starrywonders.com/rosettewithICCsRGB.jpg
      > > > > >
      > > > > > With color management turned OFF, open them side
      > > > > by side to see if
      > > > > > there is a difference, and then you can assess
      > > > > this more objectively.
      > > > > > Again, this may be monitor and OS dependent, so
      > > > > your mileage may
      > > > > > vary, but it wouldn't surprise me if most see no
      > > > > appreciable difference.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Steve
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Steve Cannistra
      > > > > > http://www.starrywonders.com
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Paul Beskeen
      > > > > <yahoo@> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi Neil,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Neil Fleming wrote:
      > > > > > > > --- Paul Beskeen <yahoo@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >> Hi Neil,
      > > > > > > >>
      > > > > > > >> 1) I don't understand what benefit you would
      > > > > get if
      > > > > > > >> you continue to save
      > > > > > > >> in sRGB colour space (as suggested by your
      > > > > workflow)
      > > > > > > >> but with "color
      > > > > > > >> profile" ticked. The default for all browsers
      > > > > is
      > > > > > > >> sRGB.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Think of it this way. The sRGB color space
      > > > > represents
      > > > > > > > the range of values that you *can* work with.
      > > > > Like
      > > > > > > > the range of choices on a bingo card.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Unless you are viewing an image with the color
      > > > > profile
      > > > > > > > embedded, *and* your program will accommodate
      > > > > that
      > > > > > > > mapping, you will see "uncontrolled" results
      > > > > rather
      > > > > > > > than that the author intended. "B5" on your
      > > > > bingo
      > > > > > > > card could be "B7" on another's.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Just take a look at the ICC example in the
      > > > > original
      > > > > > > > e-mail. The authors picked (on purpose) an
      > > > > extreme
      > > > > > > > example, but it illustrates the point well.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I don't mean to be argumentative here, and I'm
      > > > > certainly no expert in
      > > > > > > colour management, but I guess it comes down to
      > > > > the question "do ICC
      > > > > > > aware applications by default gamut map to sRGB
      > > > > whether or not the
      > > > > > image
      > > > > > > is tagged as sRGB?". [The default for browsers,
      > > > > monitors, HDTV's,
      > > > > > etc is
      > > > > > > to use sRGB colour space. Most don't succeed
      > > > > very well so
      > > > > > calibration is
      > > > > > > advisable for accurate display]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If the person viewing your image has profiled
      > > > > their monitor, then the
      > > > > > > graphic card LUT tables will be set at startup
      > > > > to adjust to the
      > > > > correct
      > > > > > > gamma and white point. If a program is ICC
      > > > > enabled then in addition
      > > > > > > gamut mapping will be used to render the image's
      > > > > colours correctly
      > > > > > based
      > > > > > > on its tagged colour profile, or (and this may
      > > > > be were we differ)
      > > > > if no
      > > > > > > profile information exists in the image, as
      > > > > sRGB.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Ahh, this "Web Browser Color Management
      > > > > Tutorial" page is *very*
      > > > > > > informative:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.
      > html#
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > In amongst all the other goodies it has a roll
      > > > > over graphic of an
      > > > > sRGB
      > > > > > > tagged and untagged image. I can discern no
      > > > > difference between the
      > > > > > two -
      > > > > > > so Firefox3 defaults to assuming an sRGB
      > > > > profile. However... when
      > > > > I try
      > > > > > > the same with Safari I can see a subtle
      > > > > difference! So Safari
      > > > > > doesn't do
      > > > > > > sRGB gamut mapping unless it is tagged as sRGB!
      > > > > From comments on the
      > > > > > > page it appears that Vista's new colour
      > > > > management system also
      > > > > > > automatically defaults to sRGB if an image is
      > > > > not tagged. Given that
      > > > > > > sRGB is the standard for the web I'm surprised
      > > > > that Safari doesn't
      > > > > sRGB
      > > > > > > map unless the image is tagged as such.
      > > > >
      > > > === message truncated ===
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > www.flemingastrophotography.com
      > > > Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup
      > > > Also check out the astro_narrowband Yahoo group!
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic