Color management - what a total fiasco

[valdore]

The saturation on the same photo looks different between Firefox and Safari.

The saturation on the same photo looks different between Photoshop and QuickLook.

The saturation on the same photo looks different between QuickLook and a screen capture.

I've been editing my photos so that they look just right in Photoshop on my computer - but then if I post said photo on my site and then look at the photo in a browser other than Firefox, it looks like I have dreadful taste in color and saturation. I am attaching small examples.

What can be done?

 

[flinch13]

I'm very curious about this too. I usually edit my pictures in Aperture to a point where I think they're perfect, but ultimately when I post them online or print them they're always... well... a bit off. What gives? Can anyone suggest a real solution to this problem?

 

[MacDawg]

Good luck!

This is always going to be a problem.

Not only will you find a difference between all of your programs and browsers, but you will also not be able to control what gamma, monitor, programs, OS or browsers others will use to view your photos.

Even more troubling will be the printed versions

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[CrackedButter]

You won't be able to do anything for your online work but for print the solution is an easier one because if you had a portfolio in print it won't ever change will it?

 

[MacDawg]

You won't be able to do anything for your online work but for print the solution is an easier one because if you had a portfolio in print it won't ever change will it?

Certainly it is possible to calibrate your screen to your printer and get reasonably close (depending on the printer), but printing to a different printer will yield different results.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

 

[Morphos]

Evidently you can change Firefox 3's color profile to something with a bit more response, (possibly more CPU overhead), but better in most people's opinion.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/21/color-management-twe.html

See if doing that makes it come closer to Safari?

 

[JonD25]

Is your monitor calibrated?

Are you embedding color profiles when you save?

Are you using "Save for web", which strips color profiles?

I currently am using a monitor that has been calibrated with a Spyder3Pro and set to 2.2 gamma instead of Apple's default 1.8, and I always keep color profiles intact on my photos (work with Adobe RGB, convert to sRGB for the web). I have consistent color throughout all of my photos, even online (with a browser that supports embedded color profiles like Safari or FF3), and sending off for prints yields relatively good results as well. If you've done all that I've done and still are getting inconsistent results, then I'm not sure what your answer is.

 

[compuwar]

The saturation on the same photo looks different between Firefox and Safari.

Safari is color managed, Firefox, until recently, and by default is not. Why would you expect a color managed browser to give the same results as one which isn't color manged?

You have three basic choices: Present images for color managed browsers, present images for default Web color palates or present images based upon the browser in the cases that the browser presents a browser string.

 

[CrackedButter]

Is your monitor calibrated?

Are you embedding color profiles when you save?

Are you using "Save for web", which strips color profiles?

I currently am using a monitor that has been calibrated with a Spyder3Pro and set to 2.2 gamma instead of Apple's default 1.8, and I always keep color profiles intact on my photos (work with Adobe RGB, convert to sRGB for the web). I have consistent color throughout all of my photos, even online (with a browser that supports embedded color profiles like Safari or FF3), and sending off for prints yields relatively good results as well. If you've done all that I've done and still are getting inconsistent results, then I'm not sure what your answer is.

I'd just like to say thanks as I learnt something from your post that I never knew before.

 

[glaswegian]

calibrate the screen to a printer ?

in this thread i have been reading about calibrating your screen to your printer . How is that done ?

 

[Westside guy]

You titled this thread "Color management - what a total fiasco" - but you haven't told us what, if any, color management you've done.

Do you own a colorimeter, such as a Spyder or Huey? Have you calibrated your screen using the colorimeter?

Generally speaking: if you want your displayed images to look the same everywhere, you need to make sure they are written using the color space that most non-color-managed applications will use by default - sRGB IEC61966. BUT that won't work correctly unless you've calibrated your monitor/display properly, as others have mentioned.

 

[srf4real]

All I can add is that, i feel your pain.

You would think as savvy as Apple is, you could have the entire system perform color management to desired specs across the board. I'm not informed enough to know what I want, I just want it all to look like my Aperture editz!

 

[JonD25]

All I can add is that, i feel your pain.

You would think as savvy as Apple is, you could have the entire system perform color management to desired specs across the board. I'm not informed enough to know what I want, I just want it all to look like my Aperture editz!

All screens aren't identical, which is why Apple can't possibly provide a software solution. Also, different color profiles offer different advantages. Apple is actually incredibly good with color compared to Windows. Up until Firefox 3, Safari was the only browser that supported embedded color profiles. OS X in general is also really good at displaying and preserving accurate colors if you know how. There's a reason so many photographers favor OS X. However, when you don't know how to properly manage colors and profiles amongst all the different software out there, of course you'll get inconsistencies.

 

[ChrisA]

I've been editing my photos so that they look just right in Photoshop on my computer - but then if I post said photo on my site and then look at the photo in a browser other than Firefox, it looks like I have dreadful taste in color and saturation. I am attaching small examples.

What can be done?

The problem is Color Space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

There are many ways to map a set of three numbers to a color. Not everyone does this the same way. In most RGB spaces (0, 0, 0) is black and (256, 256, 256) is white That's easy but if (256, 0, 0) is "red" what shade of red is it? Same with "white" is it blueish or redish white. Many chose 6500 Kelvin for "white" but it can vary a lot. How dark is "black"? Every color space makes different choices.

Most web browsers (other than Safari) and many image display programs simply ignore the above issues or assume all images are in the sRGB color space even if they are tagged internally as being in something other then sRGB. So the first thing you need to do when you publish images is make sure they are in sRGB so those program's assumptions will be correct. In Photoshop you need to "convert" to sRGB not "assign" sRGB (big differentce.) You can avoid converting if you make sRGB you default but I think this is a waste if you shoot raw and have a good monitor. But people argue this all the time. You decide. But if your images are going out in the "wild" make then sRGB (not just tagged as being sRGB).

Next. make certain your monitor is well calibrated. This is very hard to d if you have one of Apple's new glossy screens. In my opinion these are horrible and were never intended for critical work. But you can still calibrate it "well enough" with a good colorimeter (Spider or Eye One) and if you turn off the room lights and run the software in a dark room.

 

[MacNoobie]

Simple solution should be adjusting photoshop to work with the sRGB 2.1 what ever profile and a gamma of 2.2, adjust your monitor as well to 2.2.

Shouldnt be any harder then that.