m8 raws with Mac C1 Pro. Safari vs. others

[andit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very interesting thread. Makes me wonder how other people are seeing images posted on the forum.

 

At least one thing is good though, I generally only use Safari. I love the simplicity, speed and user interface of it. Once in a while I have to make use of Opera to do Internet Banking. Those idiot programmers at the bank developed the website to handle only IE based browsers and no matter how much you explain to them that you are using a different (far superior in terms of safety issues) system, they just get this confused look on there face like someone looking for wood in a forest... I'm absolutely horrified everytime I use another browser - so many options, bells and whistles - just not clean and streamlined like Safari.

 

Andreas

[andit]

Before I forget.

 

This does have one benefit that has not been mentioned here before. At least you know that people are not downloading your hi-res images and then abusing them in some or other unauthorised way.

 

Andreas

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[timothy]

This rendition of Guy's image should appear identical in all browsers because there is no embedded ICC profile. It is different from the previous example, which also has no embedded ICC profile, in that it should appear more like the original sRGB-profiled image (when viewed in Safari or other color-managed browser) because the colors have been manipulated to appear so. By the way, the blues had to be manipulated selectively. I would say the only significant way this no-profile-embedded image is inferior to the original sRGB-profiled image (again, when viewed in Safari or other color-managed browser) is that it loses shadow detail. The advantage is that it looks the same across all browsers.

 

Again, compare this image in a color-managed and a non-color-managed browser to see for yourself.

 

Also, to compare this rendition to my previous one or to Guy's original, I suggest opening each image in its own tab.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[carstenw]

The question seems to remain unanswered...

 

Michael, I am not so familiar with C1, but it sounds like you found a setting which makes C1 interpret the results coming from the camera, not convert colourspace upon export.

 

First you need to look in your camera and see what setting you have there for DNG. On the menu, there is a setting called "Color Management". I use AdobeRGB, but this means I need to be careful that all settings match properly, as Edmund pointed out.

 

You then need to use the correct profile in C1 when importing the images, so that the colours get interpreted correctly for display within C1. It sounds like at the moment you are telling C1 that your camera is set to sRGB. Whether you choose AdobeRGB or sRGB, the camera's setting and C1's setting need to match for the program to be able to display the images as the camera saw them.

 

Then you can do your processing, but at this point, you need to make sure that the images get converted into sRGB upon export, for viewing on the web, or in non-colour managed applications in general. On the "Process Tool" tab on the left side (the one with the single gear), there is a setting called Profile. This needs to be set to "sRGB Profile". This is the setting for the output colour space, as far as I can tell.

 

Then everything should look the same in Safari and other, non-colour-managed browsers.

 

By the way, at least on the Mac, at the bottom of C1LE, in the middle of the status bar, there is an information field which says which spaces you are working in. Mine says "Leica_m8_JHR_v1_chrome -> sRGB Profile", for example.

[timothy]

Andreas,

 

I use Safari for casual browsing. I prefer Omniweb when I'm doing research because I can save everything in workspaces so that everything is there if I quit and relaunch. It too is clean, streamlined, and very Mac-like. Firefox has the advantage of being highly extendible through plugins and greasemonkey scripts, but it is slow, inelegant, and not yet Mac-like.

 

Before I forget, what exactly were you referring to when you said, "This does have one benefit that has not been mentioned here before. At least you know that people are not downloading your hi-res images and then abusing them in some or other unauthorised way." In other words, to what noun does the pronoun "this" refer?

 

Timothy

[timothy]

Carsten,

 

Thank you for responding to Michael. Hopefully that will help him.

 

That said, you do see how Guy's sRGB-profiled image (or anyone's profiled image) does not look the same in Safari and Firefox? They are very, very different! This is the fault of Firefox. If you want images to look the same across all browsers, you have to remove the profiles. If you want images to both look the same in all browsers and look good in all browsers, then you have to manipulate the images to look good with the lowest common denominator, the non-color-mangaged browsers like Firefox.

 

Everyone,

 

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

In case, I'm not clear enough, I'll break it down.

 

Option 1: Embed an sRGB profile.

Result 1: Image looks perfect in (color-managed) Safari but image looks shitty in (non-color-managed) Firefox.

 

Option 2: Remove profile.

Result 2: Image looks the same in Safari and Firefox so that it is consistently shitty.

 

Option 3: Remove profile. Then manipulate image to appear as close as possible to result 1.

Result 3: Image looks the same in Safari and Firefox and, with a little work, it looks pretty good.

 

Timothy

 

P.S. Does anyone do option 3 on a regular basis and therefore have a workflow down pat?

 

P.P.S. Does anyone have an option 4?

 

P.P.P.S. Damn, I've been spelling like an American! "Color" instead of "colour"

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Option 1 is the best option here, but I don't get the same results as you. Note that there are many sRGB profiles, and perhaps some of them are less good than others. I always use Option 1 and my pictures look fine in both Safari and Firefox 1.5/2.0, as well as Opera.

[timothy]

Carsten,

 

I often use option 1 because it is easier than option 3.

 

I use sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (Adobe Photoshop CS default for sRGB).

 

When using option 1, my images look great in Safari but not so great in Firefox. So far, all the examples I have seen from others show a difference between Safari and Firefox precisely because Firefox totally disregards the profile. Whether this difference is acceptable or not is up for debate.

 

Timothy

[timothy]

I'm reposting Robert's screenshot. I have done nothing but add the red text and brush strokes. I have kept his embedded profile for the screenshot. His screenshot demonstrates that there is a significant difference between a profiled image as it appears in a color-managed browser where the profile is read and the same profiled image as it appears in a non-color-managed browser where the profile is not read.

 

Is this significant difference really not worth getting worked up about?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[timothy]

Okay, I've been browsing websites. The professional web designers DO NOT usually embed profiles. For instance, you can browse any random page on Adobe's website where there is a JPEG image (the front page is using flash movies), drag & drop that JPEG image on Photoshop, and then you will see that Photoshop says the JPEG image has NO embedded profile. It is the same if you go to Apple's website; open the picture of the Apple TV in Photoshop and you will see that there is NO embedded profile. Likewise, if you go to John Paul Caponigro's website, you will find images WITHOUT embedded profiles. Once again, if you go to Magnum Photos, you will discover that their images for web viewing DO NOT have embedded profiles (of course, their images to purchase and download would have embedded profiles, probably Adobe RGB for print purposes). So, if the professionals DO NOT use embedded profiles on the web but instead optimize their images to look good without profiles/with non-color-managed browsers, then that's what I'm proposing as a best practice for preparing web ready images.

[carstenw]

It may be the most practical, but it is certainly not a "best practice". No colour profile means no guarantees about how the colours will be interpreted by the browser. A colour profile is simply a coordinate system for the otherwise abstract representations in a file. I mean, what colour does (10, 20, 30) represent in the real world? On one computer it does one thing, on another it does something else. These abstract colours need to be seen in the proper perspective, and so a profile maps these abtract colours into the real world. Of course, if you system isn't set up properly, then you are simply mapping one set of abstract colours to another...

[misha]

The question seems to remain unanswered...

 

Michael, I am not so familiar with C1, but it sounds like you found a setting which makes C1 interpret the results coming from the camera, not convert colourspace upon export.

 

First you need to look in your camera and see what setting you have there for DNG. On the menu, there is a setting called "Color Management". I use AdobeRGB, but this means I need to be careful that all settings match properly, as Edmund pointed out.

 

You then need to use the correct profile in C1 when importing the images, so that the colours get interpreted correctly for display within C1. It sounds like at the moment you are telling C1 that your camera is set to sRGB. Whether you choose AdobeRGB or sRGB, the camera's setting and C1's setting need to match for the program to be able to display the images as the camera saw them.

 

Then you can do your processing, but at this point, you need to make sure that the images get converted into sRGB upon export, for viewing on the web, or in non-colour managed applications in general. On the "Process Tool" tab on the left side (the one with the single gear), there is a setting called Profile. This needs to be set to "sRGB Profile". This is the setting for the output colour space, as far as I can tell.

 

Then everything should look the same in Safari and other, non-colour-managed browsers.

 

By the way, at least on the Mac, at the bottom of C1LE, in the middle of the status bar, there is an information field which says which spaces you are working in. Mine says "Leica_m8_JHR_v1_chrome -> sRGB Profile", for example.

 

in my camera, when only shooting in DNG, the color management option is disabled (just like, sharpness, saturation... tabs).

in the middle of the status bar, it reads "Leica m8 generic > srgb profile"..

[timothy]

Carsten,

 

Are you suggesting that I target the color-managed browser niche? If going with option 1, should I then recommend that people use a color-managed browser for the best viewing experience and hope people take my recommendation? That seems a reasonable demand for Leica users on the forum. Is it a reasonable demand for the general public viewing a website?

 

Timothy

[misha]

Carsten,

 

Are you suggesting that I target the color-managed browser niche? If going with option 1, should I then recommend that people use a color-managed browser for the best viewing experience and hope people take my recommendation? That seems a reasonable demand for Leica users on the forum. Is it a reasonable demand for the general public viewing a website?

 

Timothy

 

no one i know would switch browsers just to view my pictures properly )

[timothy]

Michael,

 

I don't own an M8 yet. I don't own any digital camera. That said, I think "Leica M8 generic > sRGB profile" means that the DNG will be tagged with an sRGB profile. Carsten, or anyone else, could you confirm this for Michael? Thanks.

 

Timothy

[timothy]

Michael,

 

That's what I was thinking. I've persuaded a friend to move from Windows to Mac, but I can't wean him off Firefox. For the sake of continuing the conversation, I wonder if I could persuade my friend to occasionally open Safari to view my profiled images in all their glory?

 

Timothy

[andit]

Hi Timothy

 

What I was refering to is as follows. I read an article sometime ago, where internet users were downloading hi-res images that were posted on the net, then using these images and claiming them to be there own. This is basically why one should always place some or other watermark in your work.

 

Should it be the case that Safari displays the images correctly and that they are displayed differently on other browsers (less contrast, flatter colours etc), then this should deter these elements from stealing your images (if the image is not so perfect, maybe the will look elsewhere and leave your work alone). Sadly though, it does not look like the image has been degraded to such an extent that it is unusable.

 

Just a thought.

 

Andreas

[stunsworth]

ANdreas, I don't think most of us have much to worry about. 800 pixel wide 200k images aren't exactly high res :-)

 

The problem with making images look good in Safari but poor in every other browser is that 90% of the people who look at them will think they're poor ;-)

[nryn]

Michael,

 

That's what I was thinking. I've persuaded a friend to move from Windows to Mac, but I can't wean him off Firefox. For the sake of continuing the conversation, I wonder if I could persuade my friend to occasionally open Safari to view my profiled images in all their glory?

 

I'm a web designer and let me offer the following advice: You'll have to decide for yourself what your lowest common denominator is, not just in terms of color profile support but also in terms of image size, download size, text size, etc. Once you make those decisions and recognize whatever tradeoffs fall out from those choices, there are very easy ways to enforce your preferences on your audience (browser checks, etc.). It is possible with javascript and PHP to do a browser check which sets a flag if the browser supports color management. You can then call up a color managed image if the flag is set or an image for everyone else if it is not set. The tradeoff there is the coding ih the page and the management of two sets of image files.

 

Most people don't do this and just create images without any profiles and which render inadequately in all browsers. As we all know, the web is a great vehicle for sharing images with many people. It's a terrible vehicle for anything that requires any kind of visual fidelity whatsoever (typography, images, etc.).

 

Sounds, though, like the easiest solution is to stand behind your friend with a blunt object when he surfs the web...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[carstenw]

I don't know about anyone else's machine, but on my machine, if I export to sRGB, I get the same results in Safari and Firefox. I am not going to assume that most people have strange differences like Timothy, and then go through a weird and contorted workflow to minimise (but not eliminate) the differences. I am not a pro, although I do run a business on the side. Btw, the computers at work see the images the same as I see them at home, as do at least some of my friends' computers.

 

Perhaps the difference is that I do not use C1, but Lightroom. It would not surprise me if Adobe got the colour space workflow right, and some other companies not. I am no Adobe fan, in general, but they do understand colour spaces.