smugmug and color management

dkapp · March 11, 2005

The one thing that has bothered me since day 1 is the color of smugmug resized images. They are flat and lack any type of pop & often lose the "wow" factor. I've posted it several times before, but still not luck & no explanation. I also think it is due to the smugmug sharpening.

Here are two photos. The first is smugmug medium. The second is a 700pix wide image that I uploaded. These are the files I display for forums & web reviews because the smugmug version is horrible IMO.

See for yourselves.

Let me say this again. They are the same file, one was just saved at 700 wide for web use.

Any thoughts on this? Whats the best way to get around the washed out resizing?

mercphoto · March 11, 2005

dkapp wrote:

Any thoughts on this?

Yes. Great image!

Whats the best way to get around the washed out resizing?

I dunno. Just so I'm clear, I'm not saying that the Smugmug down-rezzed images don't look different than the original, and most often look worse. What I'm saying is most people won't notice or care. YMMV of course, and some customer bases will be more critical than others.

As they say, I'm making a generalization here, and all generalizations are false.

Baldy · March 11, 2005

dkapp wrote:

Let me say this again. They are the same file, one was just saved at 700 wide for web use.

Hi dkapp,

Man that's a gorgeous shot.

This is an odd one because the smugmug-resized version is not only less saturated but less warm as well. At first I suspected the original was saved in Adobe RGB, which would explain the lower color saturation, but it wouldn't explain the higher magenta values in your hand-resized version.

So I measured the colors of the original, the smugmug resized version and your resized version. Measured on the house just right of the center of the photo, above the second-story window directly above the car, here's what they measure:

The original you uploaded: Cyan 37% Magenta 45% Yellow 39% Black 2%
Smugmug resized version: Cyan 37% Magenta 45% Yellow 39% Black 2%
Manually resized version: Cyan 33% Magenta 51% Yellow 41% Black 3%

I took actual pixels for all three, cut and pasted samples from the same area for this pic, below. The original is the background, smugmug resized is the left snippet, manual resized is the right snippet:

I don't know what workflow you're using so I can't explain the color shift from the original, but comparing the levels from the original and copy make it pretty clear that more than resizing and sharpening took place on the one you resized and framed by hand.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

Baldy · March 11, 2005

Hey Shawn,

I'm a fan of Scott Kelby's like most people are because he writes so concisely, he's funny, and I love the way he speaks at trade shows.

If there's a knock against him, it's that the simple writing that produces such easy-to-read books leaves out some very important stuff.

For example, in your book the first thing he recommends is that you change your default color space to Adobe RGB, because he "wouldn't even recommend sRGB to web designers." That recommendation has haunted us for a long time and produced thousands of bad prints because no Windows browser can display Adobe RGB files correctly, and if you print through almost any web-based printer like Ofoto, EZ Prints, Shutterfly, etc., your prints will come out poorly using Adobe RGB.

Having said that, sharpening in the L channel is great and I do it on many customer shots that need hand sharpening. In fact, increasing contrast using the L channel can be wonderful because you can do it without increasing the noise where it's most damaging, in the color channels.

Thanks,
Baldy

dkapp · March 11, 2005

Thanks for looking at this Baldy. The reason for me creating the 700 wide was because of the decreased saturation from the smugmug resized files.

I assure you that before I upload, my workflow is simple. I have the original, add the frame, resize to 700 wide & save PS 8-9. I don't even sharpen after I resize to 700.

Here is another example.

Resized

Original - smugmug resize

If you need more examples, let me know. I even saw this in the thread andy created awhile back with the street performer. You used that picture to show different levels of sharpening & they all were desaturated.

Dave

dkapp · March 11, 2005

This may help with the troubleshooting.

If I take my 700 wide image & use the save for web with "uncompensated color" selected, I get the exact same results as smugmug resizing. If I save w/ the document profile (sRGB), I get the more saturated, correct colors.

Here is the same photo above, saved w/ the uncompensated colors selected.

What is the workflow for smugmug resizing. Maybe the problem lays w/ how the image is handled when it hits the servers. Do you strip the profile, then resize?

Dave

Baldy · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

If I take my 700 wide image & use the save for web with "uncompensated color" selected, I get the exact same results as smugmug resizing. If I save w/ the document profile (sRGB), I get the more saturated, correct colors.

Hi Dave,

I think you answered your own question if you just substitute the word incorrect for correct.

Uncompensated color is the standard setting if you don't want a color shift, which is where smugmug must stay.

In other words, smugmug is matching the color of the original you upload exactly, as per my previous post. When you save for web, by checking compensated color, you are changing the color, something we can't do because we have to remain faithful to the original you upload.

If you save your original the same way you save your 700px image, smugmug's display copies will match the colors in your downsampled image.

It sounds like your monitor profile is not set for sRGB?

Thanks,
Baldy

dkapp · March 12, 2005

Baldy wrote:

Hi Dave,

I think you answered your own question if you just substitute the word incorrect for correct.

Just because I can duplicate the smumug washed out colors, doesn't make it right. Please don't change my words.

Baldy wrote:

Uncompensated color is the standard setting if you don't want a color shift, which is where smugmug must stay.

In other words, smugmug is matching the color of the original you upload exactly, as per my previous post. When you save for web, by checking compensated color, you are changing the color, something we can't do because we have to remain faithful to the original you upload.

If you save your original the same way you save your 700px image, smugmug's display copies will match the colors in your downsampled image.

It sounds like your monitor profile is not set for sRGB?

Thanks,
Baldy

I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote above.

When I upload my files, both original and 700 wide, they are PS Edit->Save As JPG w/ embedded sRGB profile. There is no reason they should look any different, but they do.

I pointed out that I can reproduce the washed out colors of smugmug. I don't, and will not save a file this way just so my washed out photos match smugmug resizing. Why would I want my prints to look like that?

Did you even look at my post above my last one, or the PM I sent you? I'm trying to help with the problem here. Trust me when I say I've spent months laboring over this issue, and have found the problem is not on my end. The problem is when smugmug resizes them.

If I have 1 picture, saved at two different widths, why would they look different? They should be exactly the same color.

Lets try to get back on the same page here. I offered you the exact same file in PM so you can test for yourself. I would like to get this problem solved because its the one part of smugmug that drives me absolutely crazy. The one part that will drive me to host my own pictures.

I'm starting to get frustrated here. I'm trying to help & figure out why the files respond to the resize as they do, but for some reason I feel your not willing to point the finger in any direction than mine.

Dave

dkapp · March 12, 2005

Here are two screenshots where I'm demonstrating the difference between the original sRGB file to the Save For Web w/ Uncompensated color. You can clearly see the difference in color. It is obvious that saving for uncompensated color is not the fix for this issue.

Dave

onethumb · March 12, 2005

Ok, first off, a disclaimer: I'm not a color expert. I leave that to Baldy. I've been known to whip out Yoda-level Photoshop skills from time-to-time, though, so I know my way around.

First of all, I downloaded the Original of your Lombard St photo from smugmug and took a look. Bear in mind that we don't change one single byte of your Original - so I'm looking at exactly what you uploaded. As Baldy showed in his example, above, the Original you uploaded looks nothing like your resize via your workflow. The colors are clearly shifted and not as saturated.

Secondly, "uncompensated color" is the 100% accurate color representation from the computer's point of view. Each pixel has a RGB value, and those values are *exactly* what a non-ICC profile aware piece of software would display. For example, most web browsers.

Finally, saving with "Use document profile" (or, really, anything but the "uncompensated color" setting) appears (I say appears, because I'm new to this feature, but it makes sense) to "burn-in" the ICC color profile shift to the photo. In other words, that options physically modifies the RGB values in your photo. In this case, you like the effect, but the fact remains that your pixels all change color after this setting is applied. Until just now, I didn't even know Photoshop had this option, hidden as it is, but it's a great idea.

Think of it this way: Theoretically, an ICC profile tells a piece of software how to "shift" colors in a photo "on-the-fly" to reproduce your ideal settings. This worked great until software started coming along that wouldn't apply any "on-the-fly" settings, including color shifts, and thus your photos stopped looking the way you'd like. This is exactly what most web browsers (and plenty of other pieces of software) do.

Adobe came up with a solution: Instead of relying on "on-the-fly" ICC profiles, they decided to "burn-in" the color shift and make it permanent. No more on-the-fly.

So, while I hate to correct you, it looks like your workflow *is* changing your photo and resulting in the saturated look you prefer. What Baldy was suggesting, and you misunderstood, is that you open your Original, do "Save For Web" on it once to "burn-in" the color shift you prefer, and then upload to smugmug. That will then preserve your saturated colors and avoid the washed-out look.

Since it's my baby, I should point out that as far as I can tell, smugmug is doing exactly the right thing - preserving your colors, as they are set in RGB values in your JPEGs, as accurately and precisely as possible. Especially given what we know about web browsers and their inability to use ICC profiles correctly.

I hope that helps, but holler if you want more.

Don

onethumb · March 12, 2005

I should also mention, briefly, that the whole Mac gamma -> PC gamma thing is another nasty, related can of worms, but I imagine you already know what's up there.

If not, I'm sure we can elaborate.

Don

dkapp · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

Finally, saving with "Use document profile" (or, really, anything but the "uncompensated color" setting) appears to "burn-in" the ICC color profile shift to the photo. In other words, that options physically modifies the RGB values in your photo. In this case, you like the effect, but the fact remains that your pixels all change color after this setting is applied. Until just now, I didn't even know Photoshop had this option, hidden as it is, but it's a great idea.
Don

I never should have made the post about Save for web. That is not what I use in my workflow. It is just the way I could replicate the colors Smugmug is producing.

I'll say it again. I use "save as" w/ sRGB profile for both my original & 700 wide. I sent a PM to baldy w/ another example w/ a fresh image edited & uploaded again tonight just for this purpose.

I'm honestly so burnt out on this topic right now I am moving on. I'm not happy with the colors on smugmug, and people do notice.

Do you ever feel like nobody really listens? I've taken a lot of time to illustrate, document & explain what I see. Did you look at the screenshots I posted using undocumented color setting in PS save for web? Look at the original. The way the file is supposed to look, then the less saturated save for web. You can't tell me that is the correct way.

Give me a few weeks to get my site up & I'll be out of your hair.

Dave

dkapp · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

I should also mention, briefly, that the whole Mac gamma -> PC gamma thing is another nasty, related can of worms, but I imagine you already know what's up there.

If not, I'm sure we can elaborate.

Don

Yeah. I spent weeks on this one. Considering 95% of the world views on a Windows monitor. I've actually got my monitor matching my prints, and matching my resized 700 wide photos. The only thing that does not fit is the smugmug resized.

Life was easier when I didn't know better. Like they say "Ignorance is Bliss"

Dave

onethumb · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

I never should have made the post about Save for web. That is not what I use in my workflow. It is just the way I could replicate the colors Smugmug is producing.

I'll say it again. I use "save as" w/ sRGB profile for both my original & 700 wide. I sent a PM to baldy w/ another example w/ a fresh image edited & uploaded again tonight just for this purpose.

I'm honestly so burnt out on this topic right now I am moving on. I'm not happy with the colors on smugmug, and people do notice.

Do you ever feel like nobody really listens? I've taken a lot of time to illustrate, document & explain what I see. Did you look at the screenshots I posted using undocumented color setting in PS save for web? Look at the original. The way the file is supposed to look, then the less saturated save for web. You can't tell me that is the correct way.

Give me a few weeks to get my site up & I'll be out of your hair.

Dave

This is crazy. I'm listening. I've spent hours tonight working on this issue (this is the first I can remember hearing about it, and I apologize for that, I thought I read the smugmug forums religiously), and I'm still no closer to an answer. We've managed to track down far more obscure things than this, I'm sure we can get to the bottom of it. Don't give up on me yet.

I'm no longer sure my theory about "Save For Web" holds any water, because no matter what setting you choose in Photoshop CS for Windows, it saves an identical file. "uncompensated", "windows", "mac", and "doc color" all show shifts on the screen, but none in the actual file. I have no idea why that would be (why preview something, but then spit out something that doesn't match the preview?).

I'm fairly sure that the Original photo you upload to smugmug isn't touched in any way. When you re-download it, it should be pristine and identical to your photo on your HDD. If you could verify this, that would help, but I haven't seen us touch a single byte once.

What I'm also sure about is that the Original from smugmug doesn't look like the resized 700px image from your workflow. Those colors look completely different, to my eye, right off the bat. I clearly see the difference you're seeing, and Photoshop's eyedropper clearly sees it too - it registers totally different values in the two photos.

I'm also sure that the smugmug resized image is nearly identical to the Original, in terms of color. I can see it with my eye, and Photoshop's eyedropper confirms - we're not shifting color during resize.

So, logically, I can only see two possible answers:

Fact #1: smugmug Original color doesn't match your manual resize color.

Fact #2: smugmug Original color matches smugmug resize color exactly.

Conclusions:

A - We're somehow modifying your Original after you upload it. That's possible, but highly unlikely. Please check and see what you find. Some hash (MD5, SHA1) is probably easiest, but that's up to you. I'm happy to double-check if you mail me one.

B - You're somehow modifying your photo in your workflow in a way that we're not.

Given my logic path, and my findings, are there any other possibilities that I'm missing? I'm having a hard time seeing any other two points at which the problem could occur.

Let's figure this thing out.

Don

onethumb · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

Did you look at the screenshots I posted using undocumented color setting in PS save for web? Look at the original. The way the file is supposed to look, then the less saturated save for web. You can't tell me that is the correct way.

Actually, this is *often* the case. "Save For Web" usually destroys the ICC profile (to save space that most browsers ignore anyway), resulting in a less saturated image if you're using a different color space.

"Save As" and "Save For Web" often look dramatically different. Whether or not you think it's correct, Adobe does and the rest of the world has to adapt. To be honest, Adobe was probably forced into it when web browsers decided to just ignore the color issue entirely.

Macs will often try much harder to use ICC profiles, but lots of Windows apps just ignore them. It's a shame, really.

Don

onethumb · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

Macs will often try much harder to use ICC profiles, but lots of Windows apps just ignore them. It's a shame, really.

So my own mention of Macs trying harder combined with your comment about 95% of the world being on Windows got me to thinking about my test method, and discovered I wasn't being very precise, particularly with platforms.

Your Original, which you uploaded to smugmug, has an ICC profile embedded in it. Windows browsers (IE6, Firefox, just about everything else) just ignores it and shows you the pixels as they want them to be seen. I knew this, I was seeing this behavior myself.

What I'd forgotten is that Safari actually pays attention to ICC profiles. (Either that, or more likely, it passes off rendering to Mac OS X, which really likes ICC profiles). I took a quick look at your same Original side-by-side on my PC and my Mac. I've done this, and had this same epiphany, many times, so it really shouldn't have happened, but my jaw hit the floor. Your colors are saturated on the Mac, and not on the PC.

Try it yourself, here's the steps:

- Open your Original in Photoshop, hit "Save As", and uncheck ICC profile.
- Open two new Safari windows, and put your Original in one, and your non-ICC profile Original in the other.
- Compare side-by-side or switch back and forth.
- Pick jaw off the floor, and realize that 95% of the world sees your photo as it looks WITHOUT the ICC profile, even when you include it.

smugmug strips the ICC profile off of all resized images to save "wasted" space. Since almost everyone on earth doesn't see it, and 4KB or more is a long time on a modem, we got lots of speed complaints about our photos loading. We removed the ICC profiles, no-one noticed, and the speed complaints went away.

I had really hoped this was "something new", and skipped right over the obvious. It's a Mac vs Windows display thing, and it sucks. I love my Mac lots more than my PC, so I feel your pain, but I'm afraid we have to go with what the rest of the world is used to. It also explains why no-one else, even viewing this thread, is seeing the problem you're describing - they're all on Windows, so they see your washed out version, ICC or no.

Don

{JT} · March 12, 2005

I saw the difference!

onethumb wrote:

It also explains why no-one else, even viewing this thread, is seeing the problem you're describing - they're all on Windows, so they see your washed out version, ICC or no.

dkapp · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

It's a Mac vs Windows display thing, and it sucks. I love my Mac lots more than my PC, so I feel your pain, but I'm afraid we have to go with what the rest of the world is used to. It also explains why no-one else, even viewing this thread, is seeing the problem you're describing - they're all on Windows, so they see your washed out version, ICC or no.

Don

First off. I checked the original on smugmug vs the copy on my HD like you asked. They are exactly the same, so smugmug is not altering the photo in any way. The md5 was exact on the two copies. Just wanted to this this out incase people started to think their originals were being altered once uploaded.

I just did the safari ICC test & could see a difference. I was always under the understanding that all browsers are the same, not color aware. I also checked IE for Mac, and that browser isn't color aware. Both files looked the same in IE. I even opened the GGB shot I posted above. One was more saturated & correct on my monitor than the Save For Web uncompensated color version. In IE, they were identical. No wonder people here think I'm crazy. So basically, the washed out version is what a windows user is seeing, and there isn't anything that can be done about it. This sucks.

I'll have to find a windows computer w/ accurate display to see the difference with my own eyes. I've been troubleshooting this on my own for months thinking it was something I was doing. Both Mac & Windows users I was working with said they could see a difference in the files too. I'm not sure what to believe now without viewing with my own eyes.

I've even printed off about 20 4x6's and sent them home to my father (windows user) to decorate his cube. Keep in mind, the prints match my 700 wide in the browser. He said what he saw on his monitor was terrible compared to the print. Most people say they are not motivated to buy anything by the web display, but once they get a print, they are blown away. I see this as a *huge* problem when your trying to sell prints this way, and I'm surprised it's not been brought up here before.

I've been sitting here on this reply for an hour now trying to figure out a solution. One that would make the images look correct on Windows, but I'm not coming up with anything. At least I can rest knowing its not Smugmug causing me the problems like I thought, but Safari rendering the color profile. I don't know how I can change my workflow since my 700 wide is an accurate display of the original, and how I want the photo to look. I won't be happy uploading an uncompensated file so Safari users see what Window users see. I'll just have consider them the lucky ones for now.

Dave

mercphoto · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

I've been sitting here on this reply for an hour now trying to figure out a solution.

This is one reason I absolutely HATE Windows. They don't do things right. And perhaps the biggest reason why I don't know why any professional photographer puts up with the stupid way Windows deals with color.

Baldy · March 12, 2005

Hi Guys,

No worries! The best decisions are made in the spirit of open debate. I hope you can see that everyone at smugmug who can affect change on this is completely focused on it. If we're blind about something, we'll be delighted to be wrong and change for the better once we get to the aha moment.

So to carry on...

I almost mentioned the ICC profile issue last night but decided against it because I don't believe it's the issue here. My belief is ICC profiles only accomplish two things on the Internet: (1) they slow it down, and (2) they confuse and torment Mac users.

Both Safari and IE on the Mac are ICC profile-aware, unlike any Windows browsers, but what's really rotten about Safari is images without a profile get displayed with the monitor profile, which is probably not sRGB for you.

Here's more.

With the images dkapp posted, both Windows and Mac users can see there is a saturation and color change, because there is. I measured it and posted a composite image with the original, the smugmug resized version, and the original Dave posted of the resized version. With all three on one image, you can clearly see they're different.

So let's try another test. Here's Dave's hand-resized original:

And here are smugmug-resized versions of the same shot:

I can't measure or see a difference beyond the fact that smaller images appear less saturated from the paint chip effect.

But I can measure and see a difference between the full-sized original and the hand-resized, framed 700px version.

And that's why I believe the color shift we're seeing is from differences in the workflow between those two.

Hit me over the head with a club so I can wake up from my fog. :thwak

Baldy · March 12, 2005

One more test:

Here is the smugmug resized-to-medium of Daves large original:

Here is the smugmug-resized-to-medium of Dave's 700x version:

The difference in those two should be visible to anyone on Mac or PC because neither has an ICC profile, they're both close to the same size, and color measurements show them to be different.

Baldy · March 12, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

This is one reason I absolutely HATE Windows. They don't do things right. And perhaps the biggest reason why I don't know why any professional photographer puts up with the stupid way Windows deals with color.

I am so sorry to disagree because I'm in enough hot water as it is

but....

The color space of the web is sRGB. You can't expect CNN to embed ICC profiles in every image and triple the size of their thumbnails just to tell Safari what it should know already: if there is no ICC profile present, display the file as sRGB.

onethumb · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

I've been sitting here on this reply for an hour now trying to figure out a solution. One that would make the images look correct on Windows, but I'm not coming up with anything. At least I can rest knowing its not Smugmug causing me the problems like I thought, but Safari rendering the color profile. I don't know how I can change my workflow since my 700 wide is an accurate display of the original, and how I want the photo to look. I won't be happy uploading an uncompensated file so Safari users see what Window users see. I'll just have consider them the lucky ones for now.

Actually, the solution is fairly simple, although also probably unpleasant to stomach.

Right off the camera, open your Original in Photoshop and immediately "Save As" without an ICC profile. Now do all your color correction and adjustment on the image, being careful to never save a version with an ICC profile. You'll be adjusting the actual RGB values for each pixel without any sort of color profile attached, which is actually more WYSIWYG.

The resulting image should look nearly identical across all browsers on all platforms - in the absence of ICC profile data, they behave almost identically. It's only when ICC profiles are there that they behave erratically.

You're essentially editing your photo with the implied assumption that sRGB is your destination color space and relying on the knowledge that all the browsers deal with ICC-less photos that way.

Hope that helps!

Don

onethumb · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

Actually, the solution is fairly simple, although also probably unpleasant to stomach.

Right off the camera, open your Original in Photoshop and immediately "Save As" without an ICC profile. Now do all your color correction and adjustment on the image, being careful to never save a version with an ICC profile. You'll be adjusting the actual RGB values for each pixel without any sort of color profile attached, which is actually more WYSIWYG.

The resulting image should look nearly identical across all browsers on all platforms - in the absence of ICC profile data, they behave almost identically. It's only when ICC profiles are there that they behave erratically.

You're essentially editing your photo with the implied assumption that sRGB is your destination color space and relying on the knowledge that all the browsers deal with ICC-less photos that way.

Hope that helps!

Don

In case it wasn't abundantly clear, what I'm trying to say is that if you use an ICC-less workflow, from start to finish, you'll get 100% of the browsers to agree on what the photo should look like. Otherwise, you'll get 95% of the browsers to see one view (no-ICC profile, if present), and 5% of them to see another (ICC profile).

Don

dkapp · March 12, 2005

onethumb wrote:

The resulting image should look nearly identical across all browsers on all platforms - in the absence of ICC profile data, they behave almost identically. It's only when ICC profiles are there that they behave erratically.

Don

How will this file behave when sent to an online print shop? Lets just use EZPrints to make this easy. I'm sure your knowledgeable about the file handoff & their workflow.

Dave

Baldy · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

How will this file behave when sent to an online print shop? Lets just use EZPrints to make this easy. I'm sure your knowledgeable about the file handoff & their workflow.

Dave

The sRGB tide has swept North American printers. Probably the most talked-about printers on the Internet in forums, etc., are EZ Prints and whcc.com (White House Custom Color). They both expect sRGB files and ignore your ICC profile. It's just extra file size to them.

The following printers are also sRGB-based and ignore your ICC profile even if you attach one:

Ofoto
Shutterfly
Snapfish
Costco (good prints)
Club Photo
Photobox in the UK (very respected)
Photoworks in Seattle (very respected)
Wolfe's
Walgreen's
Walmart

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Safari does not assume sRGB if the profile is absent. It assumes your monitor profile, which you may or may not have set to sRGB (it doesn't default that way).

cry:cry

dkapp · March 12, 2005

Baldy wrote:

The sRGB tide has swept North American printers. Probably the most talked-about printers on the Internet in forums, etc., are EZ Prints and whcc.com (White House Custom Color). They both expect sRGB files and ignore your ICC profile. It's just extra file size to them.

The following printers are also sRGB-based and ignore your ICC profile even if you attach one:

Ofoto
Shutterfly
Snapfish
Costco (good prints)
Club Photo
Printroom
Photobox in the UK (very respected)
Photoworks in Seattle (very respected)
Wolfe's
Walgreen's
Walmart

I hate to sound like a broken record, but Safari does not assume sRGB if the profile is absent. It assumes your monitor profile, which you may or may not have set to sRGB (it doesn't default that way). cry:cry

Thats really good info, and kind of what I expected. Thanks for the list. We actually have a photoworks here in SF. I've just started using them for my film, but their digital prices are a bit high.

I've set my monitor profile to sRGB, and will try it for awhile & run some tests over the next few weeks.

Dave

Andy · March 12, 2005

note from andy:

i split this discussion into its' own thread, so that it would be searchable.

:lurk

Baldy · March 12, 2005

dkapp wrote:

Thats really good info, and kind of what I expected. Thanks for the list. We actually have a photoworks here in SF. I've just started using them for my film, but their digital prices are a bit high.

I've set my monitor profile to sRGB, and will try it for awhile & run some tests over the next few weeks.

Dave

Cool. Most Macs have a monitor profile with gamma of 1.8, lighter than the 2.2 that is part of the sRGB spec. So Safari will make the file look light without the sRGB ICC profile attached. It really shouldn't do that because the strength of the sRGB Internet standard is that any soccer mom can understand it: every photo looks the same.

smugmug and color management

Comments