Forums

Any news regarding color management?

Regarding color-management, I was mingling with this topic the other day. How are you saving your images for the web? From here, as long as images were in RGB format(and not for instance CMYK), it didnt make a difference how they were saved, they always display the same ...

For the web they are always in RGB format, most of the time using the sRGB color profile.

It's strange that you didn't see any difference. Try saving the same picture once with sRGB profile, another one with Adobe RGB and one without an embedded color profile. If the color management works, the first two versions with color profiles embedded should look the same while the one without a profile should differ from them. If color management does not work, the sRGB image should look different from the image with the Adobe RGB profile.

Edit:
This might help as well:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quick ... ction_as3/

Of course there also needs to be a color profile specified for your monitor, or otherwise Adobe Flash is unable to determine how to re-calculate the color values for your monitor.

Any progress in this case? I also stick to the HTML version because of the color devastation, especially if I spend long time in post-processing to make colours right.
Few people after watching my pictures on flickr, inform me, that with my flash gallery something is realy wrong...

flickr vs my website (this is the same picture )

Kind Regards,
Artur.

Good point, but you are aware that this is not only Imagevue, but lots of browsers can not view your embedded color profile anyway in html? That is why we recommend not using managed color profiles ... See my tests below:

Firefox: YES


Chrome: NO


Opera: NO


Safari: Yes
(no snapshot, but same as Firefox)

Even worse news is that only Internet Explorer 9+ supports color profiles, and this is only <3% of the browsing population. The other IE browsers <9 (8,7,6 etc) do not support your color profile either. In the end of the day, I can say that only a smaller percentage of viewers will see your color profile anyway.


Then I would recommend your visitors to also say that something is "really wrong" with most of the browsers they are seeing your images through also.

The best solution to this, is to not base your web photos on your own color management, because this is far from consistent.

I will take a look at this feature again though, and see if there is anything we can do for a new release.

Just click 'Convert to sRGB' when saving for web in Photoshop and you'll be fine. This will bake the profile into the actual image. It's not like we can change the world, but you can easily make your photos color-bleed-proof instead.

Damn! You're right
I have always trying to be perfect, but as I can see now, it's not so easy as I thought.
saving in sGRB - of course it's some way out, but then I have to make few copies of the same picture (crap for preview, sRBG without ICC for download, with ICC for print, and original)... I need more storage space .

My first post on the forum. Like to start off with a big thanks to Imagevue, their support has been second to none and I'm very happy with the way my gallery is coming along

I did a little test last night regarding colour issues. I use Firefox but have noticed a slight difference in colour when using the Flash gallery to when I use the HTML version. Photographs with bright highlights and dark shadows appear a little harsh. Its no big deal (don't want to sound as if I'm a moaning minnie) but just wondered whether others have noticed this. I appreciate that different browsers don't perform the same (IE8 gave me better results for some reason but I hate IE).

Cheers,

Mark

Oh nearly forgot, here's my gallery so far, still have lots more to add http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/MJAgallery/

Did you read through this entire post? There IS a difference in how Firefox and flash shows your images, IF you are using embedded color profiles.

The problem is, some browsers can read your embedded color profile, while some (including flash) can not. See my examples here: viewtopic.php?p=26681#p26681 - Best solution: Don't use embedded color profiles.

Hi Karl.

Yes I had a good read through. I've tried it with both a sRGB profile and with no profile at all but it still looks the same even in a different browsers. I think it might even be a contrast issue as you lose detail in dark shadow area's and bright highlight areas. Not to worry.

Mark

Under the presumption that you saved your pictures as sRGB, I could not belief it at first.
But I think you are right, there is a difference in warmth or saturation between the html- and the flash-version, although it's very small.
The funny thing is however, that in FF the flash-version is slightly more saturated, while in Chrome it's the html-version.
At least as far as I can tell... as I said, the difference is very small.

It is much smaller than when an AdobeRGB is viewed through a browser or by means of, say, Photoshop. That's a difference most people will see.

B.t.w. I took this picture for reference:
http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/MJAgallery/?content%2FLatestLowLevel%2F183.5.jpg

Hi Martin.

Try this shot. If you compare the dark area on the top right of the shot (hangar roof) you can see that in the flash version there is less detail in there http://www.mjaviation.co.uk/MJAgallery/ ... h%2F14.jpg

As said, it isn't a huge difference, it just got me a little confused (doesn't take much)

Mark

Looking in FF:
Well, in this picture the difference is clearer to see... indeed, the top right has in the flash-version less detail and in the buttom-right you see more saturation. But maybe the whole image is shown a bit darker in flash...
When looked at in Photoshop, it looks like the html-version.
The only thing I noticed, is that the color profile is not plain sRGB, but Nikon sRGB... though I doubt that would explain it...

Although its in the sRGB Nikon profile it is the same no matter what its saved in. I guess its just one of those things

Mark