Color Display in Browsers

Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
879
Location
UK
I just wanted to say that I've been reading up on sRGB and AdobeRGB and I can definitley see a difference in the browsers rendering of your pics. Firefox looks a little more vibrant that Safari. I would say then that most of you are exporting your JPEG's in sRGB format.

Anyone using Adobe for anything? Printing?
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
I use all the colour spaces and Convert to the most suitable one for final output.

All of my editing is done in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB.

I always convert to sRGB for the Internet because one cannot rely on all viewers to be using Colour-managed web browsers — let alone having customised their "about:config" settings in Firefox correctly.

I print on an inkjet from 16-bit Adobe RGB; and send customised CMYK images (as PressReady PDFs) to the Press.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
23,405
Location
Moscow, Idaho
I pretty much mirror what Ann states, except I occasionally forget to switch to sRGB for web postings, and I don't use the CMYK process at all. I do have a calibrated external monitor that I use for critical work, but for more mundane work and viewing I survive with my MacBookPro. Haven't seen any difference between the major browsers in several years now.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,886
Location
UK
I just wanted to say that I've been reading up on sRGB and AdobeRGB and I can definitley see a difference in the browsers rendering of your pics. Firefox looks a little more vibrant that Safari. I would say then that most of you are exporting your JPEG's in sRGB format.

Anyone using Adobe for anything? Printing?
Adobe RGB and sRGB are synthetic colour spaces and do not describe any real world devices. The gamut of Adobe RGB is wider than sRGB and ProPhoto RGB is probably the widest gamut colour space you are likely to come across and is the only one capable of ‘seeing’ what your camera can capture.
These synthetic spaces are for editing only and any colour savvy application such as Photoshop can use them in a colour managed application to correctly display your image data.

Browsers mostly now are colour managed (to a degree) but often colour management needs to be turned on otherwise strange results may be seen and your image needs to be tagged with the correct profile.

The safest bet with web images would be sRGB files as it is often the case that without a tagged file software expects an sRGB or in the event that colour management not implemented.

For printing you would not use Adobe RGB data (as this is a synthetic space) although you may edit in this space. Rather you would send the data via an ICC profile that accurately describes the output device characteristics
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,341
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
I just wanted to say that I've been reading up on sRGB and AdobeRGB and I can definitley see a difference in the browsers rendering of your pics. Firefox looks a little more vibrant that Safari. I would say then that most of you are exporting your JPEG's in sRGB format.

Anyone using Adobe for anything? Printing?
Unless you are making sure that your browsers or other programs are properly colour managed, you are simply seeing an incorrect result. The same thing happens when people buy extended gamut monitors and use them incorrectly.

The thing to remember is this (assuming a calibrated monitor or printer):
If the image has no colours that are outside the sRGB gamut, then with a correct colour managed workflow you should see no difference whatever regardless of whether you use sRGB, Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto RGB, and regardless of what program or browser you use. So if you are seeing a difference it may simply mean you don't have a correct workflow. For example the software may not correctly support colour management.

The reason for using the wider gamuts is that photos that do contain certain colours outside the sRGB gamut can be seen correctly, good examples are things like neon signs, glowing orange jackets etc. Wide gamut monitors and some printers/inks can reproduce some of those colours.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
For printing I convert from ProPhoto to Adobe RGB and set Printing so that "Photoshop Manages Colour" (the same from InDesign) and I then select the Paper Profile for the substrate on which I am printing.

My reason for doing this is because the my Epson Drivers do not seem to manage to make a pleasing conversion from ProPhoto RGB (terribly over-saturated Greens and Reds are the result!) but they do handle the conversion from Adobe RGB 16-bit very accurately.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,886
Location
UK
For printing I convert from ProPhoto to Adobe RGB and set Printing so that "Photoshop Manages Colour" (the same from InDesign) and I then select the Paper Profile for the substrate on which I am printing.

My reason for doing this is because the my Epson Drivers do not seem to manage to make a pleasing conversion from ProPhoto RGB (terribly over-saturated Greens and Reds are the result!) but they do handle the conversion from Adobe RGB 16-bit very accurately.
Then something is broken in the colour managed workflow.

There is normally no need to convert from ProPhoto to anything lower and in doing so you may be losing IQ due to two factors. The first being the fact that your camera is capable of capturing colour that exceeds Adobe RGB and only ProPhoto can handle. Second being that modern printers paper and inks can exceed the Adobe RGB colour gamut.

If you are observing these faults then you need to investigate further monitor calibration, printer variables and paper ICC profiles
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
No Tony, I am changing nothing!!

Everything works as required, and as designed, when I work in the way in which I do.
I get excellent matching between my Puck-calibrated NEC Monitor and the Output from my Epson ink jet and also from Press-printed publications in distant places.

Just because an Epson can extract and print excessively saturated Greens and scarlet-feverish skin tones from a ProPhoto RGB (which are invisible on the monitor and are not reproducible from CMYK offset inks) doesn't make that a desirable outcome.

(I have been professionally involved in the Photographic, Graphic Arts and PrePress industries for the last 60 years so I believe that I do know what I am doing!!)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
879
Location
UK
Some good explanations and some odd comments.

I’m simply looking at publicly posted pics on the web. Calibrating my monitor has nothing to do with a side by side comparison of the same pic on two different browsers. Calibrating browsers, if that’s possible on Firefox, may make a difference.

I do know browsers show AdobeRGB and sRGB differently. I was mainly curious what people were using to export to JPG when presenting to the web. Printing is another ball of wax but I do welcome those good explanations of printing workflows.

I’m now curious how people are exporting to print when you, let’s say, send a file off to a printing shop to produce a print.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,886
Location
UK
No Tony, I am changing nothing!!

Everything works as required, and as designed, when I work in the way in which I do.
I get excellent matching between my Puck-calibrated NEC Monitor and the Output from my Epson ink jet and also from Press-printed publications in distant places.

Just because an Epson can extract and print excessively saturated Greens and scarlet-feverish skin tones from a ProPhoto RGB (which are invisible on the monitor and are not reproducible from CMYK offset inks) doesn't make that a desirable outcome.

(I have been professionally involved in the Photographic, Graphic Arts and PrePress industries for the last 60 years so I believe that I do know what I am doing!!)
I will say again your colour management is broken and you should know that as you claim to know what you are doing. The fact that you propose to do nothing is absolutely fine with me.

But what is not fine is suggesting that Epson or any other system cannot correctly print greens and reds from ProPhoto RGB as it is plain wrong! As is suggesting CMYK inks! God forbid anyone believes this.

You post suggest you home print to an inkjet printer. Therefore working from ProPhoto for editing is absolutely fine and of course your monitor cannot display the full gamut (assuming it is there in the first place). This does not matter because as a professional you will be soft proofing either LR or PS and in the process you will have selected a paper profile to match your system and if as you say you are using a correctly calibrated and profiled display you will get a very close match print to screen which may need a little boost to Hue and Sat, Density and Contrast etc to get the best. Some greens and blues etc may be somewhat OOG but there is a method to get a view in LR and PS of these OOG colours (which although clumsy works to a degree)

CMYK is another story and these flavours are device dependant and you should be editing accordingly and accepting the loss of gamut with conversion to CMYK which you should be seening during your proofing - you must use one of the 1000's of CMYK flavours in profile form if you really hope to match
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,886
Location
UK
....
I’m simply looking at publicly posted pics on the web. Calibrating my monitor has nothing to do with a side by side comparison of the same pic on two different browsers. Calibrating browsers, if that’s possible on Firefox, may make a difference.
Calibrating your monitor is a starting point to make sure what you are seeing on a correctly calibrated system viewing in a colour managed app. is the same as what we see on our correctly colour managed systems. Without this all bets are off!
Calibrating browsers is not an option but turning colour management on (it might be off by default) will certainly help for those browsers that allow this - Firefox being one.

I do know browsers show AdobeRGB and sRGB differently.
They should not if they are colour managed with that management turned on and the file is tagged with the embedded profile. So if you feed an image with embedded Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB you will get a correctly rendered image (within the limits of the monitor)

I was mainly curious what people were using to export to JPG when presenting to the web. Printing is another ball of wax but I do welcome those good explanations of printing workflows.

I’m now curious how people are exporting to print when you, let’s say, send a file off to a printing shop to produce a print.
The safe answer for web would have to be sRGB but you do not know the condition of others monitor re calibration or if there browser is colour managed or colour managment enabled.

Quality printing requires a lab with knowledge and one that does not pay lip service to colour management. A good lab will instruct you what their needs are relating to your file. They should provide you with an ICC profile for your paper of choice and specify that you soft proof using that profile and embedd said profile in the image. If they ask for sRGB then you may want to reconsider your choice as on the face of it lip service is being paid to colour management - they may or may not make nice prints but that is beside the point when you are colour managing a system and expect to get a close match
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
4,625
Location
Northern New Mexico
Real Name
Merlin Emrys
One can specify the color profile used by Firefox in about:config, but no matter what is done with Google Chrome, colors will appear washed out, despite their claims. Same with Opera. I do not use Safari nor any MS browser.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
Tony: your response explains the Theoretical; my response is a result of Practical Experience!

CMYK formulae are always Press-specific and I Soft Proof and adjust my images to take Dot gain and K-Gen into consideration and it works ou extremely well.

However, my Epson uses ten inks (not just C, M, Y, and K) and when it prints to Epson stock (using Epson's own Profiles) it does a lousy conversion and produces really horrible harsh garish colours if it is fed a ProPhoto RGB file.

Knowing that, it is far easier to feed the Epson Adobe RGB files and know that it will then spit-out exactly the monitor-matching rendering which I am seeking.

Practical hands-on Experience is more useful (and saves me a helluva lot of paper and ink!) than marching in lock-step with the Theoretical and believing that Epson's profiling is bug-free and infallible.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
I don't believe that Google Chrome and Opera have ever been Colour Managed?

We have no way of controlling what others will see when we post on the Internet but saving as sRGB (and embedding the sRGB Profile too) produces the best chance that more people will see what we hope that they are seeing.
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,834
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
One can specify the color profile used by Firefox in about:config, but no matter what is done with Google Chrome, colors will appear washed out, despite their claims. Same with Opera. I do not use Safari nor any MS browser.
I'm no techie....... is this something I 1) should do and 2) can do....easy? My NEC monitor is color calibrated using Spectravision s/w and the provided puck. That is my default setting in Windows 10.

For Firefox, I typed in about:config and recevied pages of "gibberish"....at least to me! LOL!

Should I configure Firefox? If I did, what would the likely change be?
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,060
Location
New York State
Karen:
The settings which are important for colour management are explained here:
Why does Firefox show images I upload different than they are?? | Firefox Support Forum | Mozilla Support.

Gary Ballard created a very useful and instructive web site about this issue and provides downloadable test files:
BEST FIREFOX TEST PAGE How To Enable FULL COLOR MANAGEMENT of ICC Profiles in FF31 Fire Fox thru FF 3.6

Don't worry about too much the ICC v4 profiles because those have largely been discredited and I don't think many people use them.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
3,886
Location
UK
Ann, on the contrary my response is based on many years teaching photographers colour management and printing and implementing QA systems leading to proper quality control, and setting these controls in place in the customers premises

I cannot tell you what is wrong with your system colour pipeline only advise you yet again that it must be broken for you to report
...However, my Epson uses ten inks (not just C, M, Y, and K) and when it prints to Epson stock (using Epson's own Profiles) it does a lousy conversion and produces really horrible harsh garish colours if it is fed a ProPhoto RGB file.

Knowing that, it is far easier to feed the Epson Adobe RGB files and know that it will then spit-out exactly the monitor-matching rendering which I am seeking.

Practical hands-on Experience is more useful (and saves me a helluva lot of paper and ink!) than marching in lock-step with the Theoretical and believing that Epson's profiling is bug-free and infallible.
First you must understand that you are not feeding it ProPhoto or even Adobe RGB data because that image data has been converted in the print pipeline to the appropriate paper profile either by PS managing or printer managing colour prior to passing to print.
The fact that you are getting garish/incorrect colour confirms a problem in CM. You have chosen a way around this by using Adobe RGB and this is fine but you have neither resolved or explained the underlying issues within your system.

As I said mine is hands on practical experience with many systems for many customers analogue and digital. What I did not say or believe is that Epson's profile (or your version) is either bug free or infallible - so I politely request that you refrain from trying to put words into my mouth
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2017
Messages
14
Location
Cheney, WA
Real Name
Dave Stromberger
I have been using Firefox since I bought a Dell UP2716D, and it has worked pretty well with the color management. It didn't do so well when opening a browser on my second non wide-gamut monitor. Also it's a slow pig... always wanting to go back to Chrome, so I thought I'd do an update to see if the latest Chrome had improved.... and WOW! 100% ! They've got it totally dialed in now, right out of the box. So if you've abandon Chrome for it's lack of full Color Management support, install the latest version and see what you think!
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom