Hi all.
Yes, the title is the same) I agree.
This question most likely requires someone who understands how color management works in Windows. I would have asked this question on a completely different resource, but imagining the competence of people sitting on the forums on the system, I understand that they may have, albeit correct, general ideas about my question.
I look at any photo and cannot achieve perfect black. At first, I was guilty of the fact that many of my photographs suffer from the fact that the dynamic range in the shadows in the photograph is very compressed. But, when I tried to export images to jpg format, and made the output option as srgb, then in the same Google Chrome browser I see that black is black (in Google Chrome), and not some kind of matte, hazy color. The situation is similar in Mozilla Firefox. The black there is the black in my photographs. On a smartphone (iphone 13), in the “photo” program, the same black is black, not matte, as in my rawtherapee, xnview, photoshop, lightroom, etc.
I calibrated and profiled the monitor using i1Display pro. The colorimeter itself was recently tested by comparing the result with the X-RITE I1 PHOTO PRO spectrophotometer. I profiled them the same way - a similar result. Some kind of dullness in black tones is visible in the image if I open it in programs that support cms windows - rt, darktable, xnview etc, etc.
I can assume that Internet browsers or smartphones do not support color reproduction correctly, but should I see black in programs that support a color management system?
And I can’t understand the reasons.
System: windows 10 21h2.
Nvidia rtx 4070
I looked for the topic on various ones, but couldn’t find it. There are a lot of topics about all sorts of gamma shifts. About calibration and others, but the point I mentioned is just a disaster.
What is needed here is a person who understands the basics of this system, but I don’t know where to find him.
I am asking for help in this forum. Please help.
I have similar thoughts around this at times…in fact I experimented in DT adding an instance of exposure blended in linear light as it seemed to give the image that sense of a real black visually… I need to do another read but I have never grasped black point compensation and when it is a factor. In RT you can select it. This may only be for printing but I think it has a role in how black is handled in displays but again I need to try to wrap my head around it and how it is handled in various software… I look forward to the feedback you get for this…
And RT at least since it exposes this setting seems to have it on by default and I recall in displaycal there were options to tweak bpc settings but now I can’t recall what I used when I created my profile…maybe i should go back…
Hello, my guess. In RawTherapee, when I apply a matte paper profile and switch soft-proofing on, I see blacks that are less black than without that profile applied. That’s in my experience always the case with matte profiles.
The idea behind that is that matte papers can’t reproduce the deep blacks of non-matte papers, like glossy.
If you open the photo in RT and apply the sRGB profile, are your blacks looking “normal”? Switching soft-proofing on and off shows only a very slight difference with sRGB.
What a thing here. If the picture is “in the hands of a color management system,” then we see this same dullness. And it seems that if outside cms, then black appears. And yes - for an experiment, I temporarily changed the profile to the factory one, but got the same story with matteness. I repeat - I open this picture in firefox etc - black = black, and not something else.
I would like to find a disk somewhere to put Ubuntu or arch on there for a while and compare. Not from a flash drive. To calibrate the display there, that’s all. ehhh…))
I think maybe the browsers are not using bpc so they crush black and that looks good to us… I did an edit on my post above and this I think could be the issue…
Trying this in chrome my monitor shows black up to level 14 which I dont’ think is good so I need to look at my profile…
Well, this is a test of the settings/capabilities of the display itself. This has nothing to do with the profile.
I have 5.
Yes. I called the same display a monitor))
))) To be honest, I asked this question not so much out of curiosity and interest, but because of a complete stop in all work for this reason. It makes sense to do something if clients see a completely different brightness.
I think the calibration/profiling tweaks/loads a gamma curve so I think its not a blind test of the monitor I think the calibration will affect it… not I said I believe so… as always I might be misinterpreting it…
What about logic?
Well, we are testing it. And what?
There is a difference in the display in the two systems. One system looks at cms, and the other at something else. Whether the eyes see something there or not, they will see either badly in both places, or well.
So I found this interesting… I was looking at ART and RT. I was trying to sort out the BPC setting in the export/output.
I believe the default RT profiles do not have the information to apply that setting correctly.
If you use the default profile in either ART or RT and turn the bpc off and on or change to perceptual which is very similar to what you would get with BPC off. There is no change in the preview or the histogram.
If you use a profile from color.org ( either preference or appearance) that has the lut table then in RT you will see the histogram change when you toggle these settings but the display does not. It appears to offer a preview that is perceptual and BPC on… If you do the same in ART not only does the histogram change but the preview does as well which is nice and you clearly see the impact of turning BPC on and off and changing between relative and perceptual rendering.
When I use this profile my output in Chrome is a pretty good match for the display preview in ART so BPC off has dark blacks and with it on more muted and they match the preview pretty well. I am wondering if Chrome maybe doesn’t interpret the BPC with the RT profile and so will give a darker preview than what you are seeing previewed in RT…
I did a couple of short videos to show this… First one shows the default profile and no changes to preview or histogram toggling BPC or rendering intent…
Using the color.org profile… note the display change and the histogram change
Rawtherapee with the default… no change in histogram or preview… so like ART
With the color.org profile you see the histogram change as you would expect related to the setting but not the preview as it does in ART
So with respect to these settings I think the Art preview comes out closer to the selected options when you use a profile with the lut to support that, ie the BPC and rendering intent…