Color Management and Targeting Outputs

Processing
9

Sorry, I meant if the color doesn’t match the name…

10

Yeah it doesn’t match at all.

11

Yes, it doesn’t match

12

Yep, this means the profile is being stripped by the forums still… :astonished: I’ll check into this shortly (again).

13

But Chrome does not support color-management…

14

“Velvia-esque” is my favorite of the first set.

15

@Morgan_Hardwood does the RT community collect pp3 files like these somewhere?

16

@paperdigits no, but it would be nice to. pixls.us has a GitHub collection of stuff and ting, I think that would currently be the best place for them. Then we can link to the correct place from RawPedia where relevant.

17

I’ll get that started tomorrow evening.

18

That is to be expected. When an application doesn’t use the display profile and it’s a wide gamut monitor, then all the colors will look like straight from Ommpa Loompa land. That’s the downside of a wide gamut screen.

PS: Try watching a Michael Bay movie in a non-color managed video player. The already saturated colors will blind you. :smiley:

19

That was what I thought, too. My test images appear to contradict this, though. I’m on 52.0.2743.116 m and my images with a profile attached appear to be working correctly. Even the test image from @houz appears to render as expected:

Images that I generated working with @Hombre yesterday afternoon as tests:

https://pixls.us/files/samples/dot-out-No_ICM.jpg
https://pixls.us/files/samples/dot-out-RT_sRGB.jpg

In each case I was working in RT. I exported the first to No_ICM, and the second to RT_sRGB.

In a CM viewer, they look (as expected) different, with the RT_sRGB version looking close to what I was seeing while editing the file in RT. The No_ICM is just nuts, (again, as expected).

In a non CM viewer they both just look nuts (too super-saturated).

To make matters more odd (this is for another topic), both Firefox and Chrome render the RT_sRGB profile image slightly differently.

Left: Chrome, Right: Firefox
Top: No_ICM embedded, Bottom: RT_sRGB embedded

Just FYI: the RT_sRGB in Firefox is closest to what I was seeing in my RT editing.

The Question

Which leads me to my main question through all of this. We basically have two main approaches (targets?) that we’re considering here:

  1. Assume the viewer will be CM - in which case this is a non-issue? Just go with RT_sRGB or another space if you know that the viewer will handle it correctly. Basically, a normal workflow I’d think?
  2. Assume the viewer is not CM. Which begs my main question through all of this:

Is there a way to export what I’m seeing while editing in a CM workflow so that it will at least be closer if viewed in a non-CM application?

Best case scenario is that there’s a method for exporting/converting somewhere at the end of the pipeline to make sure that what I see matches as close as possible what a plain sRGB(?) or non-CM viewer would see?

Second option - would another possible solution be to set RT to use sRGB as my monitor profile while editing - as that seems to match what I see in my No_ICM output?

Relying heavily on @houz, @Morgan_Hardwood and others in here… :slight_smile:

20

My best guess: save the image for web display in sRGB. In this case:

  • a user with a calibrated monitor and a ICM-aware viewer will see the right colors, although users with wide-gamut display will not be able to take advantage of the extra gamut
  • a user with a small-gamut display, no display calibration and/or a non-ICM-aware viewer will still see approximately correct colors, depending on how much the display deviates from sRGB
  • a user with a wide-gamut display, no display calibration and/or a non-ICM-aware viewer will see highly saturated colors. But then he will have abnormally saturated colors for everything (movies, pictures, drawings, etc…)
21

Chrome has no way of setting a monitor color profile, so it’s not color managed. Supporting only an image profile but no monitor profile is like making bread with all the flour but no water…

22

The solution - using an sRGB (RT_sRGB) output profile - is the best option for both of these cases. They are the same thing. The person with the sRGB calibration and profiling deviates from sRGB as little as their colorimeter, software and hardware allow, while the person without the sRGB calibration and profiling deviates more, because their monitor are made to work with sRGB, kinda, but accurately calibrating and profiling it wasn’t included in the price.

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Color_Management#Output_Profile
http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Color_Management_addon#Shipped_files

1 Like
23

This may be, but I have to wonder - does the browser try to respect or do something with the image profile? It would explain what I am seeing with images that contain a profile at least.

24

Hi @patdavid,

Even if Firefox has the ability to color manage images, color management is by default off and the users have to perform some wizardry using about:config (if ever they dare to go past the initial warning messages).

Some tests:
http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/

And some relatively modern info:
http://www.color-management-guide.com/web-browser-color-management.html

25

Yes, and in fact pmjdebruijn made mention of the same in irc yesterday (along with instructions on setting it pretty quickly - i’ll bug him again and post it here). This is quite frustrating… but then I’m “preaching to the choir” as it were…

26

There are actually add-ons which make it easy for a layman to enable color management and choose a display profile for Firefox. I am using one called “Color Management” :slight_smile: My eyeball says, that it seems to work properly.

27

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/color-management/

28

From Pascal on IRC:

$ sudo sh -c 'echo "pref(\"gfx.color_management.rendering_intent\", 0);" >> /etc/firefox/syspref.js'
$ sudo sh -c 'echo "pref(\"gfx.color_management.mode\", 1);" >> /etc/firefox/syspref.js'
$ sudo sh -c 'echo "pref(\"gfx.color_management.enablev4\", true);" >> /etc/firefox/syspref.js'

Will also set Firefox to a sane color-management.

For reference:

  • gfx.color_management.mode
    Integer values.

    • 0 - disable
    • 1 - enabled for rendered graphics
    • 2 - enabled for tagged graphics only (default)

  • gfx.color_management_rendering_intent
    Integer values.

    • -1 - Honor the intent in the image file
    • 0 - Perceptual (default)
    • 1 - Relative Colorimetric
    • 2 - Saturation
    • 3 - Absolute Colorimetric

  • gfx.color_management.enablev4
    Boolean (true to enable ICCv4)

1 Like