I was referring to darktable’s behaviour.
Honestly, that wasn’t clear, as this thread is about darktable, gimp and rawtherapee…
Yes, and primarily to see how it will look when output to a device/platform with a different gamut. But if your output profile is srgb, and you soft proof srgb, you will see no difference.
This is because what you see is limited by your monitor gamut. If your monitor can’t display more than srgb, then you will see no or only small difference between the two.
Sorry about that. I assumed that display profile being part of the chain from image to histogram would imply that I’m talking about darktable; but I should have been more explicit about that (there’s the famous catchphrase about assume making an ass of U and me). Sorry, @XavAL, for making you write an even longer explanation.
2 Likes
Indeed, got it.
Thanks to all for all the information!! I learned a lot from this thread, and my workflow is now better configured. 
3 Likes
I am having similar issue. I have calibrated my Dell display.
I always export for sRGB when publishing for the web. sRGB should look the same or at least very similar, but for me sRGB looks too much vivid. If I activate soft proof sRGB I will get darker shadows. That seems fine for me. But when I export to jpg with sRGB it is not close at all to the soft proof profile.
The only way for me to see what the exported picture will look like is to change display profile to sRGB.
Which one looks best below with the colours, if your display is able to show both AdobeRGB and sRGB?
Adobe RGB
sRGB
To what standard? It matters if you calibrate with sRGB as reference, or something else.
In any case, for a properly calibrated display, leave the display profile and preview display profile on ‘system display profile’ if you want accurate color representation.
It was my understanding that if you turn soft-proofing for sRGB on, and you are sure the sRGB profile is embedded in the exported file, and you view that file in a properly color managed application, it should look identical to the preview in darktable.
Calibrated to AdobeRGB.
The exported jpg with sRGB looks good in all properly colour managed applications on my computer, but for devices that are not the colours look way too saturated.
If an exported jpg has sRGB, why would it look more saturated in for example Firefox with Full Color Management set to 0 instead of 1? And Shotwell in Ubuntu, is it even possible to colour manage that one?
I will later upload a couple of sRGB photos to show, just to get a second opinion if the pictures are too saturated or not.
If its an old monitor does it even support Adobe RGB colorspace??
I may not be totally following what you are doing but from what you said things go darker in softproof mode when set to sRGB for softproofing. That might be expected if your display is set up quite a bit differently than sRGB . sRGB is now being used as your display profile when you softproof…you may need to add some exposure back and then your exports should look fine however when you turn softproofing off they will be too light using your display profile again…
I bought the screen just because of AdobeRGB. Dell U2413 if I remember right.
The issue is not that softproofing goes a little bit darker. The issue is that exported sRGB jpeg seems to be way over saturated in software like Shotwell. It is like Shotwell can’t read sRGB correct. My Samsung tablet, that can’t show AdobeRGB or 100% sRGB will also over saturate the colours.
If you export a sRGB jpeg and open it in Shotwell, how does it look compared to the one in darktable?
Seems I got a good explanation here https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/kqyg55/experimenting_with_colour_managed_applications/
Anyway, a sample picture from me. How is the sky? Blue or green/blue?
IMG_6048_01.zip (7.1 MB)
Looks good to me …fairly warm image…some cast in the horizon along the waters edge…but if if you remove the lighting from the rocks then the sky is unnaturally blue to my eye…
I’ll have a look when I can…#3 Grandbaby is on the way and I’m off to make a food run to the hospital…
2 Likes
So Peter would you like me to export on my system and compare them??
I have Littlecms enabled and use perceptual rendering. Apparently it can be slower but is more accurate??
I can’t say. I don’t need DT to be faster for me so I enable it.
It is my understanding that rendering intents only work if LittleCMS is enabled so I do…
Don’t take my word for it…
I tried last night and the strangest thing I could not export that raw file and xmp…The export would never complete….I will try something tonight to see if I can make it go…
Please do, or you can compare the jpeg vs the one you see in darktable darkroom with sRGB soft proof.
For me I think some of it is filmic…both the norm and the midtone boost create out of gamut colors and I think when they are mapped to sRGB you are getting the extra saturation perhaps…try to adjust your edit so you have no out of gamut areas and see if it maps to a better match…The mid tone boost in filmic to zero removed it…I have to run so I can’t check the export…will report later
Have checked with some more devices, (iPhones and at work). Doesn’t seem as bad as it did with my calibrated screen and non colour managed Shotwell.
Peter sorry not to get back to you …from a very quick check I did notice that opening your raw and exporting to jpg on my hardware produced a jpg that was darker in some area but overall when viewed back in DT, not too bad though. I sadly don’t have a calibrated monitor at the moment. Holding out for new HDR monitor as the technology evolves and thus the appropriate calibration built in or otherwise.
If you find it extreme as you say it may be the non color managed software and or a nuance of your calibration…Sorry I could not be of more help…
1 Like