Sarracenia

[John Robinson]

Those of you over there will know this well. Not that easy to grow over here.
had a job to separate the three growths due to the dense way the plant is growing. Had to hold some out the way with tape. Done in a small greenhouse with opaque plasic liner
D71000
100ISO 250th @3.5
A3 printed backdrop
7 stacked images Focus ring.
Stacked in CZM
Slight crop for comp on final image.
Levels/curves Paint Shop pro.
Cheers
JohnR

[John Robinson]

As a matter of interest does any one do 3D anaglyph with red /cyan glasses ? I have a shed load of 3 Dsttuff if any one wants to view them
A lot of macro stuff too. JohnR

[shane shacaluga]

Hi John, good work with this stacking and details are very nice. The BG looks quite natural

Flora photography is a big unknown to me but my impression is that the flowers/leaves could be made a tad brighter so they stand out a bit more against the BG

Again I could be totally wrong

TFS

[Diane Miller]

Drop-dead gorgeous! The delicate light on the tiny hairs is wonderful!

[John Robinson]

Thanks Diane. Appreciated. I was thinking of going in to wedding photography !!!
John

[Diane Miller]

Excellent idea! But only if it doesn't take your time away from posting gorgeous stuff here!

[John Robinson]

Diane
From you - a compliment indeed. Thank you.
John

[Jonathan Ashton]

I like the image very much but I think there is a quite a strong colour cast.

[John Robinson]

Jonathon
What colour ?
John

[Bill Jobes]

This is a very nicely composed and balanced image, John.

I find myself wondering how it would look with more detail in-focus.

Had you considered taking some images stopped down with a higher ISO, to increase your DOF ?

[Jonathan Ashton]

Jonathon
What colour ?
John
Good question John, I have been messing about but at the moment I am processing an image stack and it is giving the computer a headache - I will get back to you asap. The yellows are blown I know that but at present I do not know what the correct term for the cast is.

[John Robinson]

Good question John, I have been messing about but at the moment I am processing an image stack and it is giving the computer a headache - I will get back to you asap. The yellows are blown I know that but at present I do not know what the correct term for the cast is.

Jon
Probably yellow- but the plants a re mainly green. Asin the pic.
Cheers
john

[Diane Miller]

I don't see a color cast, but followed a hunch and downloaded it. It does not have an embedded profile, but does appear to have been converted to sRGB, as it should be. The only browser that will display an untagged image correctly, assuming it is in sRGB space, is Firefox, with a switch set by the user. Other browsers will render an array of colors, all of them wrong to various degrees.

Always convert to sRGB and tag the profile when posting to the internet.

See the tutorial, now moved to Educational Resources, titled "Seeing Colors Correctly..." Just download the PDF there -- you'll get the latest version. No idea why there are duplicate posts. I don't have any privileges to post there and don't know who manages it.

And PS's color management should be set to warn when an image doesn't have a profile. Also covered in that article.

[John Robinson]

Diane As I have said before all my stuff is taken and processed in sRGB. I use Firefox and I understand from the big boys over here that it doesn't have to have the profile embedded (I can,t do it anyway in PSP) it defaults browser wise to sRGB anyway.
So its not converted to sRGB- it has been from the start.

Bill
Yes I have but am playingwith the fact that definition decreases with smallerapertures. Thats the only reason I do stacking.
Cheers
John

PS It really does seem to me that there is a complete lack of standardisation which could be causingeveryone to se things differently. For example I don't hace photo shop and from Dianes comments surely everyone should use the same browser ??
JR

[Diane Miller]

If it's sRGB from the beginning, it doesn't have to be converted. That’s a generalization (sloppy on my part) to try to save a few words when saying that it needs to be sRGB when posted. (Many people work in AdobeRGB and a few in ProPhoto color spaces in their image editors.)

But I'm afraid your big boys aren't respectful enough of having the widest audience see your images correctly, which they certainly deserve.

Yes, many people will see an untagged image reasonably correctly, within the varying limits of their monitors. Most people have monitors that only have the sRGB gamut. They will see an image in sRGB whether it’s tagged or not.

But increasingly wide-gamut monitors are becoming more affordable and popular. Most of those people will see the colors wrong if a profile isn't embedded. Those who will see the colors correctly will be the rare Firefox users who have set a switch that isn’t the default, to assume an untagged image is sRGB. So why not cover as many bases as you can by posting a tagged sRGB image? With most image editors, it's only a matter of checking a box when you make the JPEG to post. (I don’t know how it’s done in Paint Shop Pro but I’d think it’s possible.)*

It isn’t unusual to see comments here in BPN that an image has a color issue that I don’t see (because with my wide-gamut monitor I use FF with the switch set). When I download it I usually see it is untagged. The viewer apparently wasn’t seeing it correctly.

I certainly don't think everyone should use FF and don’t intend to say that. My point is, the many people who don't use FF with that switch set (which is almost everyone) will see an untagged image to varying degrees of incorrectly.

What I have said about FF is that for those people, especially those with wide-gamut monitors, who wish to see the largest number of images as correctly as possible, FF is currently the best choice, with that switch set. That will cover the most common case of untagged images that were sRGB. Untagged images in other color spaces can’t be displayed correctly unless the user opens them in Photoshop and guesses correctly at assigning a profile.

* I just saw you edited your post. Here’s a strategy for you, if you can’t embed a profile: If someone says they see a color issue with one of your images (and different ones will show it to different degrees) tell them you weren’t able to embed the profile, and suggest that they open the image in PS (or some other color-managed image editor) and go to Edit > Assign Profile (for PS) and Assign sRGB. Then they should then be seeing the correct colors.

Here's the latest "simplification" of the tutorial:

http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Se...-the-web-2.pdf (http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Seeing-images-properly-on-the-web-2.pdf)

[Jonathan Ashton]

John, would you like to send the raw file(s) to me, it may be me seeing things incorrectly but I have done colour acuity tests (in fact I have previously posted details in BPN) and I scored 100%. My monitor is fully calibrated and unless it has altered significantly since calibration I should be seeing correct colours.
Having said all this of course I may end up processing your image and producing the same as you:e3

[John Robinson]

Jon
Sorry - don,.t shoot in Raw and only have the file posted which has been altered further. I don't take my photography that seriously:bg3:







John

[Diane Miller]

Jon, this may be a situation of variations in color management on the internet. For my own education in helping people with these issues that arise from time to time, may I ask:

What is your monitor? Is it wide-gamut (AdobeRGB)?
What computer OS?
What browser(s)?
If more than one, does the image look the same in all?
What is your PS working space?
What happens when you download the posted image and open it in PS? Do you get a message saying there is no profile?
If your working space is not sRGB, does the image's appearance and/or the histogram change when you do Edit > Assign Profile (not Convert) and choose sRGB?

Thanks!

[John Robinson]

Hi Diane
AsI say everything I do is sRGB in camera - and Working Space in Paint Shop Pro (don't have photoshop) Monitor Flatron LG W2242S profile set to sRGB
Browsers- IE 8/Firefox/Opera/GoogleChrome. Pic looks same to me any any of them.
Windows XP pro
I doubt very much if there are many people using exactly the same set of parameters so I don't see how there can be a definate standard for all posters and viewers
I always get confused when people say the colour is to this that and the other when theyare not sat in front of it ! I,m not referring to colourcasts by the way

Cheers
John
PS Diane- Just found that I can't alter the profile from sRGB anyway.-its the only one PSP can use. So although it not truly "embedded" which as Andy Astbury said is the wrong terminology really,-it will go out as sRGB even though yout analysis software doesn't show it.

[Diane Miller]

They all look the same to you because your monitor can only display the sRGB gamut, so it effectively converts everything to that. But not all your viewers will be in that same boat.

The whole idea of embedding the color space profile of an image is so that different people with different browsers and monitors can see images reasonably the same. That's the standard -- the definition of the color space of an image, and the use of that color space by browsers. Most of them do that these days but it has been a long time coming and it not always equally well implemented by all browsers.

When the profile isn't embedded the only way someone can see the colors accurately is to open the image in PS (or some other color-managed image editor) and go to Edit > Assign Profile (for PS) and assign sRGB. Then they should then be seeing the correct colors, within the limits of their monitors and browsers.

[John Robinson]

Diane
You say my monitor can only display the sRGB gamut. Forgive me for appearing thick but is that not what we want ?? I can only work in what my stuff can handle so theres no way I can go out and buy new software or gear because some one has a different monitor- if you see what I mean. Strangely in all the many years of postingthere have only been the odd few and most of those were colour casts not subtle colour representations. The flower picture in question looked exactly that colour as posted as it did in the greenhouse.
Cheers
John

[Diane Miller]

There's nothing wrong with having an sRGB monitor -- it's all we had for years. But for several years now some of the newer ones are able to display the wider Adobe RGB gamut, and for the people who have those, an untagged image will appear with incorrect colors except for the few people using FF with the switch set. Also, some browsers will display an untagged image incorrectly even on an sRGB monitor.

I'm not saying you are the one who is seeing colors incorrectly. Your image looks stunning to me, and I think I'm seeing the same colors you are, because FF is representing the untaged image correctly by assuming it is sRGB, on my wide-gamut monitor -- the same as what you see on your sRGB monitor. If I look at it with Safari, I see more saturated colors -- possibly the way Jon and undoubtedly others are seeing it. That's because Safari (and every other browser out there except FF with that switch set, doesn't know how to represent it, so displays it with the full gamut of my monitor, which is wider than sRGB. So it is oversaturating it. For some other people, even with sRGB monitors, their monitor profile will be off, and they can also be seeing incorrect colors.

I'm not suggesting you're doing anything wrong -- just pointing out a pitfall for viewers who may not notice that an image is not tagged.

So yes, seeing the image in sRGB is what we want -- but some people won't be doing that, with an untagged image. So the best you can do is deal with any comments that your color seems off by the suggestion I made above. For people who have the option, I'm suggesting that they shoould embed the profile.

I'm just trying to increase understanding in the interests of everyone seeing images as best as possible. I've seen this situation arise here quite a few times in the last couple of years, where people said the colors of an image were off (sometimes way off) when they were looking at an untagged image (unbeknownst to them) and had no idea they were not seeing things correctly.

[John Robinson]

Diane
I have just found some stuff which is almost exactly what you are saying. It appears that Fire fox is the only browser with the ability to switch automatically.
heres a bit of it

"Although extended gamut displays work wonderfully for their specific purpose with programs that support them, they are generally not great for general purpose use. Keep in mind that photos on the internet are virtually all sRGB, and more importantly, our browsers display them as sRGB. When a program’s sRGB output is displayed on a wider gamut monitor, though, the colors can go wild! They frequently shift and become over-saturated, others may look washed out. To deal with this, most wide gamut monitors have separate profiles for different uses, and you need to switch between them depending on what you’re doing, or, if properly set up, a color managed operating system can sometimes switch for you. (Color management is too complex and beyond the scope of an article like this, but a quick Google search will help)
And if you only publish to the web or publish through online printers who only accept sRGB jpgs (as many wedding and portrait photographers do), then there is little advantage to using a wide gamut monitor anyway, since your output is ultimately going to be sRGB."

And another bit

"What Firefox does best is — besides reading embedded profiles and converting them to my monitor profile (like OS-X Safari and Photoshop do) — Firefox goes two very intelligent steps further: 1) Firefox "Assigns" (http://www.gballard.net/psd/assignconvert.html) (Assumes) sRGB to untagged elements (including HTML CSS Hex colors), and 2) Firefox then Converts them (along with my tagged images) to my monitor profile for a theoretical "True Color" display.
I do not believe any other top Web browser does that — Defaults to sRGB AND Converts to Monitor RGB — but it certainly makes the best logic given Windows® and Mac OS-X® (10.7 10.8) operating systems and the Internet are all based on the sRGB color standard, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB) and probably more than 99% of the Internet does not use embedded ICC profiles, and most Web surfers are using sRGB-compliant display monitors.
What this Firefox standard means for color-critical webmasters (like me) is, I do not even have to embed profiles on the Internet BECAUSE Firefox will Assign the sRGB profile correctly to my un-tagged and un-managed color by Default, and Convert it to my monitor profile for both accuracy and consistency (http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#accurate) even on so-called wide-gamut Adobe RGB monitors (http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html).
In essence, Firefox's "Full Color Management" standard gives us a free real-world, high-performance professional color-managed viewing environment on our desktops that is every bit as equal to Adobe® Photoshop's monitor proofing capabilities in this example, IMHO. Just drag your image icon into an open Firefox window to use Firefox as a color-managed picture viewer — untagged sRGB and tagged RGB images should all display correctly."

Thanks Diane
As I say there is no way I can tag my stuff if I wanted to so everbody will have to use FF!!!!!
Cheers
John

[Diane Miller]

Unless things changed when I wasn't looking, FF only does that magic IF the user sets a rather intimidating-looking switch that is not the default. That's explained in this tutorial:

http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Se...on-the-web.pdf (http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Seeing-colors-correctly-on-the-web.pdf)

Yes, there are pitfalls for extended gamut monitors for simple web browsing, unless the user relies on FF with that switch set. (And some regular monitors and systems can also have problems with the monitor profile.)

Some of the things quoted in the second bit don't completely make sense. Maybe there is some fine print missing. You don't necessarily have to switch a wide-gamut monitor to sRGB to view the web. You can do that, or you can use FF with the switch set. In that case, contrary to what I read above, FF doesn't display things in the monitor profile, it displays them in sRGB, as they are assumed to be -- effectively converting them.

BUT, when he says 99% of the internet doesn't use ICC profiles, he's talking about web sites, not about displaying photographs properly. Do you really care about the exact color of some stupid animation that is jumping up and down at you while you're trying to research something? (I don't. But I do care how people see the colors I post. And I understand that it's something you can't control with PSP.)

For photographers who want the best image editing (the very wide gamut of raw capture, processing in a raw converter that can use the full gamut the camera captured, then going to PS, or other color-managed workflows in Adobe RGB or the wider gamut of ProPhoto RGB), wide-gamut monitors are wonderful.

But web authors live in the much simpler color situation of sRGB, and that's where he's coming from. So I guess it comes down to different definitions of general purpose use. For me, the web and sRGB is a derivative thing.

[Bill Jobes]

Diane and John,

I've been following this thread with great interest.


My usual browser is Safari. The computer is a desktop Mac Pro with the latest OSX iteration. My monitor is a Dell U3011, typically set to 32-bit AdobeRGB. The video card is a GeForce 8800GT. The system is regularly color calibrated with a Spyder screen-mounted element.

Here's what I'm experiencing with John's image:

I did a side-by-side screen comparison using Safari and then Firefox.

The difference is dramatic. The best way to describe the Safari rendition is that it is as I would think the human eye would see it in real time.

Firefox, on the other hand, presents the image significantly more saturated, and possibly with a slight color shift, as the greens are slightly different, and the BG blues lean toward teal.

Firefox shows a beautiful image, and I would accept it without question, if not for the direct comparison with Safari.

Comparatively, the Safari image now looks under-saturated.

So I went into the monitor menu and switched the colorspace from Adobe RGB to sRGB.

I can hardly detect a difference with the eyeball meter. Firefox looks much more saturated and 'pretty,' while Safari looks normal-to-slightly washed out by comparison.

Bottom line, I expected Firefox to perform as Safari did, and vice-versa.

I should add that there's nothing 'wrong' with either presentation -- they're just different.

And I do favor the 'prettier' Firefox version.

- Bill

[Diane Miller]

Interesting, Bill, and not what I'd expect. In fact, just the opposite. But -- is the "switch" set in FF, as described here: http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Se...on-the-web.pdf (http://www.dianedmiller.com/00BPN/Seeing-colors-correctly-on-the-web.pdf)

If not, FF is just another flaky browser when it comes to untagged images!

I see the image in Safari as more saturated, because it is displaying it in the gamut of my Adobe RGB monitor, whereas FF for me (with the switch set) is displaying it in sRGB, which is correct as it was created.

[John Robinson]

Well its been most enlightening !
I think I will be thinking a bit longer about posting much more. I am limited in what I can do and process and there is no way I can cater for all those out there with different browsers. As I have said before -I am a naturalist not a pp man and I wonder if its all really worth it . It does explain how some can say a plant for example is the wrong colour when they have never seen it in the flesh.- so there's no answer. What would happen for example if I puposely wanted tp convey a warm or even blue image, as the way I planned it ???
Thnaks for your time Diane.
John

[Diane Miller]

NO NO NO!!! DON'T QUIT POSTING! You have some of the best work here! You can't control the viewer's experience, but even for those of us who theoretically can, there is a LOT of variability. Just a bottom line -- if someone complains about the colors, tell them they are seeing them wrong!! :S3:

[Bill Jobes]

This just in !

Well, Diane, the one thing I lazily failed to do was check the Firefox color management parameters as you suggest. Silly me, I thought it would be set accurately, as the web lives in sRGB land.

When I checked the settings, both of mine were the opposite of your suggestions. Color enable was False instead of True; and the mode value was 2 instead of 1.

No wonder the browsers' colors were different !

I then switched both to your recommended True and 1.

Now, John's image in Safari, and John's image in Firefox are, to my eye, very nearly identical, with a very slight vibrance tilt to Safari. But I have to look really close to see it.

The headline here is that the images now appear to be consistent across the browsers.

Your tutorial is a valuable resource, Diane. One hopes that all BPN participants find a way to adhere to it. Granted it takes a bit of effort, but well worth the lift if we're all to see the same colors.

Metaphorically, many of us are speeding down the information superhighway in cars of different colors, looking at other cars of different colors.

By the way, John, stick around !

- Bill

[Diane Miller]

Thanks, Bill! I was getting worried. I can make a nuisance of myself preaching about this stuff, but as you demonstrated, it does matter. Over the couple of years I've been acive here, I've seen quite a few cases of someone complaining about the colors in an image when it looks fine to me, and when I open it in PS I almost always see it doesn't have a profile.

And I can't tell you how many people have gone nuts trying to figure this stuff out.

The tutorial was originally a sticky in ETL and got moved to Educational Resources along with the others there, which were accumulating. In the process, that one got lost. It's now back in ETL and will be moved asap. (I don't have access to post in ER -- wish I did!)