turk cap lily

[stuart wanuck]

nikon d 800
180 mm sigma

[MiroslavMaric]

Like the frame. It seems that R channel of histogram is saturated. If mine I would try to increase a bit of DOF too. TFS.

Cheers,
Miro

[Diane Miller]

Agree about more DOF -- this would be a great one for stacking. But the red channel isn't saturated. What is happening is that it doesn't have an embedded profile, so when you open it in PS you should be set to get a warning to that effect. If you tell the warning dialog to assign sRGB (assuming that is what it was) and then check the box to convert to the working space, you'll see the accurate histogram.

Some browser and monitor combinations will also display colors incorrectly for an image without a profile.


http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/118066-When-the-Histogram-is-Wrong

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/122391-Seeing-Colors-Correctly-on-the-Web (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/118066-When-the-Histogram-is-Wrong)

[MiroslavMaric]

Some browser and monitor combinations will also display colors incorrectly for an image without a profile.



Before upload I assume our task is to include the right profile for standard browsers. I didn't open the photo in PS. I opened it in Chrome browser with a histogram plugin and this is what I got:

153971

Cheers,
Miro

[Diane Miller]

I'm not familiar with that plugin but it has fallen into the same trap I described above, for an image with no profile. (Chrome is also displaying the colors incorrectly -- the reds are too saturated. I just opened it to check.)

The histogram you show is the same histogram I get if I open the untagged image in PS and tell it to "Leave it is it is, don't color manage." Or I get the same histogram if I tell PS to Assign my working space. In those two cases I get strongly oversaturated reds. (They would be less so on an sRGB gamut monitor -- I have a wide-gamut one.) If I tell PS to assign (assume) sRGB but don't check the box to convert to my working space, I see the colors correctly but the histogram is wrong. If I check the box to convert to my working space, both the appearance and the histogram are correct.

The only way I know to be sure you are looking at a histogram correctly is to open the image in PS and have it set to warn of a missing profile or one that doesn't match your working space, so you can make the correct choices.

I agree, people should convert to sRGB and tag the JPEGs, but sometimes people don't, whether from occasional carelessness or from just not understanding its importance or how to do it. In those cases, non-color-managed browsers cannot display the colors correctly. Firefox is the way to go, with color management set to deal with untagged images by assuming they are at least sRGB.) See the tutorials cited above. It seems a little complicated but one you have the system set up, you don't have to do anything else.

All this incorrect color stuff is worse on one of the newer and very nice wide-gamut (AdobeRGB) monitors than on an older sRGB one.

[MiroslavMaric]

Thanks Diane for your comment. Ok we agreed that sRGB should be included in any photo published for standard browsers. I'm not able to open each photo in PS to check the profile and to confirm if saturation is an issue or not. I can say what my eyes see in standard browser (like Chrome) and from time to time I can check histogram.


Firefox is the way to go, with color management set to deal with untagged images by assuming they are at least sRGB.)

Before few years I noticed that Firefox from some version started to display each photo with an increased size for standard zoom 100% and including normal font size. I have no idea what was the reason for that but from that time I have used Chrome on the regular basis. I will check if there is some option for Chrome to update each untagged photo with sRGB.

Cheers,
Miro

[Diane Miller]

I don't open each image in PS, either. I simply use a browser (FF, with an extra setting made as explained in one of the tutorials I posted) that assumes an untagged image was sRGB -- that's all any browser can do and it's usually the case. So I'm seeing images "correctly" 99% pf the time, even when they weren't tagged.

Depending on your operating system there should be a plus/minus thing somewhere on the FF screen to control the "zoom" size. I'm on a Mac with the Mountain Lion OS and that symbol (upper right of screen) changes both the picture and font size. Sometimes I need to enlarge the size just to read and write easily, so I change it as needed. But the minor nuisance is worth the trouble to see images as correctly as possible.

I also have PS set to give me the warning when an image is untagged or doesn't match my working space, so I can deal with color management properly when I do open an image.