Got Grass?

[Arthur Morris]

This 3rd summer Coastal Brown Bear cub was photographed at Geographic Harbor on my recent Bear Boat IPT with the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, the 1.4X III TC (yes Morkman, this one was with the TC), and the EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 800. Evaluative metering +1 stop: 1/250 sec. at f/8 (which is wide open).

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Grady Weed]

Now this says cute! i think I might get cut on the grass here. Can you say sharp. i love the eyes, the one on the right, my right looking at the frame, is like it is looking sideways, which i really like. To me it grabs my attention. snout is finely detailed, ears are fuzzy cute, good details. The only improvement is, it could mine! Please pack me along next time. I will carry your luggage or hold the spare camera. Thanks for sharing.

[Dumay de Boulle]

Very cute...Good detail and I like the pose and look on the bears face...Not sure if its just me I see a bit of green in the bears fur. Interesting to hear if its just me!. Nice to see your work in this gallery!

[Vivaldo Damilano]

Excellent Arthur, what make this for me is the very low angle and soft light. Just love that both eye's and snout are so sharp. The grass in his mouth adds interest.

[Clemens Vanderwerf]

Great shot, not easy to catch him looking straight at you (even with a Mk IV and 10fps), as he constantly turns his head while chewing on the grass. It it were mine, I would process a tiny bit warmer.

[Danny J Brown]

Hey Artie -- A feel good image in every way and f/8 made it perfect from the tip of the nose to the fuzzy ears. Your bear shots have been wonderful and they remind me of the early inspiration you provided as I was just starting out with my first DSLR. It's not like you have been in a rut by any stretch of the imagination but you've really made a connection with these furry critters. Thanks.

DB

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks all. Clemens knows this situation very well as he was standing right next to me :). We were on a bank and the bear was on the other side of the bank chewing. Thus we were on the same level. The trick here was using rear focus to focus on the eye every second or two and then re-compose and fire as the bear slowly turned its head from side to side.... (You are limited to the central sensor only with the 800 and the 1.4X TC so there is not picking a sensor that will fall directly on one of the bear's eyes.) Then you just hope that the animal stays in the same spot as you make images.

[denise ippolito]

Excellent Artie. it is absolutely adorable. Nice sharpness with a great looking BG.:S3:

[dankearl]

Great pose and exposure. A postcard.

[Rachel Hollander]

Artie - very cute and the pov really takes this to another level. Thanks for the explanation on capturing it as well.

TFS,
Rachel

[Morkel Erasmus]

yes Morkman, this one was with the TC

Thanks for clearing that up, Herr Arthur! :bg3:

I like the pose and soft light here. A few suggestions with a repost, if I may be so upfront...:e3

1. First off I ran a multiplied highlights layer as it was a tad too bright for me (Robert's action - select highlights and blend back multiplied by 30% opacity).

2. There seems to be some green showing on the cub's face, could be from the reflected light from the foliage around him being picked up by the camera. I selected the bear's face and did a very slight "color balance" adjustment for shadows, highlights and midtones (Magenta/Green: -1; Yellow/Blue: -1).

3. I then tried to add some 'pop' so I created a duplicate layer of the cub's face, ran a slight LCE (Unsharp Mask, 20%, 10px) on it and then created a mask, painting back the detail from the eyes and nose on the original as the LCE made it too dark and contrasty (thus the effect of the LCE is only visible on the fur).

4. I then dodged the eyes a bit to bring them out, as I understand from everyone shooting bears that the eyes are difficult to get exposed right (I may have gone overboard with this??)

5. Lastly I cropped a smidgeon from the LHS to get the bear's right eye perfectly on the vertical ROT line.

Would love to know what you think, Maestro? :tinysmile_shy_t:

[Dumay de Boulle]

Morkel, glad to see I wasn't the only one seeing the green....Like your repost on all accounts and congrats to Arthur on doing the hard work to get such a lovely image!

[Ofer Levy]

Sweet image! I think the original post looks a bit flat because it is not presented in the right colour space. Attached the OP with nothing but converting to sRGB. I feel that the squarish crop in pane#11 doesn't improve the composition.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Artie, I see you've edited my post - can't see what was changed/deleted.....:2eyes2:

[Arthur Morris]

Sweet image! I think the original post looks a bit flat because it is not presented in the right colour space. Attached the OP with nothing but converting to sRGB. I feel that the squarish crop in pane#11 doesn't improve the composition.

Thanks. But I am very confused. I converted my TIFF from Pro Photo to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as the first step in my workflow for creating BPN JPEGs (as I thought that you suggested in another post...). I did that via Edit/Convert to Profile.

What color space did you see for the image in Pane 1?

[Ofer Levy]

When I open the OP in Photoshop CS5 I see my working colour space Adobe RGB 1998. I think the colour space is not embedded in your file for some reason.

[Arthur Morris]

Strange. When I open the file that I uploaded, it shows sRGB. If anyone has any clues I would appreciate hearing them :).

[Arthur Morris]

Ofer, This is even stranger. I saved the file in Pane 1 to my laptop with a new name. When I go Edit/Profile the source space shows as sRGB. That would seem to indicate that the problem is somewhere on your end. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Artie, I don't think the problem is on my end. Can you see a difference between your OP and my repost? If not - I am sure others can see and if so the problem is definitely at your end....
BTW - Clemens image has the same colour space issue...

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, I see you've edited my post - can't see what was changed/deleted.....:2eyes2:

I changed pan to pane :) No charge for that service. Thank me very much :)

[Ofer Levy]

When I open Morkel's repost in Photoshop it shows sRGB...No charge for that service either - thank me very much...:t3

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Lovely image. I like the low angle and the action. The depth of field is nice too.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, I don't think the problem is on my end. Can you see a difference between your OP and my repost? If not - I am sure others can see and if so the problem is definitely at your end....

I can see the difference. And while I always appreciate the fact that folks put time and effort into a repost, I much prefer the image in Pane 1 to either your or Morkel's reposts. Each looks too dense, to dark, and too saturated.

As for the problem being on my end I am unsure has how to you can reach that conclusion after I told you that I downloaded the image in Pane 1 and that is shows sRGB as the color space. It will be interesting to learn the color space of Clemen's image....

[Arthur Morris]

When I open Morkel's repost in Photoshop it shows sRGB...No charge for that service either - thank me very much...:t3

As I said, I do not like the look of either image so no thanks on that :) If you prefer that I leave your spelling errors intact do let me know.

[Ofer Levy]

I can see the difference. And while I always appreciate the fact that folks put time and effort into a repost, I much prefer the image in Pane 1 to either your or Morkel's reposts. Each looks too dense, to dark, and too saturated.

As for the problem being on my end I am unsure has how to you can reach that conclusion after I told you that I downloaded the image in Pane 1 and that is shows sRGB as the color space. It will be interesting to learn the color space of Clemen's image....

I am also getting a bit confused now.....I haven't done ANYTHING to your OP but changing the colour space to sRGB.......
I suspect it has something to do with the way you set your Photoshop - Edit - Colour settings. I am sure others will be able to help.

[Morkel Erasmus]

FWIF - when I open your OP in my CS5 the colour space is showing as sRGB :Whoa!::bugeyed:


I can see the difference. And while I always appreciate the fact that folks put time and effort into a repost, I much prefer the image in Pane 1 to either your or Morkel's reposts. Each looks too dense, to dark, and too saturated.

All good Artie...some things are up to taste, and you were there so I cannot recollect the scene :S3:.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Morkman, Just to confirm, when you open the image in Pane 1 it shows as sRGB. Correct?

And yes, I do appreciate everyone who makes an effort to help with a repost. Sometimes I like them and sometimes not, but I always learn something and try not to be rude or defensive. Sometimes simply stating your feelings without any animosity and without making judgments can be most beneficial :)

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks Morkman, Just to confirm, when you open the image in Pane 1 it shows as sRGB. Correct?

Affirmative :c3:

[Arthur Morris]

Affirmative :c3:

Thanks. Perhaps Ofer will realize that there is a problem on his end :)

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Artie, parking all the previous replies re colour space to one side, what I really like is that 'sheen' that you have achieved in the nose, but especially in the eyes, for me it just gives the image another dimension. I am a great believer of trying to get eye contact with the reader/viewer in my images where possible. How you have attained this perhaps is down to the kit used, but I assume that it is more in the processing, therefore I just wonder if you care to share what you did, as to me, this just elevates the image and gives an almost layered/depth feel to the image, with a lovely richness of colour too.

Cubs are cute whatever animal they are, but there is no denying, Bear cubs just grab you, perhaps its a childhood memory?

TFS
Steve

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Steve, Remember, that cute cub is big enough to kill and eat a human. Third summer males can be especially problematic. We had one who would run right at us seemingly out of curiosity. We had to stand up to him and raise our voices several times.

As for the image, it is never the lens and never the camera just what you like cannot be from the kit. As for the processing, just my usual workflow but for the exception that for more of my bears I have gone back to converting in BreezeBrowser with the Canon SDK as ACR makes them too warm and yellow. Thanks again for your kind words but I have nothing specific to offer. Just my usual workflow as per Digital Basics (https://store.birdsasart.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=252) :).

[Steve Kaluski]

Cheers Artie, will look into Canon SDK and what it can do. I actually moved from DPP to ACR as I found I got more out of the overall image, and applying minor throughout, plus any colour tweaks in the HSL tool prior to export to PS if required.


Thanks Steve, Remember, that cute cub is big enough to kill and eat a human.

YEP, you never quite know what they are thinking, so space and respect is first most.

Lastly you mention your love of Tigers on my thread, although I have not seen this, these guys were filming whilst I was there finalising the documentary and getting some last filler frames in the can. Might be worth a punt.:S3:

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Broken-Tail-Tigers-Journey/dp/B004NIX066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313523849&sr=8-1

[Arthur Morris]

Steve, I switched nearly 100% to ACR several years ago but for bear perfer BrBr. I will try to check your tiger link. Thanks.

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Artie, love the intimate look and the expression this guy has with grass stuffed in his mouth.
Re. the color space issue, I wish could verify myself, but don't have access to PS right now.
This thread could be useful though:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/86502-Keeping-a-watchful-eye-on-me-common-loon-and-chick?highlight=srgb
Thanks for sharing.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks. Perhaps Ofer will realize that there is a problem on his end :)
I would love if someone would be able to explain to me how is it possible that only converting to sRGB on my computer changes colours so dramatically....this doesn't make sense to me at all...
Just started a thread on "Digital Workflow" forum - maybe someone with some better understanding in Photoshop can solve this mystery.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks. Perhaps Ofer will realize that there is a problem on his end :)

Hi Artie,
Have a look at this thread - maybe you can learn from there...:w3
http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/86502-Keeping-a-watchful-eye-on-me-common-loon-and-chick?highlight=srgb

[Doug Brown]

Artie, your original image post has a color space of untagged RGB, not sRGB. Here's a screen grab from CS5. Maybe you skipped a step during conversion. :S3: Randy Stout's Loon thread referenced above has a detailed explanation of how easy it is to misinterpret the color space of your image if you don't look in the right place. The most reliable place to find your color space is in the info tab.

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks. Perhaps Ofer will realize that there is a problem on his end :)
Hi Artie, will you re-consider this statement....? :w3 (I won't charge you for this anyhow...:bg3:)

[Arthur Morris]

What profile are you seeing here?

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, your original image post has a color space of untagged RGB, not sRGB. Here's a screen grab from CS5. Maybe you skipped a step during conversion. :S3: Randy Stout's Loon thread referenced above has a detailed explanation of how easy it is to misinterpret the color space of your image if you don't look in the right place. The most reliable place to find your color space is in the info tab.

Thanks Doug, I am pretty sure that your screen caps at Randy's Loon got though to me. Please see my question in Pane #39. Tanks a lot!

[Ofer Levy]

Now I see sRGB as it should be...
Interestingly, it looks identical to the OP....

[Arthur Morris]

Thank you Ofer. You were right all along. I agree that it looks identical to the OP. Now we have a brand new mystery. As I said, I've liked the OP best all along.

[Ofer Levy]

I think this kind of a discussion is what makes BPN such a great place. We constantly learn and improve which is fantastic!

[Doug Brown]

What profile are you seeing here?

This one is in sRGB.

[Roger Clark]

Sweet image! I think the original post looks a bit flat because it is not presented in the right colour space. Attached the OP with nothing but converting to sRGB.

Ofer,
In photoshop, check edit -> color settings and check the boxes:
Profile mismatches: Ask when opening
Missing profiles: Ask when opening

The above will alert you to different situations and allows one to choose an appropriate action.

If an image is on the web, one can usually assume the profile is sRGB if there is no profile.

Roger

[Morkel Erasmus]

I think this kind of a discussion is what makes BPN such a great place. We constantly learn and improve which is fantastic!

Indeed and I agree...
I have learnt as well as I always look at the "Convert to profile" box which typically shows you in which space the image is currently and where you want to convert it to :Whoa!::e3

[Marc Mol]

Great discussion, however when I saved Artie's #39 viewed in CS5 it gave me this? NO profile (under Doc) showing?
I have everything saved as sRGB profile with embedded profile saved.
Any ideas?

[Arthur Morris]

Great discussion, however when I saved Artie's #39 viewed in CS5 it gave me this? NO profile (under Doc) showing? I have everything saved as sRGB profile with embedded profile saved. Any ideas?

We've learned something but we also realize that Photoshop can put folks in the Twilight Zone on a regular basis. Under Doc I see this for the image in Pane 39.

[Arthur Morris]

The bottom line for me is that my JPEGs have looked great to me and to most others for years :). After that there is lots of confusion....

[Doug Brown]

Hi Marc. You need to make one change in order to see the profile. There's a dropdown menu on the right side of the info panel. Open it up and make sure that 'Document Profile' is checked.

98861

[Doug Brown]

Indeed and I agree...
I have learnt as well as I always look at the "Convert to profile" box which typically shows you in which space the image is currently and where you want to convert it to :Whoa!::e3

Actually Morkel, the way you describe doesn't work. See the Randy Stout Loon thread (linked in one of the above posts) for the reason why Convert to Profile doesn't work. :S3:

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Doug, You are really on top of this stuff.

But, I do have one question for you: any ideas as to why the image in Pane 1, the one that showed RGB as the color space, and the image in Pane 39, that (properly?) showed sRGB as the (embedded) color space, look and are identical???

ps: you are up early :)

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Doug, alternatively if you are in Bridge and you click on the image, the info comes up clearly showing key info as per this showing that the original image is UNTAGGED. If the file is say sRGB this will also be clearly stated in the Colour profile line. I assume this is an alternative route to Get info, WDYT?

Cheers
Steve

[Doug Brown]

Thanks Doug, You are really on top of this stuff.

But, I do have one question for you: any ideas as to why the image in Pane 1, the one that showed RGB as the color space, and the image in Pane 39, that (properly?) showed sRGB as the (embedded) color space, look and are identical???

ps: you are up early :)

Hey Artie. Up early because someone's got to make the donuts! As to your question, the images do not look identical in the two panes if you are viewing them on a color-managed browser. As an experiment, I viewed the images in Firefox (color managed) and took screen shots of each version. Then I did the same thing in Chrome (not color managed). I then opened all 4 screen shots in Photoshop and used the color sampler tool in the exact same spot on all 4 photos, using a 5x5 average for my sample size. Here are the results (R G B).

Original image on a color managed browser: 168 191 162
sRGB embedded image on a color managed browser: 156 196 199
Original image on a non-color-managed browser: 156 196 199
sRGB embedded image on a non-color-managed browser: 156 196 199

You can see that the RGB values are identical for the images with an embedded color profile on both browsers, and also for the original image on a non-color managed browser. But the original image, when viewed in a color-managed browser has significantly different RGB values. The differences are obvious to the naked eye when I look at the images in Firefox.

Here's a screen shot from Photoshop to illustrate what I did (I used the RGB values labeled #1):

98870

[Marc Mol]

Ah hah! Many thanks Doug.:bg3:
Forgot to mention earlier Artie, a fine image with a lovely mischievous look.
TFS

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Artie. Up early because someone's got to make the donuts! As to your question, the images do not look identical in the two panes if you are viewing them on a color-managed browser. As an experiment, I viewed the images in Firefox (color managed) and took screen shots of each version. Then I did the same thing in Chrome (not color managed). I then opened all 4 screen shots in Photoshop and used the color sampler tool in the exact same spot on all 4 photos, using a 5x5 average for my sample size. Here are the results (R G B).

Original image on a color managed browser: 168 191 162
sRGB embedded image on a color managed browser: 156 196 199
Original image on a non-color-managed browser: 156 196 199
sRGB embedded image on a non-color-managed browser: 156 196 199

You can see that the RGB values are identical for the images with an embedded color profile on both browsers, and also for the original image on a non-color managed browser. But the original image, when viewed in a color-managed browser has significantly different RGB values. The differences are obvious to the naked eye when I look at the images in Firefox.

Here's a screen shot from Photoshop to illustrate what I did (I used the RGB values labeled #1):

98870

Thanks Doug, Life was much simpler when I did not know about color managed and non color managed browsers. Your info sure explains why different folks are seeing stuff differently....

Do note however that when I viewed this post in Firefox that all of my images looked identical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What gives? (I usually use Chrome for convenience....)

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Hey Doug,

A few questions as I'm trying to get a grasp on color profiles:
What do you have gfx.color_management.mode set to in firefox?
Also, do you have a profile assigned to gfx.color_management.display_profile?
What version of firefox do you use and are you on a wide gamut monitor?

My hunch is that you are on a wide gamut monitor and your gfx.color_management.mode is set to 2 in firefox. If so, could you retry with a value of 1 (I believe you have to restart FF after changing this configuration)?

Thanks for all the tips thus far. It's been very instructive!

PS: enter about:config in the address bar in firefox to see and change the options mentioned above

[Phillip Bunch]

Hey Doug,



A few questions as I'm trying to get a grasp on color profiles:

What do you have gfx.color_management.mode set to in firefox?

Also, do you have a profile assigned to gfx.color_management.display_profile?

What version of firefox do you use and are you on a wide gamut monitor?



My hunch is that you are on a wide gamut monitor and your gfx.color_management.mode is set to 2 in firefox. If so, could you retry with a value of 1 (I believe you have to restart FF after changing this configuration)?



Thanks for all the tips thus far. It's been very instructive!



PS: enter about:config in the address bar in firefox to see and change the options mentioned above




Hey Doug,







A few questions as I'm trying to get a grasp on color profiles:



What do you have gfx.color_management.mode set to in firefox?



Also, do you have a profile assigned to gfx.color_management.display_profile?



What version of firefox do you use and are you on a wide gamut monitor?







My hunch is that you are on a wide gamut monitor and your gfx.color_management.mode is set to 2 in firefox. If so, could you retry with a value of 1 (I believe you have to restart FF after changing this configuration)?







Thanks for all the tips thus far. It's been very instructive!







PS: enter about:config in the address bar in firefox to see and change the options mentioned above



Very interesting and informative (and yet somewhat stressful) thread! With the usual misgivings, I decided to attempt to contribute to the discussion, as follows:

First, I suggest that another Firefox parameter, also used in Photoshop CS5, that may be relevant is: gfx.color_management.rendering_intent

By default, my Firefox version 6.0.2 is set to "perceptual" rendering intent.

However, I'm not sure this is what I want for Firefox since I have attempted to follow Martin Evening's advice in his excellent book "Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers", pages 647ff, 661ff, and especially page 670. This detailed yet readable (IMO) book recommends that one should usually avoid using "perceptual" rendering intent; instead one should use "relative colorimetric" as one's rendering intent, if I'm following all this correctly (hardly guaranteed). The reasoning behind this recommendation is as follows, excerpting from page 670:

"Which rendering intent is best? If you are converting photographic images from one color space to another, then you should mostly use the Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual rendering intents. Relative Colorimetric has always been the default Photoshop rendering intent and is still the best choice for most image conversions. However, if you are converting an image where it is important to preserve the shadow colors, then Perceptual will often work out better."

Also consider this from page 670:

"Perceptual rendering provides a best guess method for converting out-of-gamut colors where it is important to preserve tonal separation (such as in the shadow detail areas), but it is less suitable for images that happen to have fewer out-of-gamut colors."

And from page 671:

"Relative Colorimetric is the default rendering intent utilized in the Photoshop color color settings. Relative Colorimetric rendering maps the colors that are out of gamut in the source color space (relative to the target space) to the nearest 'in-gamut' equivalent in the target space."

Thus, an issue: if people are using the default Photoshop option of "relative colorimetric" rendering intent, shouldn't we set our Firefox browsers to also use this rendering intent instead of the Firefox default "Perceptual" rendering intent?

Another issue: does rendering intent matter in the context of viewing web images, and if so, for which images, and by how much and in what ways? I've personally had the most trouble re out-of-gamut colors when photographing light-purple or lilac flowers. I think we need some good, stress-case but realistic test images, preferably from real photos. Synthetic test patterns are also available, and probably have a role, too, if we can find some suitable examples.

FYI, here are some links to some Firefox color management parameters:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.enabled - one MUST have color management enabled, I assume, to view photos usefully.

and

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.rendering_intent

Here's a link to a convenient, user-friendly, easy-to-install add-on for Firefox to view and/or to reset one'e Firefox browser color management parameters:

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

I personally use this add-on and believe it is much easier to use than messing with Firefox's "about:config" parameters, especially for non-technical people.

I hope this post is useful or at least not a distraction! I also hope I've caught all my grammar and syntax errors, etc!

--------------------------------------

The world's shortest book review: I find the above book by Martin Evening provides a great balance of completeness, readability, and practicality, while avoiding overwhelming the non-expert user. Trying to piece a topic like color management together from web and other resources is very difficult IMO, but with Evening's book one can generally at least try to wade through forum issues, etc. He has very specific, explicit, detailed recommendations for CS5's Color Settings parameters, etc. I also find it's a great general-purpose reference book for Photoshop CS5.

[Phillip Bunch]

Hey Doug,

A few questions as I'm trying to get a grasp on color profiles:
What do you have gfx.color_management.mode set to in firefox?
Also, do you have a profile assigned to gfx.color_management.display_profile?
What version of firefox do you use and are you on a wide gamut monitor?

My hunch is that you are on a wide gamut monitor and your gfx.color_management.mode is set to 2 in firefox. If so, could you retry with a value of 1 (I believe you have to restart FF after changing this configuration)?

Thanks for all the tips thus far. It's been very instructive!

PS: enter about:config in the address bar in firefox to see and change the options mentioned above

Very interesting and informative (and yet somewhat stressful) thread! With the usual misgivings, I decided to attempt to contribute to the discussion, as follows:

First, I suggest that another Firefox parameter, also used in Photoshop CS5, that may be relevant is: gfx.color_management.rendering_intent

By default, my Firefox version 6.0.2 is set to "perceptual" rendering intent.

However, I'm not sure this is what I want for Firefox since I have attempted to follow Martin Evening's advice in his excellent book "Adobe Photoshop CS5 for Photographers", pages 647ff, 661ff, and especially page 670. This detailed yet readable (IMO) book recommends that one should usually avoid using "perceptual" rendering intent; instead one should use "relative colorimetric" as one's rendering intent, if I'm following all this correctly (hardly guaranteed). The reasoning behind this recommendation is as follows, excerpting from page 670:

"Which rendering intent is best? If you are converting photographic images from one color space to another, then you should mostly use the Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual rendering intents. Relative Colorimetric has always been the default Photoshop rendering intent and is still the best choice for most image conversions. However, if you are converting an image where it is important to preserve the shadow colors, then Perceptual will often work out better."

However, consider this from page 670:

"Perceptual rendering provides a best guess method for converting out-of-gamut colors where it is important to preserve tonal separation (such as in the shadow detail areas), but it is less suitable for images that happen to have fewer out-of-gamut colors."

And from page 671:

"Relative Colorimetric is the default rendering intent utilized in the Photoshop color color settings. Relative Colorimetric rendering maps the colors that are out of gamut in the source color space (relative to the target space) to the nearest 'in-gamut' equivalent in the target space."

Thus, an issue: if people are using the default Photoshop option of "relative colorimentric" rendering intent, shouldn't we set our Firefox browsers to also use this rendering intent instead of Perceptual?

Another issue: does rendering intent matter in the context of viewing web images, and if so, for which images, and by how much and in what ways? I've personally had the most trouble re out-of-gamut colors when photographing light-purple or lilac flowers.

FYI, here are some links to some Firefox color management parameters:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.enabled - one MUST have color management enabled, I assume, to view photos usefully.

and

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.rendering_intent

Here's a link to a convenient, user-friendly, easy-to-install add-on for Firefox to view and/or to reset one'e Firefox browser color management parameters:

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

I personally use this add-on and believe it is much easier to use than messing with Firefox's "about:config" parameters, especially for non-technical people.

I hope this post is useful or at least not a distraction! I also hope I've caught all my grammar and syntax errors, etc!
--------------------------------------

The world's shortest book review: I find the above book by Martin Evening provides a great balance of completeness, readability, and practicality, while avoiding overwhelming the non-expert user. Trying to piece a topic like color management together from web and other resources is very difficult IMO, but with Evening's book one can generally at least try to wade through forum issues, etc. He has very specific, explicit, detailed recommendations for CS5's Color Settings parameters, etc. I also find it's a great general-purpose reference book for Photoshop CS5.

[Sidharth Kodikal]

Phillip, many thanks for the additional info. I will experiment with the parameter you mentioned and will definitely get the book you recommend - sounds very thorough.