[andi]

WARNING - pictures are shown in ProPhoto RGB color space - use
a browser with color management to see them as intended - Safari works the best.

Today I had a chance to test what kind of colors I can get from
my K-5 - Zeiss combo. I know well what I can get from my 5D MkII + Zeiss,
couldn't wait to see if I can get something similar from my Pentax

I'm really impressed. It's too early to say, but I see more potential
in my K-5 files than the 5D MkII files. No bending in the shadows.
Much more DR in the shadows. Similar noise characteristic.


Andrew

[Catalana]

Hi andi,
I have recently become aware of this color space and tried to edit a few raw shots in it. My work flow was like this:
I open in ACR, then convert to Pro Photo 16 bit and edit. I can save from within ACR to jpg, but the colors tend to have a green cast. If I import into PS and re-convert to sRGB 8bit, they look as usual. I've searched the net for some work flow info but have come up empty handed so far.

Could you elaborate on your work flow and some of the pit falls when working in Pro Photo 16 bit. Thanks ahead...

[dosdan]

Nice shots. Colours look vivid in FireFox 3.6, but very dull in IE 8.


Dan

[Abstract]

Vivid in opera also, not sure how to use color management in this browser, lovely color though.

[Hypocorism]

Nice shots. Colours look vivid in FireFox 3.6, but very dull in IE 8.

Ditto, same in both Chrome and IE8 (all 3 flavours) under Win7.64 here.

The FF rendering makes them look like they were taken by a kid on red cordial with a $3 P&S.

So what's right, and what's the fix to get consistency if something's broke?

//
Hmm, no luck with changes here yet;
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.mod << the extension is handy.
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox
Found this too:
"Caveats: The new QCMS color management system introduced in Firefox 3.5 currently only supports ICC version 2 color profiles, not version 4. This may result in images being too dark."
[?? would that 'dark' description also mean too 'gaudy and rich'?]

This comparisons pic by a poster back from July '09 tells same that I see in FF3.6.12, and in nothing else (Dell 2408WFP);
https://files.dropbox.com/u/27213/qlory.jpg
\\

.R.

[the swede]

Safari shows very nice pics. Very saturated though, wich i guess is the intent of showing them

[PhilippeG]

IIRC, color management is enabled by default in Firefox 3.5 and later. If you have an older version it can be done too, but you'd better download the latest release

As a test, here's an original picture, then one converted to an sRGB profile then saved (a bit of detail is lost by saving to jpeg again).
On a sRGB display they should look the same is you have a color managed browser. On a wide gamut display you should see differences.

Original:


Converted so sRGB:

[JeffJS]

Color-wise, they show identical on my FF (Win7 64 pro OS).

I have to say though some of your original pics do look a bit over processed with respect to saturation.

[andi]

Chrome and IE are garbage, nobody serious about photography should use them.
Firefox required a plugin, but I guess it works now.

sRGB is a strong limitation and it won't go away until the users stop using it.
My website is in ProPhoto, I put a little warning there and have no issues.
Those who I care about see my photos the way I want them to be seen.

My pictures are shown exactly the way I saw that scene yesterday.
It was very vivid, a late sun kissing full color fall trees. Thanks to K-5 range
I'm able to show it that way. It's not "over-processed" or fake.
It's real as real can be

Andrew

[andi]

Could you elaborate on your work flow and some of the pit falls when working in Pro Photo 16 bit. Thanks ahead...

I'm not sure where the problem is... I simply work in ProPhoto and leave it that way
for my JPEGs. I do convert 16 bit to 8 bit only. Nothing fancy.

[artobest]

You should probably do all the colour space conversions yourself before posting. That way not only do you not require people to view them on specific browsers , but, more importantly, you get to control rendering intent, CMM and other critical aspects of the conversion process - especially with saturated images like these, where the rendering intent alone will make a hell of a difference to the final output.

[m8o]

I think the 2nd to last in the 1st post is exceptional; my fav of a nice bunch.

[andi]

You should probably do all the colour space conversions yourself before posting. That way not only do you not require people to view them on specific browsers , but, more importantly, you get to control rendering intent, CMM and other critical aspects of the conversion process - especially with saturated images like these, where the rendering intent alone will make a hell of a difference to the final output.

I have tried that approach and sRGB always stinks.
I shoot a lot of colorful scenes and yellow, oranges are simply never transferred
into sRGB space the way I want.

[artobest]

Yes, sRGB is a limited space, but it (still) approximates the gamut of most displays. So your ProPhoto images are being compressed regardless. If you care that much about your colours, you should want to control the conversion all the way.

If you're getting poor results from conversion, try a different rendering intent. Perceptual is good for highly staurated images - it prevents all the out-of-gamut colours being compressed into 'boundary' colours, the way Relative Colorimetric tends to do. Then look at trying a different CMM. As a last resort, use the Gamut Warning in Photoshop and selectively tweak the out-of-gamut colours, then convert using Rel Col - you may be surprised by what you see.

[sebberry]

For me, IE8 and Chrome render them the same. Firefox renders them differently.

In the comparison post, The regular and converted shots are only the same in Firefox.

I do prefer the overall look of the less saturated images IE shows. They're softer and smoother.