Colour management web image problem

[markis]

OK, here's a colour management problem that's been driving me nuts. I imagine others have struggled with this as well:

To start with, I have a calibrated monitor -- I use a Spyder2, and it seems to work fine. I can make prints that look just like what I see on the screen, and that's good.

The hassles begin when I make images for the web. I want to make them look more or less like the print image, on the regular public's un-color-managed computers. Here's what I do:

1. Convert the photo (that I've just tweaked for printing) from AdobeRGB to sRGB.
2. Change my monitor profile from the calibrated Spyder one to the one that came with the machine (to make it more or less like the average computer).
3. Soft-proof the photo using the monitor setting.
4. Re-tweak the photo. It usually needs a saturation boost, a shift towards yellow and a bit towards red, and a little contrast curving.
5. Save the photo for the web, without an embedded profile.

This works fine, but it's a pain. Isn't there an easier way? If I know the details of the first profile (the custom one) and the second profile (the stock one), there should be a mathematical way of converting between the two, similar to converting between AdobeRGB and sRGB colour spaces (see step 1 above). I'd change the photograph to compensate for the differences in viewing conditions imposed by the two monitor profiles. Net result:

1. Auto-run the converter (hopefully a PS action). I feed it a photo in AdobeRGB, the source and destination monitor profiles, and it spits out a newly tweaked image, all ready for the web. It won't be perfect, but that's OK -- the user's computers aren't perfect either.

Any thoughts from the colour management experts out there? I could be quite out-to-lunch here. I'm hoping that there's an established method, so I could just use that. I've searched long and hard, but I haven't found anything. I could tweak some actions visually to do more or less the same thing, but it strikes me that there's a better way ...

Thanks for reading!

[Marko]

First off welcome to the forum markis; thanks for joining!

For me, this is a peculiar one.



The hassles begin when I make images for the web. I want to make them look more or less like the print image, on the regular public's un-color-managed computers. Here's what I do:......This suggests that there is an average setting for the average computer; to my mind this is an error. Your monitor is calibrated for photography but how can you know how any other monitor is calibrated for (or set for)...you can't know this.

This also suggests that your huge print file can be duplicated in tone and colour in a web file; to my mind this is also an error. This is why your print file will be many megs and your webfile might be (100-500k)

I would guess that if i had a 10 middle of the road monitors from different companies, and they were different ages, that MOST of those monitors would show the same image differently. I would NEVER expect to see identical or near identical images.

Due to this...my gut tells me you are wasting your time. :twocents:

I would calibrate for my monitor only and expect it will look decent (but never identical) on other people's average monitors.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Hope that helps and welcome again!

Marko

[markis]

For sure -- I know there's a difference between user's computers. There's no real good average.

BUT, there's definitely a bias -- I notice that my monitor calibration is always quite a lot more yellow than everyone else's computers (my wife's, computers at work, school, etc). IE: If I get an image the way I want it on my computer, then post a little JPEG to the web, it always looks too blue on other machines. And the colours are duller, and the gamma is way off ... it looks terrible.

Actually, on newer machines, I'm seeing a lot more consistency from computer to computer. I'm an engineering student, and I work with a whole heck of a lot of machines!

I guess my question is, do other photographers (who use calibrated displays) tweak their print work before displaying on the web, or just convert to JPEG? How do you do it efficiently? Do you use actions, do it manually, or ... ?

Also, how different is your calibrated display from a stock monitor profile? Mine (on two computers) is always a fair bit darker and more neutral -- less blue. It SEEMS right (grey looks grey), but I suppose my little calibrator puck could be out of whack.

Here's the situation: I just switched from scanning slides to digital capture. Before, I could re-tweak the photo for the web with the slide sitting in front of me. Now, I'm a little lost -- how do I make the web image look as close to the print image as I can?

[markis]

BTW, Marko -- thanks for the welcome. I appreciate the thought you put into this and other answers. I'll certainly do my best to reciprocate around here.

And, yes, it is an obscure topic for sure. But I thought -- hey, if it happened to me, it must happen to others. It'd be sweet to find a magic bullet somewhere.

I actually ran across a Matlab script that does exactly what I want. Works like a hot damn, and gives excellent results. Unfortunately, it's in compiled form, so I can't run in PS, and I don't really want to export to Matlab ... defeats the whole "easy" thing!

[Marko]

Hey no prob Markis!
We'll have to wait for others to chime in because this is not my experience; I usually post process for printing then convert to Jpeg for the web and I'm satisfied with my results.

Then again I'm not at all the average user with average equipment. I've spent a whack a cash upfront to get me very very close (Eizo CG222W calibrated with the i1 extreme).

Key question right away...what monitor do you have?

"Also, how different is your calibrated display from a stock monitor profile?"

That's a key question as well and the answer is VERY different. Your calibrated monitor should be much duller.

Don't know if you already know this material but we did a podcast on this a while back.....
62 – Monitor – printer calibration – Interview with Joe Brady (http://www.photography.ca/blog/?p=223)
63 – Review of the Colormunki and the i1XTreme (http://www.photography.ca/blog/?p=263)

Hope it helps,

marko

[markis]

Cool -- I'm looking forward to hearing some other experiences.

Oh, and average monitors on a few computers -- an older Dell, a Thinkpad (I know, a laptop, but it DOES match a variety of prints when it's calibrated), etc. They all give more or less the same results when I calibrate them with my Spyder2 -- correct according to the lightjet prints I've done. (I'm fussy with prints :))

The laptop is finicky (viewing angle, etc) but actually holds a calibration fairly well. It has a "character", but it's easy to mentally fix that for prints. Basically, the shadows on the prints will block up a little more, that's it.

OK, so your calibrated monitor looks quite different too -- that's what I expected. I wasn't sure if there was some other new-fangled way of calibrating that had passed me by. Mine's much duller and a little bit yellower. Grey is grey, whereas on an uncalibrated monitor, grey is kind of blue-ish.

Here's the thing -- if you publish a JPEG to the web, say, and you grab any computer off the shelf from future-shop, your JPEG will look quite different on that computer, right? If I don't correct them for the web, my JPEGs always looks a little too blue, and a little too bright on any other computer.

Think I might just do two -- one calibrated, and one uncalibrated. If I do 'em close enough together (time-wise), they should have pretty much the same look.

Still interested in other people's thoughts -- do you tweak for the web?

[AcadieLibre]

I have heard nothing but raves about Colormunki. No matter how much you play with your settings you will never make another users monitor happy. Calibrating your monitor when you work on photos is a must and if you do your own printing it is essential. I do what looks the best on my monitor then I just skip posting it to the web for the very reason I don't want my photos B_a_stardized by all these horribly set up monitors. Even screen resolution affects how images are viewed and I run no resolution under 1680x1050. I just read someone claiming that CRT monitors were actually better for photographers, if I can find the article I will post it. I disagree and to actually explain why I would have to write an article, not happening lol. If I find I will explain some of the errors in the thinking.

Anyway back to the topic, do not worry about how others see your photos on the web, nothing you can do about it. I have 8 computers (soon just 7, I am gutting two laptops to make a better one from both just I can play with Linux) in my house and I run a dual monitor so I have access to 9 varying displays if I so choose. 4 of them are Apple and 4 are MS dual booting with Linux and I calibrate everyones monitors. Now I can do a photo on my computer and post it to my site and on every monitor there are slight to major differences in colour and in tones. It was why I started to hate to post my work online, it just ruins a photo for the most part. If you do post to the web you cannot try to adjust for what others see on theirs. It is just something you live with and curse the monitor and video card gods :thumbup:

PS: Even on the same computer dual booting between Linux and Windows the OS drivers even seem to have an effect on the colour. I have even written my own drivers for my Linux Distro and it didn't help and I hate doing it so not retrying again. I am not big on having to write my own, but I tried, I failed so now I just use the ones that come with the Linux Distro I use.

[markis]

Yeah, I hear you, AcadieLibre. I wish all the monitors in the world were the same! I still want to show my work, though, and I want to do the best possible, even if that's not that great by our fussy photographer's standards. :)

So I picked a monitor profile that seems to sit in between some other computers around here, and I processed a couple of photos. I'm going to take them around the university with me tomorrow (mac, pc and linux labs) and see how they look on various machines (all uncalibrated).

I sure had to adjust the white balance in Camera RAW up high to get rid of that blue cast in my uncalibrated monitor! 9500+ ... :headslap:

This brings up another question. How do those little baby point-and-shoots produce acceptable(ish) colour right off the camera? Clearly most people don't post-process even a little bit. Do the cameras just boost the white balance so the images are nearer to looking good on the uncalibrated monitor?

Sorry if these are dumb questions -- I'm about 10 years late to the digital world ... I'm used to having a slide sitting in front of me, and I'm lost without that solid colour reference!

[AcadieLibre]

Yeah, I hear you, AcadieLibre. I wish all the monitors in the world were the same! I still want to show my work, though, and I want to do the best possible, even if that's not that great by our fussy photographer's standards. :)

So I picked a monitor profile that seems to sit in between some other computers around here, and I processed a couple of photos. I'm going to take them around the university with me tomorrow (mac, pc and linux labs) and see how they look on various machines (all uncalibrated).

I sure had to adjust the white balance in Camera RAW up high to get rid of that blue cast in my uncalibrated monitor! 9500+ ... :headslap:

This brings up another question. How do those little baby point-and-shoots produce acceptable(ish) colour right off the camera? Clearly most people don't post-process even a little bit. Do the cameras just boost the white balance so the images are nearer to looking good on the uncalibrated monitor?

Sorry if these are dumb questions -- I'm about 10 years late to the digital world ... I'm used to having a slide sitting in front of me, and I'm lost without that solid colour reference!


I had started to answer, then a long time into it I thought OK this will be a tl;dr post, I had gotten too technical and it was giving me a headache lol. I have two monitors in front of me, one a 17" Mac Book Pro screen and a 24" Apple Cinema display and I can put the same image on one computer so the two monitors share the same video card, they will still show differently as they always has. A Person than can use anyone's P&S, then one can download the image off the camera to my MPB. Then do nothing to them, open them up in each of the monitors and the whites will be like any other whites your monitor displays, calibrated of non calibrated. My two calibrated monitors will show each image in a differently. Makes no difference.

The camera companies can only make white well white and if your monitors are not true white well the image you got from the camera will just be the same as all your whites currently. This is really to me needs a technical explanation, with charts, graphs, and 3-4 pages of explanation. This is the Acadie special, simplified it as best I could, and not how I like to answer questions lol ... Sorry I am not the best at condensing a 4 page explanation into a long paragraph and have it make sense lol. If your going on all those computers I assume you are going to use a card reader and sd or cf card so the image is a direct result from the original source. Then each monitor will have the very same image and not be degraded. And what files are you using, TIFF, DNG, JPEG, etc.?

If your going to test your hypothesis, which it really is, if you do that you need to make sure all these controls are considered to validate or invalidate your hypothesis. To get a true and meaningful result it takes a lot of work, if you just run with a single photo and put it on each computer that will not get results, you would need a number of photos, and how and who determines if the white is whiter? You must be really, really bored, lmaoo, but I just sat here and typed this, in the house two days and I am already falling apart, glad I have some busy days ahead need to be on the move ... What is your control sample or methodv?

I tried, see top line in signature, lol.

[Marko]

"This brings up another question. How do those little baby point-and-shoots produce acceptable(ish) colour right off the camera? Clearly most people don't post-process even a little bit. Do the cameras just boost the white balance so the images are nearer to looking good on the uncalibrated monitor?"

Those baby point and shoots have grown up big time in the last 10 years...

I just purchased the canon G11 not long ago. 11 megs an image in RAW! very nice colour! and INDEED I have done PP on images from that camera. Of course it has limitations..but in regular light, for a stationary subject you would find it VERY difficult to tell the difference between a shot that came from it and your DSLR that may have cost 1000. more than the G11 at small enlargements or on the web.

[Marko]

"This brings up another question. How do those little baby point-and-shoots produce acceptable(ish) colour right off the camera? Clearly most people don't post-process even a little bit. Do the cameras just boost the white balance so the images are nearer to looking good on the uncalibrated monitor?"Those baby point and shoots have grown up big time in the last 10 years...

I just purchased the canon G11 not long ago as a 'carry everywhere camera'. 11 megs an image in RAW! very nice colour! and INDEED I have done PP on images from that camera (though you are right - 99% of people won't but a respectable amount of serious amateur and pro photogs will).

Of course it has limitations..but in regular light, for a stationary subject you would find it VERY difficult to tell the difference between a shot that came from it and your DSLR that may have cost 1000. more than the G11... at small enlargements or on the web.

[markis]

AcadieLibre, I'm processing RAW files and producing JPEGS (quite high-quality ones, but small -- just like the ones I'm putting on the web), and full-res TIFFs for good measure. And yes, many pics -- not just one! Remember, I'm just after something decently good -- doesn't have to be perfect.

Marko, I totally agree. They're pretty slick. Actually, the camera I switched to (after years with some of the best Canon lenses) is a little Panasonic GF1! I was taking things too seriously, and needed something fun ... and it really is. The image quality (below ISO 400 or so) is actually surprisingly good. Not as high-res as the film scans I was getting, but I could almost make prints of the same size -- it seems like every pixel is perfect.

Not to mention, the police and public take little notice of that little camera. I hated big lenses for getting attention.

But the question is still open -- photographers who post-process for pre-press with a calibrated monitor, do you tweak your photos before putting them on the web? What kind of shift do you see?