We should all be using it, right? Is this a licencing issue (i.e. having
to pay royalties to Adobe), or why isn't all available software
(browsers, email programs, image editors etc.) using Adobe RGB or at
least capable to properly display AdobeRGB images? At the moment, if you
forget to convert to sRGB and post to the web, the images will look dull
and lifeless.
--
> We should all be using it, right? Is this a licencing issue (i.e. having
> to pay royalties to Adobe), or why isn't all available software
> (browsers, email programs, image editors etc.) using Adobe RGB or at
> least capable to properly display AdobeRGB images? At the moment, if you
> forget to convert to sRGB and post to the web, the images will look dull
> and lifeless.
> --
I think you answered most of your question there Alfred.
On Jul 8, 9:19 am, Alfred Molon <a...@b.c> wrote:
> We should all be using it, right? Is this a licencing issue (i.e. having
> to pay royalties to Adobe), or why isn't all available software
> (browsers, email programs, image editors etc.) using Adobe RGB or at
> least capable to properly display AdobeRGB images? At the moment, if you
> forget to convert to sRGB and post to the web, the images will look dull
> and lifeless.
sRGB is designed as a lowest common denominator, meaning it will
display better on the largest range of uncalibrated monitors and
printers. AdobeRGB also stretches it's gamut over a larger range of
colours, meaning that the individual colours are "further apart". If
you edit in 8bit colour, this can lead to more banding than a similar
photo in sRGB.
Not that sRGB is better than AdobeRGB, but it's not a simple case of
AdobeRGB being better than sRGB either...
In article <1183853915.561365.13310@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, Ray
Macey says...
> sRGB is designed as a lowest common denominator, meaning it will
> display better on the largest range of uncalibrated monitors and
> printers. AdobeRGB also stretches it's gamut over a larger range of
> colours, meaning that the individual colours are "further apart". If
> you edit in 8bit colour, this can lead to more banding than a similar
> photo in sRGB.
Why can't web browsers properly display AdobeRGB images?
--
On Jul 8, 6:07 pm, Alfred Molon <a...@b.c> wrote:
> > sRGB is designed as a lowest common denominator, meaning it will
> > display better on the largest range of uncalibrated monitors and
> > printers. AdobeRGB also stretches it's gamut over a larger range of
> > colours, meaning that the individual colours are "further apart". If
> > you edit in 8bit colour, this can lead to more banding than a similar
> > photo in sRGB.
>
> Why can't web browsers properly display AdobeRGB images?
Because most browsers are not programmed to be colour profile aware.
A couple of browsers on the mac are, but none on Windows are (unless
the win version of Safari is). Not being aware of colour profiles,
they assume each image is in sRGB, which leads to the muted colours
you see when viewing AdobeRGB images in non colour profile aware
software
In article <MPG.20fa3e00632c4d6d98b5b4@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <a@b.c> wrote:
>We should all be using it, right? Is this a licencing issue (i.e. having
>to pay royalties to Adobe), or why isn't all available software
>(browsers, email programs, image editors etc.) using Adobe RGB or at
>least capable to properly display AdobeRGB images?
For most people AdobeRGB doesn't offer much over sRGB: you can't display
more than sRGB on most monitors, and the differences in prints will be
subtle enough that most people will miss them.
On the other hand, creating color management aware applications is a lot of
work if the underlying OS does not fully support color management.
At the same time, you can start by adding color management support to all
open source projects. Once Firefox supports color management, there is a
good chance that M$ will add it to IE as well.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
In article <1183886681.116111.175630@a26g2000pre.googlegroups .com>, Ray
Macey says...
> Because most browsers are not programmed to be colour profile aware.
Why not? Isn't the colour space information embedded in JPEGs, so that a
browser would just have to read that to properly render the colours?
Doesn't seem to be hugely complicated to program that.
--
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1183886681.116111.175630@a26g2000pre.googlegroups .com>, Ray
> Macey says...
>
>> Because most browsers are not programmed to be colour profile aware.
>
> Why not? Isn't the colour space information embedded in JPEGs, so that a
> browser would just have to read that to properly render the colours?
> Doesn't seem to be hugely complicated to program that.
It is not all that easy, what do you do with out of gamut colors?
You could just clip the color space when displaying an AdobeRGB image
on a monitor that does not do more then sRGB, but that looks pretty bad.
For web images it works out best if the image is reduced to sRGB by the
person who is posting it, that way the have full control of how it will
look.
Things may change in the not to distant future since LCD monitors will
be getting a larger color gamut once they are back lit with LEDs. From
what I have read this should extend the green range a fair bit, well
past when current CRT monitors are doing today.
>We should all be using it, right? Is this a licencing issue (i.e. having
>to pay royalties to Adobe), or why isn't all available software
>(browsers, email programs, image editors etc.) using Adobe RGB or at
>least capable to properly display AdobeRGB images?
Adobe RGB isn't "better", it's just better suited to some purposes,
one of which is printing on CMYK inkjet printers. Most computer
monitors, CRT or LCD, can't display nearly all the gamut of Adobe RGB,
so images intended for display on monitors (whether via the web or any
other means) are best converted to sRGB, which is designed to fall
within the gamut of emissive (RGB additive color) monitors.
Of course, if you embed the ICC profile you're using in all your
images and you know *for certain* that all your visitors are using a
colorspace-aware browser (only Safari at the moment but the Firefox 3
is probably going to be) it doesn't matter what colorspace you use:
The display software (browser in this case) will map the image into
the available colorspace of the display medium.
LaCie has recently introduced a monitor that's claimed to cover 95% of
Adobe RGB. It's over $2000. On such a monitor, Adobe RGB images should
look good even without color management.
>At the moment, if you forget to convert to sRGB and post to the web, the
>images will look dull and lifeless.
Note that Adobe RGB images *won't* look dull and lifeless on a
colorspace-aware web browser (Safari). And they will also look fine if
you download them and view them in a colorspace-aware application like
Photoshop. This is a software application issue and hardware, not one
of the web per se.
In article <p0t193pv8b9u7ku7vbif8pm9fkcor8l879@4ax.com>, Mark Roberts
says...
> LaCie has recently introduced a monitor that's claimed to cover 95% of
> Adobe RGB. It's over $2000. On such a monitor, Adobe RGB images should
> look good even without color management.
Which model is that? Would this be the best LCD screen for image
editing?
--
If AdobeRGB is better, why does sRGB exist? 
Linear Mode
