sRGB vs sRBG IEC61966-2.1

[srwatters]

Last night as I was finishing Vicky's images, that they look a little different in my web browser than they do in Photoshop or Photo Mechanic. I've always been choosing sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as my embedded color profile. In color managed applications like Photoshop, Photo Mechanic and Safari, they look the same, but when I open them in Firefox, they seem a little brighter or washed out just a touch.

Color management gurus:
What color profile in Photoshop do you embed into your web destined images?
Should I go back and reconvert all my web images to sRGB profile?
Do you see a difference?

Example:
my normal sRGB IEC61966-2.1

sRGB profile

[jeffkohn]

AFAIK those are just two versions of the same name, there's only one sRGB. You're using the correct color space for web images, I think the difference you're seeing in ICC-aware apps is probably due to your monitor ICC profile, which the web browser doesn't use. Both images look the same on my non-calibrated monitor at work.

[Scott-Tx]

i'm certianly no expert in this, but AFAIK, there is a difference between the color spaces. i was alway told that you should work in Adobe RGB (1998). that's what i use on a monitor that gets calibrated every 15 days and i have no problems with color mis-matching between the scanning application, photoshop, the web, and my labs printers.

[Scott-Tx]

i don't know if it's real or imagined, but i can see a difference in the two shots... the first one is a little warmer and has a bit punchier colors... most noticible in the highlights in the hair, the dark part in the skin over the collar-bone, and the bright part of the dress just below the model's right hand.

[srwatters]

I see a difference only in non color space aware applications. Here's an easy way to see it. If you have Firefox or another tabbed browser, open each image in a different tab and then switch between the tabs. The images are exactly the same if I use Safari (a color managed application), but with FireFox I see a difference in the shadows of her hair around her face and even the color of her hair is just a bit different. As for which one is closer to the the color managed version, I have to say the vanilla sRGB profile looks best. I may have to change my action for web conversion to use sRGB instead of the IEC profile.

I do most of my editing work in prophoto 16 bit, then convert to aRGB 1998 for saving to tif and delivering to the client. All this sRGB stuff is just for the web versions.

[LoungeLizard]

Oh, the holy grail question. Remember, monitors are sRBG aware devices!

I am not an expert, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did attend a seminar by Will Crockett yesterday. His take? Unless you'll be going to a CMYK print, stick with sRGB. You'll have to convert them anyway since printers are sRGB, monitors are sRGB, the world is sRGB!

The only time he recommends adobe rgb is when you're going to CMYK (commercial photos) or when you've got a lot of cyan and magenta colors - but even then to print on ANY printer, it'll be converted to sRGB!

By the way, the folk over at Gretag-McBeth say the same thing!

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

Oh, the holy grail question. Remember, monitors are sRBG aware devices!

I am not an expert, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did attend a seminar by Will Crockett yesterday. His take? Unless you'll be going to a CMYK print, stick with sRGB. You'll have to convert them anyway since printers are sRGB, monitors are sRGB, the world is sRGB!

Ahh, but the original question was... Which flavor of sRGB? The vanilla or the IEC standard? I'm saying that there is a difference when these two files are displayed with non-color managed applications.

Riddle me this, Jesus, which one do you use?

[RHoldenSr]

Scott

I saved the two images to the desktop, opened both images in separate windows using the Microsoft RAW Image Viewer, flipped between the two and I could see no noticeable differences between the them.

I did the same using Firefox and saw no differences in them.

BTW I'm using a fairly new Viewsonic CRT monitor, I know LCD's monitors tend to be brighter and have more contrast than a CRT monitor. When ever I view images on our son's LCD I have a hard time going back to the CRT.

Just my $0.02 worth

Edit: I always use the regular SRGB and not the various other flavors

[jeffkohn]

How are you creating this "generic" sRGB file? Are you saying that in in Photoshop you see two difference sRGB profiles listed?

Maybe it's a Mac thing but on my PC there's only one sRGB profile installed. The file name is "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" and the Description embedded within the profile is "sRGB IEC61966-2.1". Some applications may use the file name rather than the description, but either way it's still the same profile.

If you created the two files in two different applications, any slight differences in the two files could be due to using two different color management engines, as well as possible differences in rendering intent.

[jeffkohn]

I am not an expert, didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I did attend a seminar by Will Crockett yesterday. His take? Unless you'll be going to a CMYK print, stick with sRGB. You'll have to convert them anyway since printers are sRGB, monitors are sRGB, the world is sRGB!

Printers are not sRGB. They're actually CMYK although the driver interface is RGB. But RGB != sRGB. If you use the default printer color management maybe it assumes everything is sRGB, but if you disable printer color management and do it from the application sRGB never enters the picture (assuming your files are in another color space). Most of today's printers have color gamuts that exceed not only sRGB capabilities but even Adobe RGB. For instance my 2-year old Canon i960 can print blues and greens that are out-of-gamut in Adobe RGB.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

How are you creating this "generic" sRGB file? Are you saying that in in Photoshop you see two difference sRGB profiles listed?

Maybe it's a Mac thing but on my PC there's only one sRGB profile installed. The file name is "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" and the Description embedded within the profile is "sRGB IEC61966-2.1". Some applications may use the file name rather than the description, but either way it's still the same profile.

If you created the two files in two different applications, any slight differences in the two files could be due to using two different color management engines, as well as possible differences in rendering intent.

In Photoshop CS2, when I go to the edit menu and select "convert to profile", I get a drop down with a ton of different profiles. Near the top are the profiles I'm used to using, ProPhoto, Adobe RGB 1998, sRGB IEC61966-2.1. Further down the list there is this one sRGB profile. Those are the only two sRGB profiles on the list. Could the second one be a monitor profile?

This whole color management thing gives me a headache. I thought I knew what I was doing...

[jeffkohn]

I only see one sRGB in the list for my machine. It could be a Mac-centric issue, who knows. Or it could be that some software or driver has installed their own copy of "sRGB" profile. For instance Nikon software installs its own private versions of several profiles (sRGB and Adobe RGB among them). But those are used internally by Nikon software and probably shouldn't be used elsewhere. In fact on the PC they're installed in a private location, not the system-wide ICC folder, so they don't even show up in the list in applications such as Photoshop.

Since there's no telling where that "other" profile came from even though it has sRGB in the name, I'd stick the the "true" sRGB profile which is the one with IEC in the description.

[srwatters]

Thanks Jeff. I'm sticking with what I've been using, the IEC profile.