more on color management

So after a lot of (for me) confusing trials and tests I finally found out that in fact it is quite simple:

- I edit on a AdobeRGB screen, embedding AdobeRGB profile to the image
- for publishing I convert the image to sRGB embedding sRGB profile

done! That simple.

Simple in theory, in the real life it cost me a lot to finally find out how it should work.

It added a lot to the problem that Patreon (and other websites) actually change the image. I knew that they reduce the image quality using a higher JPEG-compression, especially for the smaller versions shown directly in the stream (that's why they sometimes look a bit blurred). This to save disk space.

What I didn't know, and just found out during the last days, is that they remove the embedded color profile to save some more bytes. It goes even further: when I upload an image with anther embedded profile than sRGB, Patreon converts this image to sRGB and then again removes the profile... The effect is only visible in Firefox browsers on an AdobeRGB screen: the tools I use...

All this (and some errors I committed and that I explain at the end) confused me so much that I experimented with up to absurd "solutions" (if you have read the last post before I edited it, you'll know and maybe shook your head..).

I try to explain a little bit color management:

A screen capable to show the AdobeRGB color space can display more and more vivid, more saturated colors than a normal sRGB screen. On my AdobeRGB screen I see those vivid colors, but, due to the smaller saturation and different color model of sRGB screens the image will look very "dead" on sRGB screens when there is no embedded color profile in the file or you look at them in a non-managed program (like for example most mobile phone galleries).

Not to embed profiles was my primary error until now and the reason why the colors of all series in my gallery up to last week look wrong and lifeless unless you look at them in an AdobeRGB screen...

But when I embed the (AdobeRGB) color profile in my images, the color managed browser knows that I have seen my colors more vivid and thus changes those colors to the color model of your sRGB screen (it "knows" the profile of your screen from the settings in your operating system), shortly said: it enhances the saturation so that you see practically the same vivid colors on your sRGB screen as I do on my AdobeRGB screen.

So in theory I simply have to embed the profile in my images and that's it. The color manager adjusts them to your device. They will look practically the same on all devices in a browser or other color managed programs, no matter if you have an AdobeRGB, an sRGB or any other device with a defined color space.

The downside is, that when you look at them in a non-color managed program (a simple image viewer on a sRGB screen or the gallery on your phone) they look dull again on non-AdobeRGB devices because those programs do not convert to the color space of your screen.

To solve this, now I convert my images to sRGB and embed the sRGB profile. 

This produces a more saturated file that directly shows correct on sRGB devices: due to the embedded profile, browsers will not change anything on sRGB devices because file and screen use the same color space, and non-managed programs show directly the file that is already adjusted to sRGB. The new images in my gallery will also look correct in browsers on AdobeRGB screens because the color management removes the relative over-saturation of the sRGB-file to display it correct on the AdobeRGB screen.

The only thing I cannot resolve is how the Patreon stream is displayed in Firefox on AdobeRGB screens. Because Patreon removes the color profile, Firefox doesn't convert sRGB to AdobeRGB and the images look over-saturated on AdobeRGB screens. (Chrome assumes images without profile to be sRGB and thus converts correct).

Apart of this small downside, I think sRGB images with embedded sRGB are the best solution because most people use sRGB screens or phones and it works out of the box for most, no matter whether you use color management or not.

So this is how from now on I edit and publish my images and I believe that I finally found the correct solution to offer you much better colors i future than in the older series!

(some errors I commited: 

while testing I compared the test images in Firefox, Chrome, a simple image viewer, and a color managed photo program (digikam). I changed the so-called working space in digikam from AdobeRGB to sRGB and vice versa. I switched my monitor to sRGB display and back to AdobeRGB. And almost went crazy as I simply couldn't achieve that they look the same in both color spaces, no matter how I converted from what ever to what ever... 

What I didn't think about, was that simply switching the monitor doesn't do the job: I forgot to change the color profile in the system settings of my computer! So, for example, when looking at the images in sRGB screen mode in the browser, the browser "thought" that I use an AdobeRGB screen and thus adjusted completely wrong...

Finally I found out about that, but that wasn't the end of this horror, because first I used a wrong sRGB profile, that produced relatively better results, but still not good ones. Only after finding the correct profiles it finally worked...

I don't know how many times I switched back and forth. This task was: switching the monitor to the other display mode, changing the system profile, changing the working space profile in digikam, log out of the session, log-in again (only then the clanged system profile will be applied) open digikam, open the images in viewer, Chrome and Firefox..., close all, switch... )

I hope that this effort and these changes lead to much better image quality for my Patrons, for you!

And I must confess that I feel a bit embarrassed that it took me so long, so many years, until I finally found out...)