Color Management

Software and output devices such as monitors render colors in many different -and often not intended- ways. In order to achive not only vivid but also more reproducible and comparable colors the interpretation of colors (ie of the underlying numerical codes) and their reproduction by software and output devices is to be standardized via Color Management.

Color Management  &  Internet Browsers

The images here on Phocus.org are in so called sRGB colors, which is the web standard 'color space' or 'set of colors'. But even in images that use these web standard colors, without Color Management certain colors never quite look right in internet browsers compared to what they look like in image editing programs. With Color Management activated in internet browsers, they recognize the color space (eg. sRGB) of an image and render the colors closer to what they are supposed to look like. Some examples: Firefox (Windows): Mozilla Firefox >4 supports Color Management and automatically recognize embedded color profiles of images. However, it supports only ICC V2 standards. Future versions will hopefully support ICC V4 too. Internet Explorer (Windows): Sadly, and embarrassingly, Internet Explorer 9 still does not support color management (?). Although it 'expects' sRGB it may not be able to handle even this standard color space correctly (IE7 produced blue casts for instance). Under Windows, I therefore recommend using the free Mozilla Firefox. Safari (Mac OS X, Windows XP): Under Mac OS X, applications built using Aqua (eg. Safari Browser, Mail, Preview, or iPhoto) all recognize embedded profiles. To check you browser's Color Management status, see: www.color.org/version4html.xalter Note: All this does not mean that you'll see already accurate colors or the same colors others see on their systems (concerning any operating system). Apart from using Color Management in applications in order to treat the color space of an image correctly, seeing (more or less) accurate colors or the same colors others see on their systems is also a question of the monitors' capabilities and whether or not they are calibrated (see below).

Color Management, Monitors and Calibration

The pictures here on Phocus.org have been edited on a computer system that makes use of Color Management and calibrated devices, ie that provides accurate colors (as far as possible within my budget). If you feel that these pictures look strange (or, in more technical terms, that the colors/contrast/gradation/gamut/... do so) it might either be due to our diverging personal preferences or because you don’t use Color Management or your monitor is not adjusted/calibrated appropriately. In case you feel so and you want to improve things, it might be worth to carry on reading. In order to make sure that we both see more or less the same on our monitors - at least in terms of brightness and contrast - you should adjust your monitor’s brightness and contrast in a way that you can distinguish the following 17 gray-scale steps (17 squares) from black to white:

Every monitor renders a certain theoretic color value in its own way. This applies to different monitor technologies (see below) as well as to different samples of the same model and even to the same monitor under different ambient temperatures or after different periods of time that it is switched on (in terms of both running hours or age). Unfortunately, it is rather impossible to reliably fine-tune the colors/gradation/etc of a monitor manually. In order to achieve not only vivid but also accurate and therefore comparable color/gradation/contrast/etc on monitors it is inevitable to calibrate/proifile them. Accurate calibration/profiling can only be achieved by means of monitor calibration/profiling devices that generate monitor specific 'filter information' (color profiles) that can be used by the operating system to render (more) accurate and comparable results on monitors. In order to obtain not only vivid but also accurate colors, it is also inevitable to use a monitor that is of high(er) quality. LCD monitors that are suitable for photo editing/watching have either so called VA (eg. PVA) or IPS panels. Unfortunately, many manufacturers do not provide information on this very detail. In order to find out which panel is used in a certain monitor model there is no other way than browsing the web (eg. www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php) Opinions divide as to whether VA or IPS is more suited for photo editing. It’s often been stated that IPS is the way to go. Some of the best monitors of EIZO (one of the high-end monitor manufacturer) have S-PVA panels, however. IPS panels have the largest color gamut, high color accuracy, and the largest viewing angles. S-PVA panels are not quite as good as some IPS panels with respect to those features. The differences are very small with modern models though. VA panels, on the other hand, have higher contrast ratios and 'deeper' black levels, and they are cheaper. Higher contrast is not necessarily good for photo editing as it means reduced color gamut. Fine-art photographers often prefer IPS for this very reason. Where 'stronger colors' and/or deeper black are preferred S-PVA may be the better choice. TN panels are certainly least suited for photo editing/watching because they provide the smallest color gamut along with the worst color+contrast shift and highest intensity changes with viewing angle. Note that TN panels are currently used in almost all laptops! There is no technology that is best in any discipline. What is 'best' depends on what you are going to use your monitor for, and what your personal preferences (and budget) are. Just be aware that virtually all consumer monitors are adjusted in a way that they sell well in large bright halls of multimedia shops (full of employees who have not the faintest idea of Color Management). The same goes for advertising brochures etc: They focus on panel speed (for gamer) or emphasize maximum brightness (but not on minimum brightness which is an important determinant for reliable print-previews) or color intensity (instead of accuracy) or numbers of colors that can be displayed theoretically(!). Most so called multimedia monitors (ie the most bright, gaudy, and glary-like-mirrors ones) are particularly useless for photo editing! Finally, if you want also printed colors to be predictable/reproducible, your (photo) printer needs profiling too. This saves a lot of time and money that is otherwise wasted in a try-and-error approach. But, again, this is hardly achievable through manual settings (or with cheap printers). Be aware that printed results even from profiled printers will never look exaclty the same like those on monitors because the physics of reproducing colors and tones differs fundamentally between monitors and printers (self-luminous vs. reflective). But that's another story. Well then? You may wonder how on earth one can satisfy everybody’s demands/facilities in terms of accurate picture presentation on the web? You just can’t, and that's only partly because most people don’t use Color Management. Maybe this is a good argument for to not bother with Color Management (many printing companies still don’t do, thereby scaring professional customers off or wasting a lot of money). If predictable/reproducible/comparable colors are not an issue, you may just not bother with Color Management and take the description above as a nice piece of information why color is relative already on the technical level way before personal preferences come into play.