sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You will often see a significant difference when a monitor is placed into sRGB emulation, depending on how it is implemented. On some monitors it still shows more than sRGB, on others it shows less than sRGB, and it often arbitrarily locks the screen brightness to some unusably low level. Also, ideally you would also have calibrated to the sRGB mode and the monitor should switch profile when switching modes. From what I've found your monitor is pretty flexible in how different modes can be implemented. but apparently the Palette Master software can be a bit hit/miss in managing the icc profiles.
If you have a fully calibrated workflow (LR/PS/Monitor) then there is no need for sRGB mode, or any other mode (Palette Master will let you set up several apparently). The sRGB mode and sRGB soft proofing are both trying to do the same thing; they both limit the viewed colors to sRGB. Except that soft proofing does it better; especially if the sRGB mode has any of the issues I previously mentioned. Even without issues:
Soft proofing allows you to remap out of gamut colors using the perceptual intent; which is often better for photographs. sRGB mode ("clamping"/"emulation"/tc) is limited to the relative intent. The relative intent can lead to "packing" at the limits if there is much that is out of gamut (it's like banding). Perceptual can often result in a more natural appearance for photographs even though it shifts more colors (I usually use perceptual).
Soft proofing allows the display to simulate the paper color/reflectivity, and ink density/colors for printing. Both CMYK (inkjet) and Pantone (offset) printing can replicate some colors outside of sRGB. Which your monitor may be able to show you if left in its' normal gamut.
Soft proofing keeps your monitor in its' normal viewing mode. I.e. the same way it will be used to view the image digitally later. It's the appropriate brightness for your situation and uses the same calibration profile/white point/etc.
Ok, this is the crux of it all. The differences are typically minimal, but can be notable when working with very bright/saturated colors (particularly magentas).
If you are doing what you described using LR's soft proofing function with the profile set to sRGB IEC61966, then you are doing it *correctly (it doesn't sound like it).
If you are doing it by setting your monitor to sRGB mode, soft proofing would most likely be *better.
If you are doing it by using both the sRGB mode and the sRGB soft proofing icc profile they are redundant; and the monitor's mode may be inhibiting the soft proofing function.
If you are printing you should be soft proofing using the paper/printer icc profile instead, and export the appropriate file type/color space as suitable. (if your printer only accepts sRGB jpegs you should soft proof in sRGB afterwards to deal with any remaining out of gamut color issues)
If you don't have the ability to soft proof, then monitor emulation may be your only other choice (using sRGB mode, or any other).
Some might prefer monitor emulation for a specific reason; e.g. if you need to frequently change white point for a different final viewing environment (e.g. D50 vs D65, etc). It can also be somewhat useful if you have a different/fixed editing environment with a fixed brightness level (setting an editing mode to a matching lower brightness). And it can be good enough, though properly setting up and calibrating the emulation is important. I.e. you can combine monitor emulation and soft proofing for a specific purpose, if you really know what you are doing.
*correctly/better are relative... everything about color in art is subjective. You can do everything absolutely "wrong," and it doesn't matter if you like the result.
I'm thinking that the issue you describe with the forum/web use has more to do with color space embedding/tagging in the output file as I previously described (because you seem to have the workflow mostly sorted/managed).
It is almost impossible to get color space wrong using LR, because lightroom always embeds the color space icc profile (which isn't absolutely required), and it always also updates the exif tag (seldom required); even if the image doesn't need anything else done to export it...
E.g. if the image is already a jpeg of the correct size, but it just doesn't have the color space embedded, LR will embed the colorspace on export; even if it doesn't need to do anything else. And LR correctly defaults to sRGB for jpegs; unless you have overridden that. But it will export an image in an unsuitable color space if you tell it to (converted/embedded/tagged); so it is still possible to have an issue.
However, it is fairly easy to get image color space wrong using other programs; Photoshop will do it pretty easily. Photoshop wants to convert images to its' working color space on opening (ProPhoto in my case), and it doesn't automatically convert to a common viewing color space on saving. Photoshop does not automatically embed the color space icc, and it doesn't always (ever?) edit the color space exif tag. So it's quite possible to get the exif tag and actual color space out of sync or "unknown." Photoshop certainly isn't the only program to have these potential issues. A lot of programs ignore the color space exif tag and are lost without an embedded profile; and some programs ignore embedded color spaces as well (but fewer these days). If any of those things happen, it is likely that the image will be rendered wrong.
The solution in PS is to always select the "Convert to sRGB" and "Embed Color Profile" check boxes when saving images out for the web. LR doesn't give you those options because it does them automatically; it only gives you a choice on which color space to embed/tag/convert to (and you must select one).
