Lightroom: No export option to jpg without embedding an ICC profile

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • (Edited)
As far as I can tell there is no option in the export dialog to save a file to JPG without embedding an ICC profile, like in the 'save as' dialog of PS. This leads to problems when viewing the images in non color managed programs like i.e. internet explorer. I exported one image using 3 colorspace options. The results have pretty strong color casts.

sRGB


Adobe RGB


Prophoto RGB
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
What you've illustrated is why you SHOULD always include an ICC profile, so color-managed software can interpret things, correctly. Non-color-managed software won't know what to do with the colors whether or not you include an ICC profile.

To avoid the situation you have shown, always export using the sRGB profile unless you have a specific reason to use something other than sRGB, because internet browsers are supposed to interpret things as sRGB when either they or the image don't know what the profile is.
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
My own work processes are completele color managed. For that I totally agree with you and we have no discussion there. Problems arise when you send jpg's out to customers and you do not know what software they use to view them nor how that software is configured because you have no controle over that. Like the pictures above that have strong color casts in IE. The jpg exported in sRGB has a strong red color cast in IE that proves my point.
Safest way is to use sRG color space without color management as PS is able to produce when you disable the ICC checkbox in the save as dialog.
Pretty much any application is able to show that file more or less correctly.
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
As I mentioned on the other thread, if you want to do this terrible thing, Friedl's Metadata Wrangler plug-in can remove the ICC profile from the rendered JPEG.
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Here's some misunderstanding. First: my workflow is fully color managed. I'm worried about what customers see when the view the files. I have no control over the circumstances under wich they view them; if they use color managed viewers or not. What I want is the (more or less) correct display of the file when the profile is not used. That is now not the case.
Photo of Walter Schulz

Walter Schulz

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes, there is a misunderstanding: As said above, using a file without embedded profile will give you *less* control over what is seen by the customer. Embedded sRGB will minimize risks. But you will not avoid them.
Demonstration is available at http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_p...
Cruel web page design but vaild information.

Ciao, Walter
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi walter,

Agreed. It would be best if everyone would use color managed browsers / viewers. But a lot of people don't.
I looked at you link. It says: UNMANAGED BROWSERS and apps will display all three above Tagged photos very differently.
I just want the option to produce untaggged files like PS can. That's all. I can't tell a customer to upgrade his brower / viewer to Safari 5, Firefox 11 of IE 9 before viewing foto's.
You say Embedded sRGB will minimize risks, but if you would look at this page in an unmanaged browser you would note that it has a pretty strong red cast over it.
Photo of Walter Schulz

Walter Schulz

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Where do you see the red cast? Please make a snapshot and use "Add image" to reply.

As stated in the article and confirmed by everyone else I know it is contrary to your implication if you use untagged files. We can prove this but it will take your coorporation.

Ciao, Walter
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
See message below.

Regards
Germ
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I exported one file from LR using three color spaces. and uploaded them above.
I downloaded safari and surfed to this page.
I took a screen capture tool to capture the images I see here and save them in a single file. The first image is too red compared to the image I prepared in LR 4.1 beta.
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree to the contradiction. My problem is the red color cast that occurs when exporting to jpg/sRGB.
It is possible that I have a problem with my wide gamut monitor (Eizo Colormatch).
This is what i'll do later today. I'll export a jpg from LR in sRGB color space. AND
I'll edit it in Photoshop and save as an untagged jpg. I'll post them side by side. See what happens. Sounds reasonable?
Photo of Walter Schulz

Walter Schulz

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
What happens if you store a tagged JPEG using sRGB as embedded profile from CS?
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I'll add that one too later today.
Photo of Walter Schulz

Walter Schulz

  • 17 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
... and make a snapshot of your Color Settings in CS, extended view. Thanks!
Photo of Jan Hamberg

Jan Hamberg

  • 16 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hi Germ, You have exported the above pictures with sRGB, aRGB and pRGB profiles from LR?. When you drop the pictures in separate tabs in Safari (for windows) they will (must) look equal and color correct on a color managed system. Even in IE9 they will look equal but more warmer (on my system) because IE does not take account for the monitor profile. For firefox see this link http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_p...
Photo of LRuserXY

LRuserXY

  • 426 Posts
  • 41 Reply Likes
I don't think there is any advantage of untagged JPEGs compared to JPEGs with embedded color profiles for unmanaged environments.

If the image is too saturated, this is *not* caused by the sRGB color space, but caused by the failure of the viewer program to properly convert sRGB to the monitor color space, which is larger (wide gamut monitor). Important: An untagged photo would be too saturated, too (because the programm will still assume sRGB and still not convert it into monitor color space) !

The fact that the AdobeRGB image looks ok is simply because AdobeRGB more closely matches the monitor color space. However, in reality you don't really know what the monitor color space of different users is, so that would be purely coincidental.

In other words: IMHO it makes no sense to have an option for untagged images, because you would not gain anything. An untagged image would behave exactly as a tagged image in unmanaged environments (and would display wrong in managed environments if not sRGB).

Basically there is *no* possibility to have correct display of images in all unmanaged environments. The only bad hack one can do is to use AdobeRGB if you know that the "target audience" has wide gamut monitors (and sRGB otherwise). That is bad, but one cannot change it.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2657 Posts
  • 341 Reply Likes
Exactly.
Photo of Germ Wind

Germ Wind

  • 16 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
First of all thanks all for your patience with me.
The problem occurred to me when i read the piece of g ballard.
There was mention of wide gamut monitors producing oversaturated colors under certain circumstances. For sRGB the cast was too Red. That led me to the conclusion that the file was wrong. Now I understand it's the combinbation of software and the wide gamut monitor that's playing tricks on me. On normal monitors files look ok. I think this problem is tackled.
Again thanks for all your patience with this stubborn dutchmen.

Regards from Holland

Germ Wind