- This topic has 61 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The issue should be on synth profile creator or on how PS reads that synth “display profile” as content profile. Choosing rec709 g2.4 embeded on Photoshop it is working as expected on untagged lagom lcd test gradient.h-png. Same using AdobeRGB (g2.2…it’s a grayscale image so you can do it)
Try to use https://www.color.org/profileinspector.xalter on a working sRGB-like ICC on Ps, then import your desired TRC ln rTRC, gTRC, bTRC.
It does feel like a bug. If I select Rec 709 as the Working Space, then the embedded sRGB 2.2 profile suddenly works. Very strange.
Very odd that it’s specifically sRGB 2.2 that doesn’t work, and not sRGB 2.0 or sRGB 2.4 (I tested creating other profiles where the only difference is the gamma). Maybe Photoshop incorrectly assumes that the synthetic profile is equivalent to the regular sRGB, and ignores it? Only thing I can think of.
I guess it’s fine, except that it also doesn’t work correctly in the browsers. Could it be that this kind of synthetic profile is not well supported by some apps?
Have you tried Elle Stones profiles?
https://github.com/ellelstone/elles_icc_profilesHer site contains some interesting facts about how different apps handle different profile types.
https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/lcms-make-icc-profiles.htmlIt does feel like a bug. If I select Rec 709 as the Working Space, then the embedded sRGB 2.2 profile suddenly works. Very strange.
Very odd that it’s specifically sRGB 2.2 that doesn’t work, and not sRGB 2.0 or sRGB 2.4 (I tested creating other profiles where the only difference is the gamma). Maybe Photoshop incorrectly assumes that the synthetic profile is equivalent to the regular sRGB, and ignores it? Only thing I can think of.
I guess it’s fine, except that it also doesn’t work correctly in the browsers. Could it be that this kind of synthetic profile is not well supported by some apps?
So it looks like a PS bug ( feature* ) after all, one way or another.
AdobeRGB is 2.2 and gradient is treated properly.
Have you tried Elle Stones profiles?
https://github.com/ellelstone/elles_icc_profilesThanks, that’s a great resource!
Her profile gives me the same result, though. It’s not a huge deal since I get the correct the result in Photoshop if I select the right profile. The more annoying issue is that things show up too dark in the browser, but that might be an unrelated problem.
That might be closer to a confirmation of a bug on the side of PS.
As for Firefox you could test again with a profile contain less than 34 patches you are looking for the cause.
That might be closer to a confirmation of a bug on the side of PS.
As for Firefox you could test again with a profile contain less than 34 patches you are looking for the cause.
Could you point me in the right direction on how to do this? How can I see/decide on the amount of patches?
Actually it looks fine in Firefox – it’s just broken in Edge and Chrome. According to this, it might be because the other two don’t support BPC? (I assume Firefox does today).
So I guess if I want to post images on the web, the best option is still to simply not embed a profile, as otherwise the image will look crunched for everybody who has Chrome or Edge?
So I guess if I want to post images on the web, the best option is still to simply not embed a profile, as otherwise the image will look crunched for everybody who has Chrome or Edge?
No. Unexerencied users should use display profiles with BPC (fake infinite contrast). Default display ICC from driver are of this kind.
So I guess if I want to post images on the web, the best option is still to simply not embed a profile, as otherwise the image will look crunched for everybody who has Chrome or Edge?
No. Unexerencied users should use display profiles with BPC (fake infinite contrast). Default display ICC from driver are of this kind.
I’m not following – I’m asking how to embed an image correctly, but you are saying I should change my display profile?
Turns out any image with an embedded profile gets crunched blacks in Chrome, even a standard one such as Adobe RGB.
It doesn’t make a difference if I select the “simple curve + matrix” or the LUT display profile. Both were made with BPC. I’m guessing I’ve done something wrong somewhere, or is Chrome just janky?
Testing one of my earlier display profiles without BPC makes the blacks even more crunched.
So I guess if I want to post images on the web, the best option is still to simply not embed a profile, as otherwise the image will look crunched for everybody who has Chrome or Edge?
No. Unexerencied users should use display profiles with BPC (fake infinite contrast). Default display ICC from driver are of this kind.
I’m not following – I’m asking how to embed an image correctly, but you are saying I should change my display profile?
if CM is not able of BPC itself, your display profile has to fake infinite contrast or have crushed blacks (0 output for non zero input)
Turns out any image with an embedded profile gets crunched blacks in Chrome, even a standard one such as Adobe RGB.
It doesn’t make a difference if I select the “simple curve + matrix” or the LUT display profile. Both were made with BPC. I’m guessing I’ve done something wrong somewhere, or is Chrome just janky?
Testing one of my earlier display profiles without BPC makes the blacks even more crunched.
If BPC active on display profile creation, then Chrome CM is broken… which is somehow expected, it was that way long time ago.
Found this which suggest that it’s still broken, if I understand correctly… https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1216930&q=icc&can=2
“I just confirmed that the ICC profile above has a gamma 2.2 which gets ignored. Along with the almost-SRGB primaries of the ICC profile, we use SRGB instead. I don’t know if we should reconsider our decision for this case since we originally disabled custom transfer functions for raised blacks which we considered a bug at that time and is being asked for here.”
I’ve found a hacky workaround for the Photoshop bug:
When creating the sRGB 2.2 Gamma profile for Embedding, adjust one of the primaries a miniscule amount that is not noticable. (ie. from 0,64 to 0,641). As long as the primaries don’t exactly match sRGB, the profile will work as intended and override the Standard sRGB Working Space.
This is consistent with my guess that Photoshop discards the profile because it believes they are identical. I’ve tested this using the Custom RGB tool in Photoshop so far.
