Fire Engine

[john w revie]

This is a photo test post
Does the colour seem right in this photo it has been uploaded with no colour sync profile




john

[Dave Humphries]

Hi John,

Difficult to say for sure, these things, especially one that old, tend to spend time outdoors and the paint fades in the (UV rich) sunlight. Of course, the current owner might have re-sprayed it, but who knows what with!

It doesn't look wrong though, he says; viewing an un-calibrated or profiled (but trusted) display.

Also will depend what colour gamut you image was when editing, if sRGB then it will be fine because all browsers will assume that in the absence of a stated profile tag.

Cheers,

[john w revie]

Thanks Dave

the reason I asked is it was converted from raw using IJFR (instant jpg from raw) which strips the embedded profile from the file
the conversion time per file was 0.01 seconds. It also coverts using the camera settings. It can be found here http://mtapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/

John

[Dave Humphries]

Hi John,

Interesting ...

So I guess the image will be whatever gamut your camera is set to then.

I have mine set to sRGB because I only need that for what I do, but others with aRGB (AdobeRGB) set, may find that application would result in desaturated images (unless it also does a gamut conversion, however, that's maybe unlikely, given the speed of conversion).

Cheers,

[john w revie]

Dave
The software checks things like sharpening, white balance ,saturation , contrast. but not colour space.
it produces an ( untagged colour space ) no colour space .

John

[Dave Humphries]

Dave
The software checks things like sharpening, white balance ,saturation , contrast. but not colour space.
it produces an ( untagged colour space ) no colour space .

John

Hi John,

Yes, I accept that; if the camera is set to sRGB and all browsers (in absence of a tag) assume sRGB, all will be well.

If the camera is set to AdobeRGB (or wider) gamut, when the image hits a browser (untagged), it is going to appear dull and desaturated, because the browser still assumes it is sRGB.

It is a shame that site doesn't tell you anything without registering and downloading - which I haven't done yet.

[john w revie]

Hi Dave
You can get some info on this utility from here without registering

http://www.whibalhost.com/_ss/ijfr/ijfr_manual.pdf

I also ran some tests on the points you raised The argb files are darker than the srgb files
I also noticed that what is displayed on the computer is the an exact copy of the camera screen.
no more surprises when I open the files on my computer.
I have also found a video tutorial for IJFR here

http://www.youtube.com/v/MNU13W3DXTs

John

[revi]

I see why it's so fast: it extracts the embedded preview jpg from the RAW...
Us linux users can do that using dcraw: 'dcraw -e <files>'

Remco

P.S. this also explains the absence of EXIF info: no EXIF in the embedded jpg image...