Wide Gamut Monitors
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
Doug
  |
  |
This means it will display untagged RGB with intense saturation especially the reds.
To simulate (on a normal gamut monitor) how these screens will display untagged RGB (especially untagged sRGB on the internet):
1) Open a RGB file with skin tones in Photoshop and Edit> Convert to Profile: sRGB
2) Then, Edit> Assign Profile: Adobe RGB
That shows the difference between sRGB and wide-gamut RGB color spaces.
And it previews what you can expect on the internet.
This has been discussed in depth before if you do search...
+++++++
Yes, you are correct, color-managed applications display tagged RGB great on these wide-gamut panels, including Photoshop, Safari, Finder, Preview, iPhoto.
And FireFox 3 can be setup so it displays untagged RGB okay (solving the internet headache).
| |
|
Appreciate the clarity of those remarks, g.
Took about 300 messages to get there, I think.
I don't suppose 10.4.11 will be fixed.
Took about 300 messages to get there, I think.
I don't suppose 10.4.11 will be fixed.
| |
|
And it is for this reason color management and calibration and profiling of devices were created and emphasized use of back in the olden days when folks would ask why they need to calibrate their devices when their sRGB CRT's and printers suited them just fine without it.
No one had any idea they'ld be creating displays with this large of a gamut.
Now it's guaranteed the need of color management and calibration devices especially if you don't want your eyes melting from viewing this level of saturation for extended periods of time.
I wonder what it will be like ten years from now. I'll bet we'll be having to wear special sunglasses to view the newer wider gamut displays then.
No one had any idea they'ld be creating displays with this large of a gamut.
Now it's guaranteed the need of color management and calibration devices especially if you don't want your eyes melting from viewing this level of saturation for extended periods of time.
I wonder what it will be like ten years from now. I'll bet we'll be having to wear special sunglasses to view the newer wider gamut displays then.
| |
|
One curious thing about viewing web images in various Browsers on a wide gamut monitor is that the only Browser that shows images correctly (even those that were posted complete with embedded sRGB profiles) is the ancient Internet Explorer v.5.2.3 with ColorSync enabled!
When viewed on a wide-gamut monitor, Safari, Fiefox, Opera and Camino all fail to clip the reds in images to the expected sRGB gamut.
When viewed on a wide-gamut monitor, Safari, Fiefox, Opera and Camino all fail to clip the reds in images to the expected sRGB gamut.
| |
|
> with embedded sRGB profiles...When viewed on a wide-gamut monitor, Safari...
fail to clip the reds in images to the expected sRGB gamut.
Safari doesn't 'clip' tagged JPEG images it CONVERTS them, and Safari should be displaying tagged JPEG color exactly as Photoshop (the only difference being Safari is using ColorSync and Photoshop Adobe ACE).
Your post reads like your Safari is not honoring embedded profiles in JPEG images.
How is that possible?
fail to clip the reds in images to the expected sRGB gamut.
Safari doesn't 'clip' tagged JPEG images it CONVERTS them, and Safari should be displaying tagged JPEG color exactly as Photoshop (the only difference being Safari is using ColorSync and Photoshop Adobe ACE).
Your post reads like your Safari is not honoring embedded profiles in JPEG images.
How is that possible?
| |
|
OSX 10.4.11/Safari 3.1.2 when viewed on a calibrated wide-gamut NEC 2690 WUXi definitely displays sRGB-embedded JPEGs with slightly raised levels of red saturation when compared with the same image viewed directly in Photoshop on the same monitor.
Internet Explorer is the only Browser that I have that does not exhibit this phenomenon.
It is of no great significance for most images but changes in skin-tones to a more rosy hue than they intended could be a problem for some photographers if their clients are using wide-gamut monitors.
Screen-shot directly from Photoshop:
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zjaf1HnnEeNxBgMDi WcOelGUNQkA20>
Screen shot of the same JPEG when uploaded to a remote web site and then viewed in Safari:
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1LE5rkuTE8NnUJWs79 K77kVAaQP2nR0>
[Both images are now coming to you via the web but if you have a wide-gamut monitor you should still be able to see the difference in rendering.]
Internet Explorer is the only Browser that I have that does not exhibit this phenomenon.
It is of no great significance for most images but changes in skin-tones to a more rosy hue than they intended could be a problem for some photographers if their clients are using wide-gamut monitors.
Screen-shot directly from Photoshop:
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zjaf1HnnEeNxBgMDi WcOelGUNQkA20>
Screen shot of the same JPEG when uploaded to a remote web site and then viewed in Safari:
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1LE5rkuTE8NnUJWs79 K77kVAaQP2nR0>
[Both images are now coming to you via the web but if you have a wide-gamut monitor you should still be able to see the difference in rendering.]
| |
|
Assign sRGB to the bright one and it looks like the dull one.
The difference here is what I've been referring to as an extreme saturation boost (especially in the reds) and it represents the difference between sRGB and your wide-gamut monitor profile.
If you dragged a tagged sRGB .jpg version of this file into an open Safari window, and opened an exact copy of the tagged sRGB .jpg version of this file in Photoshop -- and Edit> Assign Profile: sRGB (to be sure you remained in sRGB) -- you should see virtually no difference between the Safari image and the Photoshop image.
If you do see anything more than the slightest difference, something is not working correctly there (or I have the theory wrong)...
The difference here is what I've been referring to as an extreme saturation boost (especially in the reds) and it represents the difference between sRGB and your wide-gamut monitor profile.
If you dragged a tagged sRGB .jpg version of this file into an open Safari window, and opened an exact copy of the tagged sRGB .jpg version of this file in Photoshop -- and Edit> Assign Profile: sRGB (to be sure you remained in sRGB) -- you should see virtually no difference between the Safari image and the Photoshop image.
If you do see anything more than the slightest difference, something is not working correctly there (or I have the theory wrong)...
| |
|
This screen shot of my NEC calibration software may help you to see what is happening:
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1I2yLnhTzBWTW7ak5Y yumi395ciB>
The colored spectrum represents the gamut of the NEC Display;
the yellow triangle outlines the Adobe RGB gamut; and
the cyan triangle outlines the sRGB gamut.
This monitor seemingly allows more of the reds that should be contained in an sRGB image in a supposedly color managed browser to over-flow their bounds and display "out of gamut".
< http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1I2yLnhTzBWTW7ak5Y yumi395ciB>
The colored spectrum represents the gamut of the NEC Display;
the yellow triangle outlines the Adobe RGB gamut; and
the cyan triangle outlines the sRGB gamut.
This monitor seemingly allows more of the reds that should be contained in an sRGB image in a supposedly color managed browser to over-flow their bounds and display "out of gamut".
| |
|
Yes, that's the problem we beat to death in other threads here.
ColorSync is Assigning/Assuming/Applying your wide-gamut monitor profile to untagged sRGB on the internet.
Hence, it is the same in Photoshop if we 1) open an sRGB file (or Convert it to sRGB), flatten it, and 2) Edit> Assign Profile: Adobe RGB (or your wide-gamut monitor).
This is exactly the intense saturation difference your two pictures illustrate.
What is the problem?
ColorSync is Assigning/Assuming/Applying your wide-gamut monitor profile to untagged sRGB on the internet.
Hence, it is the same in Photoshop if we 1) open an sRGB file (or Convert it to sRGB), flatten it, and 2) Edit> Assign Profile: Adobe RGB (or your wide-gamut monitor).
This is exactly the intense saturation difference your two pictures illustrate.
What is the problem?
| |
|
What is the problem?
Untagged files.
Untagged files.
| |
|
ya, but I read where she is seeing the problem on tagged files in Safari
| |
|
The difference is very slight between Photoshop set with a working space of sRGB if you drag and drop the same sRGB image onto Safari (but there is still a slight difference).
However, when I uploaded the same image (with its embedded sRGB profile still intact) to a web server and then link to that url in Safari, I saw the difference as shown in my earlier post.
Then I tried something else!
The original upload was part of a Flash-powered Gallery. I then uploaded the same file to the same web site server as a stand-alone JPEG. And Safari now opens the self-same file without the red shift>
So the problem may not lie with the browsers or the wide gamut monitors but with using Flash-powered Galleries?
Is this an Adobe bug in that their Flash software is ignoring embedded profiles (or is blocking the data from reaching the browsers) and has nothing to do with color management in the Browsers?
However, when I uploaded the same image (with its embedded sRGB profile still intact) to a web server and then link to that url in Safari, I saw the difference as shown in my earlier post.
Then I tried something else!
The original upload was part of a Flash-powered Gallery. I then uploaded the same file to the same web site server as a stand-alone JPEG. And Safari now opens the self-same file without the red shift>
So the problem may not lie with the browsers or the wide gamut monitors but with using Flash-powered Galleries?
Is this an Adobe bug in that their Flash software is ignoring embedded profiles (or is blocking the data from reaching the browsers) and has nothing to do with color management in the Browsers?
| |
|
Flash is not color managed. I've seen hints that it will be in the near future.
| |
|
So I have just discovered
and the use of Flash prevents Browsers from displaying images correctly!
The only advice I can give is NOT to use Lightroom or Bridge to create Galleries but to create Flash-free sites in plain old HTML.
:(
The only advice I can give is NOT to use Lightroom or Bridge to create Galleries but to create Flash-free sites in plain old HTML.
:(
| |
|
Gary,
FireFox 3 BECAUSE you can set it up to Assume-Assign-Apply sRGB to untagged
web color
Is that a separate setting from the Boolean value to enable gfx color management in Firefox 3?
FireFox 3 BECAUSE you can set it up to Assume-Assign-Apply sRGB to untagged
web color
Is that a separate setting from the Boolean value to enable gfx color management in Firefox 3?
| |
|
why make this all too confusing again
untagged sRGB will ALWAYS show a huge color saturation boost when viewed on a Mac through those so-called high-gamut monitors
tagged sRGB will ALWAYS show a huge color saturation boost when viewed in unmanaged apps on a Mac through those so-called high-gamut monitors
FireFox 3 (with color management enabled) is the only Mac browser option right now for these wide-gamut panels BECAUSE you can set it up to Assume-Assign-Apply sRGB to untagged web color
untagged sRGB will ALWAYS show a huge color saturation boost when viewed on a Mac through those so-called high-gamut monitors
tagged sRGB will ALWAYS show a huge color saturation boost when viewed in unmanaged apps on a Mac through those so-called high-gamut monitors
FireFox 3 (with color management enabled) is the only Mac browser option right now for these wide-gamut panels BECAUSE you can set it up to Assume-Assign-Apply sRGB to untagged web color
| |
|
The problem doesn't arise providing that you always embed your sRGB profiles before uploading JPEGs to a web site
and providing you do NOT upload files to the internet using Flash-based Galleries.
Flash seems to be the villain of the piece and the problem is accentuated on the wide-gamut monitors.
and providing you do NOT upload files to the internet using Flash-based Galleries.
Flash seems to be the villain of the piece and the problem is accentuated on the wide-gamut monitors.
| |
|
Ramõn, I use Safari, but a user emailed me, which seems FireFox made these WG monitors usable on the internet (I would still get a headache trying to build web sites with them):
> I have calibrated my Dell 2408WFP (a wide gamut panel) to 6500 deg,
2.2 gamma using Eye1 and turned on color management in Firefox 3.0RC1.
The (above) tagged-untagged sRGB rollover on your tutorial webpage shows
absolutely zero shift.
> In addition to enabling color management in Firefox, you also should
enter the name of the monitor profile - it's next to the enable/disable
parameter in the parameters list that you get to by entering about:config
in the address field.
+++++++
Ann,
Of course color based on sRGB in Flash will over saturate on your Mac monitor like we've been discussing Flash is blind to embedded profiles...
> I have calibrated my Dell 2408WFP (a wide gamut panel) to 6500 deg,
2.2 gamma using Eye1 and turned on color management in Firefox 3.0RC1.
The (above) tagged-untagged sRGB rollover on your tutorial webpage shows
absolutely zero shift.
> In addition to enabling color management in Firefox, you also should
enter the name of the monitor profile - it's next to the enable/disable
parameter in the parameters list that you get to by entering about:config
in the address field.
+++++++
Ann,
Of course color based on sRGB in Flash will over saturate on your Mac monitor like we've been discussing Flash is blind to embedded profiles...
| |
|
Thanks gang. I'm thinking I should just hold off on this for a bit. I appreciate the info.
Doug
Doug
| |
|
Of course color based on sRGB in Flash will over saturate on your Mac
monitor like we've been discussing Flash is blind to embedded profiles...
That is exactly what I have discovered!
The trouble is that Flash BLOCKS even color-managed Browsers from being able to display sRGB files correctly if are incorporated in a web site or Gallery that is powered by Flash.
That means that anyone who is concerned about potential clients, who may have a wide-gamut Display, viewing their images correctly should NOT use the Adobe "Web Photo Galleries" that are part of Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom.
You will NOT see the color shift on a wide gamut monitor if an sRGB image is uploaded directly to a web site, or is incorporated in an HTML web page in the normal way, provided that it is not part of a Flash-based site.
What I am trying to explain is that the problem is CAUSED by the use of Flash and becomes horribly apparent if your viewer is using a wide-gamut Display.
(I would still get a headache trying to build web sites with them):
Instead of staying away from using a wide-gamut Display if you are creating content for the Web, you should probably make a point of using one so that you are fully aware of what some of your Clients could be experiencing when they view your images on their monitors!
8/
Incidentally, I don't believe that you need to "enable" color management in Firefox 3.0.1 for Mac I understand that it is fully operational as installed.
monitor like we've been discussing Flash is blind to embedded profiles...
That is exactly what I have discovered!
The trouble is that Flash BLOCKS even color-managed Browsers from being able to display sRGB files correctly if are incorporated in a web site or Gallery that is powered by Flash.
That means that anyone who is concerned about potential clients, who may have a wide-gamut Display, viewing their images correctly should NOT use the Adobe "Web Photo Galleries" that are part of Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom.
You will NOT see the color shift on a wide gamut monitor if an sRGB image is uploaded directly to a web site, or is incorporated in an HTML web page in the normal way, provided that it is not part of a Flash-based site.
What I am trying to explain is that the problem is CAUSED by the use of Flash and becomes horribly apparent if your viewer is using a wide-gamut Display.
(I would still get a headache trying to build web sites with them):
Instead of staying away from using a wide-gamut Display if you are creating content for the Web, you should probably make a point of using one so that you are fully aware of what some of your Clients could be experiencing when they view your images on their monitors!
8/
Incidentally, I don't believe that you need to "enable" color management in Firefox 3.0.1 for Mac I understand that it is fully operational as installed.
| |
|
GB,
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure there was no additional setting to tend to in Firefox. There isn't.
OK, thanks. Just wanted to make sure there was no additional setting to tend to in Firefox. There isn't.
| |
|
Ann,
Incidentally, I don't believe that you need to "enable" color management
in Firefox 3.0.1 for Mac I understand that it is fully operational as
installed.
If that is true, it would apply only to version 3.1 and only on the Mac. I'm not at my Mac, but I definitely had to enable color management in Firefox 3.0 on said Mac, as well as on Windows.
Once you have done it, each update of Firefox picks up on that setting from the previous one.
(Just to clarify for the benefit of others.)
You set that in about:config, as per this post:
Ramón G Castañeda, "Nice guide to Firefox 3" #84, 18 Jun 2008 4:03 pm </webx?14@@.59b58c62/83>
Incidentally, I don't believe that you need to "enable" color management
in Firefox 3.0.1 for Mac I understand that it is fully operational as
installed.
If that is true, it would apply only to version 3.1 and only on the Mac. I'm not at my Mac, but I definitely had to enable color management in Firefox 3.0 on said Mac, as well as on Windows.
Once you have done it, each update of Firefox picks up on that setting from the previous one.
(Just to clarify for the benefit of others.)
You set that in about:config, as per this post:
Ramón G Castañeda, "Nice guide to Firefox 3" #84, 18 Jun 2008 4:03 pm </webx?14@@.59b58c62/83>
| |
|
There is no "Config" in the "about
" panel in the latest version of FF for Mac so I reckon that CM is now on by default.
CM is working anyway!
CM is working anyway!
| |
|
> Instead of staying away from using a wide-gamut Display if you are creating
content for the Web, you should probably make a point of using one so
that you are fully aware of what some of your Clients could be experiencing
when they view your images on their monitors!
I had a WG monitor, so I know first hand how Macs are displaying my untagged sRGB on these WG monitors -- with an intense saturation boost, especially in the reds.
I know Windows Vista PCs are seeing my untagged sRGB correctly on these WG monitors.
BECAUSE there is no possible way I can anticipate if Macs are profiled to 1.8 default "Mac gamma," of if they are using these WG monitors -- I have pretty much written off trying to target Apple's approach at untagged color on the internet because it is an impossible target to hit:
1.8 gamma, 2.2 gamma, wide-gamut, unique device-dependent monitor default
space
I think most professionals if they understand the issues calibrate/profile their reference monitor to 2.2 d65/6500, and Convert to sRGB before stripping the profile and publishing their color on the internet (with very few exceptions).
content for the Web, you should probably make a point of using one so
that you are fully aware of what some of your Clients could be experiencing
when they view your images on their monitors!
I had a WG monitor, so I know first hand how Macs are displaying my untagged sRGB on these WG monitors -- with an intense saturation boost, especially in the reds.
I know Windows Vista PCs are seeing my untagged sRGB correctly on these WG monitors.
BECAUSE there is no possible way I can anticipate if Macs are profiled to 1.8 default "Mac gamma," of if they are using these WG monitors -- I have pretty much written off trying to target Apple's approach at untagged color on the internet because it is an impossible target to hit:
1.8 gamma, 2.2 gamma, wide-gamut, unique device-dependent monitor default
space
I think most professionals if they understand the issues calibrate/profile their reference monitor to 2.2 d65/6500, and Convert to sRGB before stripping the profile and publishing their color on the internet (with very few exceptions).
| |
|
Rather, you type about:config into the address bar, filter for gfx.color_management,
and set the value to "true".
That used to work on the previous version but it is no longer available in v.3.0.1 (Mac).
If you try to type it in you go directly to " www.about.config"
and get this message:
Address Not Found Firefox can't find the server at www.about.config.
and set the value to "true".
That used to work on the previous version but it is no longer available in v.3.0.1 (Mac).
If you try to type it in you go directly to " www.about.config"
and get this message:
Address Not Found Firefox can't find the server at www.about.config.
| |
|
I think most professionals if they understand the issues calibrate/profile
their reference monitor to 2.2 d65/6500, and Convert to sRGB before stripping
the profile and publishing their color on the internet (with very few
exceptions).
Which is basically what I do EXCEPT I am now leaving my sRGB tagged and in the metadata along with my copyright info,.
The resulting files do display properly on calibrated monitors (including my wide gamut one) but I actually see precious few of those on other people's computers (mainly non-professionals' ones admittedly).
The only color problem that I am seeing is with photographs which have been encapsulated into those Adobe Web Galleries (which are driven by Flash) and there seems to have been no mention on the web about this problem.
Or if there has been, I must have missed it.
their reference monitor to 2.2 d65/6500, and Convert to sRGB before stripping
the profile and publishing their color on the internet (with very few
exceptions).
Which is basically what I do EXCEPT I am now leaving my sRGB tagged and in the metadata along with my copyright info,.
The resulting files do display properly on calibrated monitors (including my wide gamut one) but I actually see precious few of those on other people's computers (mainly non-professionals' ones admittedly).
The only color problem that I am seeing is with photographs which have been encapsulated into those Adobe Web Galleries (which are driven by Flash) and there seems to have been no mention on the web about this problem.
Or if there has been, I must have missed it.
| |
|
There is no "Config" in the "about
" panel in the latest version of FF
for Mac so I reckon that CM is now on by default.
that's not the way it works. It is not on by default. You do not go to "about Firefox."
Rather, you type
about:config
into the address bar, filter for gfx.color_management, and set the value to "true".
It is not clear to me whether it is necessary to set the path to you monitor profile or not, but I have mine set.
for Mac so I reckon that CM is now on by default.
that's not the way it works. It is not on by default. You do not go to "about Firefox."
Rather, you type
about:config
into the address bar, filter for gfx.color_management, and set the value to "true".
It is not clear to me whether it is necessary to set the path to you monitor profile or not, but I have mine set.
| |
|
> I am now leaving my sRGB tagged and in the metadata along with my copyright
info
That's fine, you actually need to using a Mac and high-gamut default monitor space.
Tho the statistics are working agin ya...
info
That's fine, you actually need to using a Mac and high-gamut default monitor space.
Tho the statistics are working agin ya...
| |
|
Ann,
Something's wrong with your Firefox copy. Create a brand new window then type about:config. It has to work. It's the only way to access hundreds of otherwise hidden options.
Something's wrong with your Firefox copy. Create a brand new window then type about:config. It has to work. It's the only way to access hundreds of otherwise hidden options.
| |
|
it's
about:config
not
about.config
the separator is a colon, not a dot.
about:config
not
about.config
the separator is a colon, not a dot.
| |
|
Ramón:
I had already tried that several times (and emptied the cache too) and "about.config" no longer works!
I had already tried that several times (and emptied the cache too) and "about.config" no longer works!
| |
|
Thank you Jean!
I had tried the colon too (got the clue from how Mozilla does things!) but no joy with Firefox.
Just tried the Colon again (after empying the cache yet again) and BINGO!
I find that it reads:
gfx.color_management.enabled
shows: "user set /boolean /true"
so FF must have picked up my previous settings.
As for:
gfx.color_management.display_profile;
it says: "Default/String" and I don't imagine that i should change that?
I had tried the colon too (got the clue from how Mozilla does things!) but no joy with Firefox.
Just tried the Colon again (after empying the cache yet again) and BINGO!
I find that it reads:
gfx.color_management.enabled
shows: "user set /boolean /true"
so FF must have picked up my previous settings.
As for:
gfx.color_management.display_profile;
it says: "Default/String" and I don't imagine that i should change that?
| |
|
Got it!!!
:)
:)
| |
|
What Jean says:
The separator is a colon, not a dot:
about : config (minus the spaces)
The separator is a colon, not a dot:
about : config (minus the spaces)
| |
|
That was my thinking too!
Incidentally typing "opera:config" does something similar in Opera.
Incidentally typing "opera:config" does something similar in Opera.
| |
|
Ann, I doubt you actually have to set the path to the profile. I did, because the instructions I read said to do so, but now I have to update it when I do a new profile.
If the default setting works, I'd leave it.
If the default setting works, I'd leave it.
| |
|
FireFox 3.1 users are complaining that it will not load my employer's Win Server 2003 web site. My son reported lots of crashing and no loads with 3.0 and an MBP running Leopard 10.5.4, so I haven't even bothered with it, I'll wait til about 3.5.
I use 2.0.0.16 for work, because Safari can't be trusted. It has either a time (memory eater) or number limit beyond which it will not load anything. You can empty cache, clear history, and clean up your RAM with iFree, it just won't chug anymore. My instinct is that it gradually grabs control of RAM and when it bumps into the OS it quits. This probably wouldn't affect anyone with plenty of RAM, but my g4 only holds 1.5 gig.
I use 2.0.0.16 for work, because Safari can't be trusted. It has either a time (memory eater) or number limit beyond which it will not load anything. You can empty cache, clear history, and clean up your RAM with iFree, it just won't chug anymore. My instinct is that it gradually grabs control of RAM and when it bumps into the OS it quits. This probably wouldn't affect anyone with plenty of RAM, but my g4 only holds 1.5 gig.
| |
|
g ballard said:
"I know Windows Vista PCs are seeing my untagged sRGB correctly on these WG monitors."
I operate in various capacities on both platforms and asked the same question to multiple forums. So, back to my original question.
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have any issues using a wide gamut monitor on my Vista system? Would that include non imaging applications such as Word or Internet Explorer?
Thanks for the advice.
Doug
"I know Windows Vista PCs are seeing my untagged sRGB correctly on these WG monitors."
I operate in various capacities on both platforms and asked the same question to multiple forums. So, back to my original question.
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have any issues using a wide gamut monitor on my Vista system? Would that include non imaging applications such as Word or Internet Explorer?
Thanks for the advice.
Doug
| |
|
The only "issue" is that you will be capable of seeing more on your wide-gamut display than those of your colleagues who are using monitors of lesser quality.
But at least you would be able to be alert to what those people who do also have wide-gamut monitors are experiencing when viewing non-tagged, or Flash-impeded, JPEGs on the Web.
Because Word is not color managed, YOU will see the over-red images in Word on your desktop but your co-workers (with standard-gamut screens) will not.
But are you using Word for critical color work anyway?
Basically, this decision must depend on whether you are primarily involved with doing color-critical work in color-managed professional applications (like Photoshop); or dealing with inter-office communications using tools like MS Office.
Perhaps you need to have both kinds of display?
But at least you would be able to be alert to what those people who do also have wide-gamut monitors are experiencing when viewing non-tagged, or Flash-impeded, JPEGs on the Web.
Because Word is not color managed, YOU will see the over-red images in Word on your desktop but your co-workers (with standard-gamut screens) will not.
But are you using Word for critical color work anyway?
Basically, this decision must depend on whether you are primarily involved with doing color-critical work in color-managed professional applications (like Photoshop); or dealing with inter-office communications using tools like MS Office.
Perhaps you need to have both kinds of display?
| Pages (2): [1 2 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | I have Adobe Fireworks CS4 Mac full retail for sale |
| Next Topic: | WHERE IS PHOTOSHOP CS4 HELP??? |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions