Disparity between calibrated display and clients' displays

[SCoombs]

I can neve figure out which forum to post about stuff like this in, so if there is a better option I apologize.

The long story short is that I do school stuff - a lot of sports teams, graduations, etc. - some church stuff, etc. and really most of this time I've been fighting what feels like a losing battle to try to get my calibration/colors right. Much of this is printed by a lab, some of it is just for digital use.

I have an Asus ProArt calibrated with a Calibrite DisplayPro HL. With the current calibration, with the monitor in sRGB mode, which locks the brightness to 100 nits, the monitor matches just about perfectly to prints coming from the lab - or at least its close enough that I certainly can't tell the difference.

However, when viewing photos on other devices, they look much more saturated, sometimes to the point of looking terrible. This is especially true with cell phones/tablets, which makes sense as we know these are generally tuned to be especially vivid, but it's also true for other display devices like "normal" monitors, etc.

Just as once example, here is a photo I was just messing around with today to look at the calibration. This is the version as edited normally and if I were to print this I would expect it would look pretty much exactly like this.



If I take that same photo and look at it on my Samsung phone, it looks different. I have edited another copy of the file so that on my monitor it looks as close as I could get to the way it looks on the phone:







It's a substantial difference. To achieve this I had to increase the saturation by 25 and the white balance by around 800k. It's not perfect and it may be a touch too strong, maybe the blacks are a little too dark etc., but I'm just trying to come close here.

The point is that while I do much prefer the "phonified" version that of course the problem is that if I edit it originally in that more saturated way, it looks awful when viewed on the phone or on another "normal" monitor. This version makes her look like an oompa loompa on the phone!

Obviously there are going to be some differences between how things will look on different displays in the wild, but how ought I handle this sort of difference?
Again, my monitor has been calibrated and is matching up well with what is professionally printed, yet it is yielding photos which at times - it depends on the overall colors and is worse in some cases (like this example) than others - look downright awful when viewed digitally.

Yet when clients view proofs, they're seeing it on a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone 90% of the time. When I post to social media or put things in my portfolio on my website, the same is true of course. I sell digital downloads along with prints on volume-based ordering I use for school sports orders and such and this means that it's the same file people will either download or order prints of.

Frankly I feel like there must be something wrong here, because I am finding it to be a lot more convoluted and complicated to try to simply look at the photo I am editing and be able to trust that it is at least generally what other people are going to see than I would think it is supposed to be. I have specifically wondered if the monitor is just not displaying with enough saturation, but of course it does match up well with what is printed, so the saturation is obviously correct as far as that goes, and it is displaying as it was calibrated to, and anyways, it also does not permit modifying the saturation or other such characteristics when in sRGB or other modes which are designed for color fidelity.

What suggestions can you offer?

 

[Cariboou]

Hi,

I think the customer will not be there will never check what photographers, the customer must only accept the work done, if he refuses the job he is only that you have stumbled upon a customer who does not want to pay you! Then for me all pics are OK!

 

[CBR1100XX]

Since a lot of shots from my gigs are put on social media/used for mobile advertising by my clients I'll do a quick run through on a phone before sending it. Sometimes that'll cause a slight tweak from the ideal setting for a calibrated monitor but at the end of the day the medium the client intends to use is something that should be considered.

It's another step which can be annoying especially on a time crunch but it's how they will be viewed by those seeing the work, as well as myself as I'll be credited.

Also be careful with wider gamut color spaces with images for mobile devices. This will likely change in the coming years but for now a lot of images are converted to sRGB and as you've seen that can cause issues. A friend of mine has had some off shifts on his skin tones due to this as well. So if the primary target device is mobile checking is important but if you have issues exporting in sRGB is a good move to see if it'll fix it.

 

[SCoombs]

Since a lot of shots from my gigs are put on social media/used for mobile advertising by my clients I'll do a quick run through on a phone before sending it. Sometimes that'll cause a slight tweak from the ideal setting for a calibrated monitor but at the end of the day the medium the client intends to use is something that I think should be considered.

I have usually done the same for the same reason, but usually I've done a handful of samples to look over. I might have hundreds of photos at once and looking at every one on the phone would be a tall order.

But the biggest issue is that we're not talking about "slight tweaks" here. Like I said, the difference between my calibrated monitor and phone here is working out to be something like +25 saturation and an increase of 800 K in white balance. That's not a tweak - it's almost a different photo.

 

[CBR1100XX]

Since a lot of shots from my gigs are put on social media/used for mobile advertising by my clients I'll do a quick run through on a phone before sending it. Sometimes that'll cause a slight tweak from the ideal setting for a calibrated monitor but at the end of the day the medium the client intends to use is something that I think should be considered.

I have usually done the same for the same reason, but usually I've done a handful of samples to look over. I might have hundreds of photos at once and looking at every one on the phone would be a tall order.

But the biggest issue is that we're not talking about "slight tweaks" here. Like I said, the difference between my calibrated monitor and phone here is working out to be something like +25 saturation and an increase of 800 K in white balance. That's not a tweak - it's almost a different photo.

Are you talking about a Samsung on the default vivid display setting? That's just going to be hard to deal with anyways because it really amps up the color and contrast.

So if you're using that as your mobile test I wouldn't try to edit for it. That's because iPhones into a lesser extent Pixels are going to be a lot closer to your display. They still could be more contrasty and also show up really dim details more due to the OLED display but it's not going to be that vivid Samsung look. And if you edit for Samsung's then it'll look wrong both on a majority of phones as well as your own display. That's the case where I would just do the slight tweak, basically enough to make it not look bad on a Samsung while not compromising the majority of displays.

So if you have a Samsung phone as your device to test with and you are on Vivid now I'd drop it to Natural and that'll give you a much better benchmark for the majority of phones. And if you want to be really thorough do that quick check on vivid and try and find that compromise between them if needed.

 

[SCoombs]

Since a lot of shots from my gigs are put on social media/used for mobile advertising by my clients I'll do a quick run through on a phone before sending it. Sometimes that'll cause a slight tweak from the ideal setting for a calibrated monitor but at the end of the day the medium the client intends to use is something that I think should be considered.

I have usually done the same for the same reason, but usually I've done a handful of samples to look over. I might have hundreds of photos at once and looking at every one on the phone would be a tall order.

But the biggest issue is that we're not talking about "slight tweaks" here. Like I said, the difference between my calibrated monitor and phone here is working out to be something like +25 saturation and an increase of 800 K in white balance. That's not a tweak - it's almost a different photo.

Are you talking about a Samsung on the default vivid display setting? That's just going to be hard to deal with anyways because it really amps up the color and contrast.

So if you're using that as your mobile test I wouldn't try to edit for it. That's because iPhones into a lesser extent Pixels are going to be a lot closer to your display. They still could be more contrasty and also show up really dim details more due to the OLED display but it's not going to be that vivid Samsung look. And if you edit for Samsung's then it'll look wrong both on a majority of phones as well as your own display. That's the case where I would just do the slight tweak, basically enough to make it not look bad on a Samsung while not compromising the majority of displays.

So if you have a Samsung phone as your device to test with and you are on Vivid now I'd drop it to Natural and that'll give you a much better benchmark for the majority of phones. And if you want to be really thorough do that quick check on vivid and try and find that compromise between them if needed.

I actually did discover that this phone has that choice between vivid and natural an hour or two before you posted this, and setting it to "Natural" gives me something that looks pretty close to the monitor - so that makes me feel a lot better about the calibration being correct or reliable because there are now four different things that line up between the factory calibration, the calibration I did, the printing, and now the phone with the natural display setting turned on.

I am still left trying to decide what to do about some of the more extreme variations that I can get with some of the skin tones between proper calibration to some of the more saturated displays people are going to be using.


- and it is skin tones where I am finding the difference is most extreme. Something about the way the Vivid setting does its thing is really especially pushing the reds in the skin tones and making them a lot more prominent.

 

[CBR1100XX]

Since a lot of shots from my gigs are put on social media/used for mobile advertising by my clients I'll do a quick run through on a phone before sending it. Sometimes that'll cause a slight tweak from the ideal setting for a calibrated monitor but at the end of the day the medium the client intends to use is something that I think should be considered.

I have usually done the same for the same reason, but usually I've done a handful of samples to look over. I might have hundreds of photos at once and looking at every one on the phone would be a tall order.

But the biggest issue is that we're not talking about "slight tweaks" here. Like I said, the difference between my calibrated monitor and phone here is working out to be something like +25 saturation and an increase of 800 K in white balance. That's not a tweak - it's almost a different photo.

Are you talking about a Samsung on the default vivid display setting? That's just going to be hard to deal with anyways because it really amps up the color and contrast.

So if you're using that as your mobile test I wouldn't try to edit for it. That's because iPhones into a lesser extent Pixels are going to be a lot closer to your display. They still could be more contrasty and also show up really dim details more due to the OLED display but it's not going to be that vivid Samsung look. And if you edit for Samsung's then it'll look wrong both on a majority of phones as well as your own display. That's the case where I would just do the slight tweak, basically enough to make it not look bad on a Samsung while not compromising the majority of displays.

So if you have a Samsung phone as your device to test with and you are on Vivid now I'd drop it to Natural and that'll give you a much better benchmark for the majority of phones. And if you want to be really thorough do that quick check on vivid and try and find that compromise between them if needed.

I actually did discover that this phone has that choice between vivid and natural an hour or two before you posted this, and setting it to "Natural" gives me something that looks pretty close to the monitor - so that makes me feel a lot better about the calibration being correct or reliable because there are now four different things that line up between the factory calibration, the calibration I did, the printing, and now the phone with the natural display setting turned on.

I am still left trying to decide what to do about some of the more extreme variations that I can get with some of the skin tones between proper calibration to some of the more saturated displays people are going to be using.

- and it is skin tones where I am finding the difference is most extreme. Something about the way the Vivid setting does its thing is really especially pushing the reds in the skin tones and making them a lot more prominent.

This is a bit harder to gauge but there's also just a level of adjusting to that hyper vivid display that goes on with the viewer. So if that's what skin tones look like in most photos it's going to come across a lot more normal to them than you having just looked at or direct comparing it to a calibrated display.

When looking into what different phones have for settings/default to I ran across some Reddit threads on vivid vs natural mode for Samsung. And a common thing was that people would initially think that when the new one looked off when they switched. But a few weeks later the display mode they used to use now looked off to them. So our brains might just adjust for it?

 

[jonby]

This is a bit harder to gauge but there's also just a level of adjusting to that hyper vivid display that goes on with the viewer. So if that's what skin tones look like in most photos it's going to come across a lot more normal to them than you having just looked at or direct comparing it to a calibrated display.

When looking into what different phones have for settings/default to I ran across some Reddit threads on vivid vs natural mode for Samsung. And a common thing was that people would initially think that when the new one looked off when they switched. But a few weeks later the display mode they used to use now looked off to them. So our brains might just adjust for it?

While not a solution, I think this is a good point. You can assume that whatever colour distortions a particular device is introducing, the user of that device will have become accustomed to seeing images with those distortions, and so will likely perceive the OP's images similarly to how the OP perceives their own images on their calibrated display.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any complete solution to this. The only suggestion I could make to the OP would be to create some alternative calibration profiles which simulate some typical device screens and switch between them during the editing process, to aid getting a 'happy medium' which will be acceptable on most viewing devices.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

I can neve figure out which forum to post about stuff like this in, so if there is a better option I apologize.

The long story short is that I do school stuff - a lot of sports teams, graduations, etc. - some church stuff, etc. and really most of this time I've been fighting what feels like a losing battle to try to get my calibration/colors right. Much of this is printed by a lab, some of it is just for digital use.

I have an Asus ProArt calibrated with a Calibrite DisplayPro HL. With the current calibration, with the monitor in sRGB mode, which locks the brightness to 100 nits, the monitor matches just about perfectly to prints coming from the lab - or at least its close enough that I certainly can't tell the difference.

However, when viewing photos on other devices, they look much more saturated, sometimes to the point of looking terrible. This is especially true with cell phones/tablets, which makes sense as we know these are generally tuned to be especially vivid, but it's also true for other display devices like "normal" monitors, etc.

Just as once example, here is a photo I was just messing around with today to look at the calibration. This is the version as edited normally and if I were to print this I would expect it would look pretty much exactly like this.



If I take that same photo and look at it on my Samsung phone, it looks different. I have edited another copy of the file so that on my monitor it looks as close as I could get to the way it looks on the phone:



It's a substantial difference. To achieve this I had to increase the saturation by 25 and the white balance by around 800k. It's not perfect and it may be a touch too strong, maybe the blacks are a little too dark etc., but I'm just trying to come close here.

The point is that while I do much prefer the "phonified" version that of course the problem is that if I edit it originally in that more saturated way, it looks awful when viewed on the phone or on another "normal" monitor. This version makes her look like an oompa loompa on the phone!

Obviously there are going to be some differences between how things will look on different displays in the wild, but how ought I handle this sort of difference?
Again, my monitor has been calibrated and is matching up well with what is professionally printed, yet it is yielding photos which at times - it depends on the overall colors and is worse in some cases (like this example) than others - look downright awful when viewed digitally.

Yet when clients view proofs, they're seeing it on a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone 90% of the time. When I post to social media or put things in my portfolio on my website, the same is true of course. I sell digital downloads along with prints on volume-based ordering I use for school sports orders and such and this means that it's the same file people will either download or order prints of.

Frankly I feel like there must be something wrong here, because I am finding it to be a lot more convoluted and complicated to try to simply look at the photo I am editing and be able to trust that it is at least generally what other people are going to see than I would think it is supposed to be. I have specifically wondered if the monitor is just not displaying with enough saturation, but of course it does match up well with what is printed, so the saturation is obviously correct as far as that goes, and it is displaying as it was calibrated to, and anyways, it also does not permit modifying the saturation or other such characteristics when in sRGB or other modes which are designed for color fidelity.

What suggestions can you offer?

Don't change a thing. Your top image looks exactly right on my calibrated NEC PA322. There is no point in aiming at a "consumer-level" target, because that target moves all over the place. Some displays are too bright, too dark, too warm, too cool, and/or look lousy when viewed from an angle. Plus, folks are looking at them under daylight, tungsten lights, and crummy green fluorescent lights, not to mention the new color-changing lights with a CRI rating of "abysmal". You cannot correct for all of them, and anything you do to make your images look better on some will make them look worse on others.

If folks want to view your images on lousy displays, 1) there's nothing you can do about it, and 2) it's their problem. All you can do is suggest to folks that they view your images on Apple devices, which generally have good and consistent color. Even my 2017 iPad Pro is a close enough color match to my much newer and pricier 2022 14" MacBook Pro that I can use the former as a second display alongside the latter.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[dccberry]

Don't change a thing. Your top image looks exactly right on my calibrated NEC PA322. There is no point in aiming at a "consumer-level" target, because that target moves all over the place. Some displays are too bright, too dark, too warm, too cool, and/or look lousy when viewed from an angle. Plus, folks are looking at them under daylight, tungsten lights, and crummy green fluorescent lights, not to mention the new color-changing lights with a CRI rating of "abysmal". You cannot correct for all of them, and anything you do to make your images look better on some will make them look worse on others.

If folks want to view your images on lousy displays, 1) there's nothing you can do about it, and 2) it's their problem. All you can do is suggest to folks that they view your images on Apple devices, which generally have good and consistent color. Even my 2017 iPad Pro is a close enough color match to my much newer and pricier 2022 14" MacBook Pro that I can use the former as a second display alongside the latter.

Agreed to this point of view. I do lots of copywork of art for our clients, and my primary goal is to get a good print from the files that I create. They will never look better than on a calibrated display, and what they look like on someone's un-calibrated laptop or phone isn't something I can worry about. I do convert files to sRGB color space when sending to a client for viewing, but other than that, there are too many variables to please everyone.

 

[steveashd]

This is almost certainly nothing to do with your display and more about the settings you are using in your editor. Assuming that is photoshop then you will need to look at colour profiles and proof colours.

To check if this is about your display or your software, open an image in a web browser and compare how this compares to Photoshop and your other devices.

The image in photoshop is fully colour managed but in a browser the embedded colour profile will be largely ignored (if your export hasn’t already stripped it out in the name of file compression).

If you manage your colour profile and profile conversion carefully you shouldn’t see a huge difference.

 

[Victor Engel]

I have a couple things to say about this. First, if your intent is to produce accurate colors, go with the calibrated monitor that matches the print. Other monitors that are not calibrated will vary from the calibrated setting either one way or the other. The calibrated one is the best compromise for non-calibrated monitors.

Secondly, people viewing images on non-calibrated monitors are used to seeing images on those monitors, so they've likely become accustomed to the look. If they're happy with the way other photos look on their monitor, they'll likely be happy with yours. If they really cared a lot about accurate color, they'd probably go to the effort of calibrating their display, if it were possible.

Finally, you're calibrated to a standard print output. If they question the accuracy of the colors, show them a print from the same file.

.. or output in black and white - then you just need to worry about greys.

 

[A74Me]

Its why i sell prints, the media file is just a gift.

 

[ampimagedotcom]

What suggestions can you offer?

Both your images look the same to me, on both my Apple Cinema Display screen and on my iPhone 11 Pro Max, i.e. the second image looks a lot warmer than the first image.

And if I drag the second image onto the first image and reduce the 'Opacity' of that layer to around 35%, I like want I see - so that would be my suggestion

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

This is almost certainly nothing to do with your display and more about the settings you are using in your editor. Assuming that is photoshop then you will need to look at colour profiles and proof colours.

To check if this is about your display or your software, open an image in a web browser and compare how this compares to Photoshop and your other devices.

The image in photoshop is fully colour managed but in a browser the embedded colour profile will be largely ignored

Are you sure this is still true? I was under the impression that the Big 3 browsers became profile-aware several years ago.

(if your export hasn’t already stripped it out in the name of file compression).

If you manage your colour profile and profile conversion carefully you shouldn’t see a huge difference.

 

[Victor Engel]

Browser color management test

The International Color Consortium....promoting and encouraging the standardization of an open color management system

www.color.org

On Brave I see this:



In Safari I see this:



Here's another checker:

ChromaChecker - Web Browser Tester

chromachecker.com

That one displays the same in both the above-mentioned browsers. These two tests are testing two different things.

There are lots of others. Pick your favorite.

--
Victor Engel

 

[SCoombs]

https://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter

On Brave I see this:



In Safari I see this:



Here's another checker:
https://chromachecker.com/page/en/show/web_browser_tester
That one displays the same in both the above-mentioned browsers. These two tests are testing two different things.

There are lots of others. Pick your favorite.

It may depend on the kind of profile. I know there are a couple of different kinds the difference between I don't fully understand at this time. What I can say is that when using the profile created by Calibrite's software - on the rare occasion I can actually get it to finish the whole process - I ONLY get the profile affecting the display when working in Adobe software. Browsers and the rest of windows do not respect the profile. I actually downloaded one of the old Windows Photo viewers (It may be the Windows 7 version but I am not sure) because this oddly *does* respect that profile while the more modern versions don't.

If I use the kind of profile created by DisplayCAL, my browsers, Windows, and everything else do respect it.

 

[Shabang]

I can neve figure out which forum to post about stuff like this in, so if there is a better option I apologize.

The long story short is that I do school stuff - a lot of sports teams, graduations, etc. - some church stuff, etc. and really most of this time I've been fighting what feels like a losing battle to try to get my calibration/colors right. Much of this is printed by a lab, some of it is just for digital use.

I have an Asus ProArt calibrated with a Calibrite DisplayPro HL. With the current calibration, with the monitor in sRGB mode, which locks the brightness to 100 nits, the monitor matches just about perfectly to prints coming from the lab - or at least its close enough that I certainly can't tell the difference.

However, when viewing photos on other devices, they look much more saturated, sometimes to the point of looking terrible. This is especially true with cell phones/tablets, which makes sense as we know these are generally tuned to be especially vivid, but it's also true for other display devices like "normal" monitors, etc.

Just as once example, here is a photo I was just messing around with today to look at the calibration. This is the version as edited normally and if I were to print this I would expect it would look pretty much exactly like this.



If I take that same photo and look at it on my Samsung phone, it looks different. I have edited another copy of the file so that on my monitor it looks as close as I could get to the way it looks on the phone:



It's a substantial difference. To achieve this I had to increase the saturation by 25 and the white balance by around 800k. It's not perfect and it may be a touch too strong, maybe the blacks are a little too dark etc., but I'm just trying to come close here.

The point is that while I do much prefer the "phonified" version that of course the problem is that if I edit it originally in that more saturated way, it looks awful when viewed on the phone or on another "normal" monitor. This version makes her look like an oompa loompa on the phone!

Obviously there are going to be some differences between how things will look on different displays in the wild, but how ought I handle this sort of difference?
Again, my monitor has been calibrated and is matching up well with what is professionally printed, yet it is yielding photos which at times - it depends on the overall colors and is worse in some cases (like this example) than others - look downright awful when viewed digitally.

Yet when clients view proofs, they're seeing it on a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone 90% of the time. When I post to social media or put things in my portfolio on my website, the same is true of course. I sell digital downloads along with prints on volume-based ordering I use for school sports orders and such and this means that it's the same file people will either download or order prints of.

Frankly I feel like there must be something wrong here, because I am finding it to be a lot more convoluted and complicated to try to simply look at the photo I am editing and be able to trust that it is at least generally what other people are going to see than I would think it is supposed to be. I have specifically wondered if the monitor is just not displaying with enough saturation, but of course it does match up well with what is printed, so the saturation is obviously correct as far as that goes, and it is displaying as it was calibrated to, and anyways, it also does not permit modifying the saturation or other such characteristics when in sRGB or other modes which are designed for color fidelity.

What suggestions can you offer?

We have gone through that with our clients before. We simply tell them that their computer is off, and that we do our work with calibrated equipment. We refer them to a link for a monitor calibration tool. When they see the $300 price for the calibrator they usually don't ask any more questions. If they say it is too dark we tell them to turn up their brightness and vice versa.

--
Owner of an extremely well established and very highly successful photography enterprise, est. 2021, and other multi level marketing business. Firm believer in Free Enterprise and being FREE from a 9-5 job. Stay positive and become a winner.

 

[Victor Engel]

I can neve figure out which forum to post about stuff like this in, so if there is a better option I apologize.

The long story short is that I do school stuff - a lot of sports teams, graduations, etc. - some church stuff, etc. and really most of this time I've been fighting what feels like a losing battle to try to get my calibration/colors right. Much of this is printed by a lab, some of it is just for digital use.

I have an Asus ProArt calibrated with a Calibrite DisplayPro HL. With the current calibration, with the monitor in sRGB mode, which locks the brightness to 100 nits, the monitor matches just about perfectly to prints coming from the lab - or at least its close enough that I certainly can't tell the difference.

However, when viewing photos on other devices, they look much more saturated, sometimes to the point of looking terrible. This is especially true with cell phones/tablets, which makes sense as we know these are generally tuned to be especially vivid, but it's also true for other display devices like "normal" monitors, etc.

Just as once example, here is a photo I was just messing around with today to look at the calibration. This is the version as edited normally and if I were to print this I would expect it would look pretty much exactly like this.



If I take that same photo and look at it on my Samsung phone, it looks different. I have edited another copy of the file so that on my monitor it looks as close as I could get to the way it looks on the phone:



It's a substantial difference. To achieve this I had to increase the saturation by 25 and the white balance by around 800k. It's not perfect and it may be a touch too strong, maybe the blacks are a little too dark etc., but I'm just trying to come close here.

The point is that while I do much prefer the "phonified" version that of course the problem is that if I edit it originally in that more saturated way, it looks awful when viewed on the phone or on another "normal" monitor. This version makes her look like an oompa loompa on the phone!

Obviously there are going to be some differences between how things will look on different displays in the wild, but how ought I handle this sort of difference?
Again, my monitor has been calibrated and is matching up well with what is professionally printed, yet it is yielding photos which at times - it depends on the overall colors and is worse in some cases (like this example) than others - look downright awful when viewed digitally.

Yet when clients view proofs, they're seeing it on a Samsung Galaxy or an iPhone 90% of the time. When I post to social media or put things in my portfolio on my website, the same is true of course. I sell digital downloads along with prints on volume-based ordering I use for school sports orders and such and this means that it's the same file people will either download or order prints of.

Frankly I feel like there must be something wrong here, because I am finding it to be a lot more convoluted and complicated to try to simply look at the photo I am editing and be able to trust that it is at least generally what other people are going to see than I would think it is supposed to be. I have specifically wondered if the monitor is just not displaying with enough saturation, but of course it does match up well with what is printed, so the saturation is obviously correct as far as that goes, and it is displaying as it was calibrated to, and anyways, it also does not permit modifying the saturation or other such characteristics when in sRGB or other modes which are designed for color fidelity.

What suggestions can you offer?

We have gone through that with our clients before. We simply tell them that their computer is off, and that we do our work with calibrated equipment. We refer them to a link for a monitor calibration tool. When they see the $300 price for the calibrator they usually don't ask any more questions. If they say it is too dark we tell them to turn up their brightness and vice versa.

When I was still using WIndows and before I had a calibration tool, I used sites like this one to do manual calibration. They can do a decent job of correcting gamma and off-white whites. https://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#Monitor_test_pattern

--
Victor Engel

 

[Jacques Cornell]

https://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter

On Brave I see this:



In Safari I see this:



Here's another checker:
https://chromachecker.com/page/en/show/web_browser_tester
That one displays the same in both the above-mentioned browsers. These two tests are testing two different things.

There are lots of others. Pick your favorite.

It may depend on the kind of profile. I know there are a couple of different kinds the difference between I don't fully understand at this time. What I can say is that when using the profile created by Calibrite's software - on the rare occasion I can actually get it to finish the whole process - I ONLY get the profile affecting the display when working in Adobe software. Browsers and the rest of windows do not respect the profile. I actually downloaded one of the old Windows Photo viewers (It may be the Windows 7 version but I am not sure) because this oddly *does* respect that profile while the more modern versions don't.

If I use the kind of profile created by DisplayCAL, my browsers, Windows, and everything else do respect it.

I think the conversation has gotten derailed by confusion about “profiles”. All that’s needed is for a browser to honor the tagged color space (sRGB, aRGB, P3, etc.). This has nothing to do with profiles for cameras, printers or displays.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.

Landscape & Wedding Photographer - Jacques Cornell

Jacques Cornell Photography - landscape, travel, portrait and art reproduction

jacquescornell.photography

Happening Photos - Event Photography in New York City

Event Photography in New York City and Around the World - conferences, sales meetings, fundraisers and more.

happening.photos