I posted this a week ago in Photography forum and just got blank stares. Hopefully there are actually people in this forum with high gamut monitors (Adobe RGB). Note: I don't think this is limited to MM, but more about server-based image resizing for thumbnails.



The weirdest thing is happening.

I just purchased a fancy new Adobe RGB colorspace monitor, which I've calibrated.
My images look great on it, as well as on my original sRGB calibrated monitor.

I've noticed however on a few of my images on MM, the thumbnails are decidedly red-ish when viewed on this new monitor. If I open them up (click on them on MM, to view the 600x900 full image), they look fine.
But the  condensed images are definitely reddish. It's not on all the images either, just a few. Not sure what's going on.
Where it's happening however, it's fairly pronounced. I'm thinking it has to do with the larger colorspace and what ever the compression/sizing algorhythm MM's system is using. Like the resizing/condensing process (depending upon original colors present) is generating color "artifacts" outside the sRGB colorspace, that weren't/aren't visible within a sRGB colorspace, but show up within the AdobeRGB space of the new monitor.

Congratulations for the new monitor.
With Firefox they all look the same...
With a wide gamut monitor any color management flaw will be perceived.
No internet browser has a perfect color management, but Firefox seems less worst.
To minimize problems better use monitor profile V2 and matrix based.
For Photoshop and/or soft proofing you can use LUT based, V4 is better avoid for now....

these are two that are more saturated than the others. moving from a Samsung tn monitor to the NEC ips screen it becomes much more obvious. the first (top left) is more red/magenta, the second (top right) is actually very slightly more green in spots (shoulder). it's there on both, but the emphasis changes. there is less saturation in the actual full size copy, so the cast is not as apparent.



these are not as saturated, but also more red.
18+ https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 7796_m.jpg

Yeah, you picked out the three immediately (two of which are out-of-control red). There's also the one that has the single breast exposed (but of course couldn't post it here).
It really seems like it's not just saturation, but a significant color shift to red.
It's also really present in a lingerie image I have that I shot on Kodachrome, and then processed.

I'm unclear why there is SUCH a significant difference between the high-resolution and the thumbnail.

P.S.
Interestingly enough Leonard, I think I'm seeing a similar red shift on this image of yours.
https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 11d2_m.jpg

No image to show the issue?

Sometimes if I edit an sRGB image in PS, and then save it again as a copy, it looks different and maybe too saturated on the re-save when I compare them side-by-side.  Maddening!  Plus Windows 10 newest image viewer plays with images "To make them appear better" which needs to be turned off from its default.

With a dual viewer (Notebook & supplemental monitor.) just sliding an image off one will likely change in the other as Leonard above noted.  Sometimes a lot if you cannot do an emulation as with the upper-tier CG-series Eizos with their built-in calibration and ambient sensor where you leave the factory calibrated "Web, Printing, Photography" settings alone, but set up another calibration tables that will emulate your notebook, tablet, and even cellphone to that of the Eizo screen without damaging the factory calibrated and certified settings on the three primary default ones.  Without that, then it becomes, "Okay. Which one of these damn things is right?"  Send it to a printer and you get something way different looking back too. 

For fun, I just loaded Leonard's four images above into the Eizo CG-248 as four separate devices.  A Samsung 10" tablet, a Samsung S6 Edge cellphone, a MSI gaming notebook, and the Eizo factory web image setting.  All are different.  Which is right?  Guess it is which one you like.

And yeah, that Bart guy on the LuLa forums has discovered some issues on changing image sizes which changes the color and can even add moire issues into images and his test patterns.  Best you can do is alter the screenshot that you see here and try re-uploading since any upload web site (like MM) can alter the image somewhat for their website's display.

Anyhoo, color is fickle - imho.  What I see is likely different from what you see. 

Hi John.

It is normal to see more red and more purple and more other colors on a wide gamut monitor. There are just more colors which are not available in sRGB

I have personally reported a few browser bugs related to overly saturated images. Some browsers don't interpreted colors properly according to the ICC profiles. It also does matter what is the system (desktop) level ICC profile of the monitor as a device as the browser shows color in relation to that. I am saying this to explain that there is a difference between calibration and profiling. Calibration on a monitor like EIZO for example is the process of measuring and correcting the hardware, i.e. the LUT which is stored in the monitor itself. The other type of so called calibration (which is actually profiling) is creating an ICC profile which is processed in the video card. Obviously the later is not true calibration because if the device cannot show the full gamma profiling will not fix it. To put it simply as an extreme example: you can't make a b&w monitor show color however accurately you profile it.

As a whole browsers are big mess - always work in progress and always something doesn't work right.

I don't think MM has any server side issue. If you upload 800px wide (max 4000px high) images it doesn't process them at all, so they stay as they are. You can check by uploading an image and then downloading it and compare the 2 files.

One browser that shows oversaturation issues is Chrome in Linux. In Firefox things look ok. Also in both FF and Chrome on Windows things are ok too - the images look like in Photoshop.

I hope that helps.

BTW: The monitor is hardware calibrated using their software within the monitor's LUT.

As a test I also brought up the this thread (the 3 images) side-by-side in Chrome and Firefox - absolutely the same color.

Yes of course I understand that AdobeRGB fits more reds into its colorspaace. But I'm not seeing the extreme extra reds on the larger images. That can only mean that the size reduction mm is doing (albeit probably not limited to MM - other server software that reduces size probably has the same perpensity), is adding reds that are outside the sRGB colorspace of typical monitors, but are picked up by monitors with the larger AdobeRGB space.


P.S. In the end, this seems to point to; when one browses the web with a high-gamut monitor, colors are going to be weird on a share of the images that are resized by the server.

Almost all of my images here are in aRGB, uploaded in 800px and they look the same on thumb. I don't see any difference on yours too.

found the problem - the thumbnail generator changed.

copied the thumbnails from my own profile and opened in photoshop - this image has problem


and this one does not have color problem


the first open without a profile assign, the second has an embedded profile, sRGB. john's thumbnails have exactly the same issues. the thumbnails i pointed out downloaded show no assigned profile. the other have sRGB profiles. the upload dates are different - but the mar-sep 2010, and some of the 2013 images are affected. if you assign sRGB profiles when loading into photoshop the thumbnail colors are ok.

would need more examples to narrow the upload dates that were affected.

For both images thumb and full size look the same here in Chromium on Linux, using wide gamut monitor.
In Firefox both look less saturated in full size.