On mercredi 18 janvier 2017 14:35:36 CET KOVÁCS István wrote: > > What I changed was the export profile from sRGB to Adobe RGB (compatible). > > And that is the cause of your problems. Compared to sRGB, Adobe RGB > uses a different gamma, which makes your images darker when viewed > using a non-colour-managed viewer; it also has a wider gamut, which > makes colours more saturated. > Most displays are relatively close to sRGB, so if you export as 'sRGB > (web-safe)', you're likely to get reasonable colours even if your > environment is not colour-managed. > > If you publish on the web, you should probably stick to sRGB: even if > everything is colour-managed on your computer, web-based galleries may > rip the embedded colour profile from your image, and your audience is > likely to use a non-managed environment, too.
Apart from that, why would you want to use a color space for your output that's larger than what most displays are able of showing, independant of proper calibration/profiling? Atm at least, only (some) high-end screens can show more than sRGB, so using sRGB for web export seems the best choice. For printing it's a different story, best thing there is conform to what your print shop wants / can handle. And you cannot use the same export for both web and printing anyway, unless you make very small prints. Aside from colour problems, you get the best result if the image is displayed at 100%, i.e. without resizing. Any resampling will soften the image, and the methods used in most browsers are fairly crude (but fast). Remco ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-user+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
