jpeg looks darker outside lightzone

Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
jpeg looks darker outside lightzone

i imported a jpg image in lightzone, edited it and exported it; when i open it with the default image viewing program it looks darker , also when i upload it to deviantart; this problem doesnt happen when i export to .tiff

i tried using different color profiles but its the same, what can i do?


when i open the tiff file in

when i open the tiff file in gimp, it looks darker too

So, I have some questions to make sure I understand

After processing in LZ, you are "exporting" as a jpg or tiff, correct? So you are creating an entirely new file? I believe this is what you are saying, but I want to make sure.

What color space? What programs other than Gimp, such as the viewer?

On occasion I have noticed that my images will look "different" in other places, like Zenfolio (which I attribute more to Zenfolio) or if I open in another program. Usually it's not enough of a difference that I care about, but sometimes I do. I have had to go back and ease off my LZ settings sometimes---but one thing about me is that I often do some strong contrast editing, especially in B+W conversions. But I have also never fully determined that the problem is on the LZ side.

I have also noticed differences between my LZ result (not exported) and the prints---but I think that is to be expected somewhat and I expect it as part of the printing process: the screen NEVER looks like the print because they are totally different media.

I'd lie other users to jump in here with their experiences, please

yes i choose "convert image"

yes i choose "convert image"
its the GNOME image viewer and i tried with adobe rgb and different versions of srgb

it doesnt happen all the time, i think it depends on the editing i do

while im writing this, i just found out the cause: i use using adobe rgb as my display color profile, now that i changed it to srgb it looks the same as other programs.... but i didnt think there was such a big difference between the two of them:

Im still figuring it out. When i have the display as srgb, it looks darker in lightzone but the difference is less than what you can see in the image i uploaded.

I'll take a look...

when I have some time this weekend.

Well, I'm confused now

So, in the images in that link, the one that is the LZ screenshot is at least a 1/2 stop lighter, quite significant. But you're saying it's darker?

Not seeing it.

In Ubuntu 13.04 I am not seeing this. I saved to jpg. after making changes and Gnome Image Viewer and Gimp 2.8 look the same. I have a color managed system. I use the same custom icc profile for my monitor, LightZone and Gimp. This is a profile generated from a colorimeter. I would look at your color space work flow. What profile on your camera? SRGB, Adobe RGB 1998, or ProPhoto RGB? I don't recommend one over the other as much as being consistent and looking at what works for you. If you can't create a custom profile then use the same profile for your monitor and Lightzone, Gimp etc. I wonder if you are using one color space for viewing in Lightzone, exporting to another and then viewing in a third.
Since I got a good color profile for my monitor and printer (different) I have enjoyed better results and a lot less surprises when printing.

How do you apply callibrated monitor profile in LIghtzone?

Hi, since you obviously have worked it out, could you explain how you get lightzone to use a custom calibrated monitor profile?

Under the windows version there is an option in the preferences to choose the working space profile which JPEGS are saved in, and you can choose the printer profile when printing/proofing; but I can't find an option to choose the monitor profile: does it just use the system defaults? If so how does it then work under linux (I haven't installed the linux version yet, but plan to) where there is no definite concensus on where to find "system defaults" yet. Is there an entry in the preferences that's not there in the windows version, or does it require that you are using the GNOME color management suite?

on LZ it was lighter but im

on LZ it was lighter but im not having problems anymore, dont ask me why :) thank you

different working color spaces - different looks

I have this problem also and I think it has to do with the internal color space LZ is using when editing. This is ProPhoto (=> here I was wrong, take a look at Dougs Infos about LZs internal color space: "Blending Modes part 3: Color shifts and Difference blending mode" under "tips and techniques".) When playing with the proof tool one can notice that the picture only with this color space is shown like seen in the editor without applying the proof tool. I think that some other applications are using a different internal color space. What does that means for the workflow in combining different applications?

A great question, and one

A great question, and one that I'd like to see those guys answer. When next I email John Arnold, I'll try to rmrmber tohave him look at this.

Michael Nukular



EDIT -> PREFERENCES -> SAVE -> SAVE LIGHTZONE FILES AS (TIFF / JPG) -> Color Profile -> 20w inch LCD Monitor

Since then my files looked the same after converting.

Non existent

I don't have that option in the list of my colour profiles (v4.0beta6).



Screen colour profiles



The output option will be looking for available .ICC colour profiles. What appears is likely to depend on what programs you have installed and that will usually depend on editors, printers and whether of not you have colour profiled your system using a calibration device.


At the very least you would expect to see options for sRGB and AdobeRGB but iirc LZ includes a few others as well.


If you are really keen on masochism and self induced frustration you should consider a fully colour managed workflow.  ;)


You may also need plenty of spare time and may find that most modern screens that are sensibly priced are quite good compared to a few years ago but will have at least one major calibration challenge somewhere.


To avoid that consider some of the top end Dell screens or, as used by Pro studios, EIzo or NEC. There are one or two other brands as well.


Getting what you see on screen to look the same for others without the high end screens, will still remain an art form of course.


For real commitment to the cause you need to consider printing too. I often conclude that getting what is on screen (colour profiled as far as it will go and allegedly proofed with the correct drivers for the printer and paper combination with all the recommended settings correctly set) to appear on 'paper' will only ever occur purely by chance.


Of course I may be doing something wrong ...








We may wish to get tex's views on colour management. It's the sort of thing where I am happy to hear the opinions of artists rather than seek purely technological answers.

Ha!  Don't get me started on

Ha!  Don't get me started on color management!  You "photographers" are all mental about this (joke alert...).

Seriously, like other things in photography, I see this as a combination of actual technical concern and importance and whimsy, like framing in the viewfinder and faithfulness to that without cropping.

The technical concerns, in order and successively: There is a color of the objects in the scene, a color temperature of the air/light and how it affects them, the lens' rendition of that, the response of the sensor/film to that, the software's rendition of that, the monitor's rendition of that, the ambient light in the workspace where the monitor is; the way the printer works (specs) and the inks used, and the paper's rendition of the colors if we have printing.  On top of that we've got the way the individual's eyes see all this, from start to finish. And the question: do we all see the same? (NO is the answer...).

I went to a Scott Kelby seminar once and he said quite a few interesting things.  Among them were: Apple's claim that you can calibrate their monitors without calibration equipment is bogus; soft proofing is bogus---if you want to know what something is going to look ike printed then you've got to print it until it comes out "right", because a monitor and a print are really 2 different media.  I felt very vindicated and pleased with myself on this last score.

I would never suggest that LZ shouldn't be as good as it can be from the standpoint of color management.  But in that chain above of successive aspects, each affecting the ones before it cumulatively, I see a lot of room for ....I'm not sure what the word for this one is. Add to that individual viewer's differences, and I often wonder if  "photographers" are tilting at windmills here.  We artists only care what it looks like to ourselves, and we mix the paint.  The rest of humanity be damned.  Watch the film (there's a book, which I read, but the film sticks out in my mind, possibly because of Alec Guiness) "The Horse's Mouth" for more info about that.

OTOH, I am know doing some fine arts repro professionally, and of course I am shooting with the best lights I can (best spectrum), controlling stray light, conscious of lens renditions, using a Color Checker Passport, & etc., etc.

This is a tangled web, IMO.  Nevertheless, LZ probably does this better in some cases than others, and I am concerned about any deficiencies.

There's my non-answer.  You may have noted that I stayed out of this discussion until Grant called me out.

No way I could let you stay out of this one tex!

To add to your list uncontrollable variables ...


Persitence of vision - especially in relation to colours and even more especially in relation to working on screen where the balance between screen brightness and ambient light may have some very subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) effects on our perception of what is light and dark. Or, indeed, the hue of specific colours that may look fine as we finish an edit after several minutes or hours) of working on an image but not at all what we thought we intended when we re-visit the image later.


Obtaining the best monitor is an expensive option, especially for hobbyists. However the real expense comes when you decide you really need a controlled editing environment in which to make use of the expensive technology. The cheapest option would be a darkened room  - just like the old days! However what the output would look like in other light might be subject to some guesswork.


But then, how many people would notice?







Color management

I understand the full myriad of the color management. Currently I'm only concerned on how my images look on my screen relatively to my other images. I know that someday in the future when I have a nice large calibrated monitor, I may need to redo some my edits.



I thought that you would

I thought that you would probably be aware of the issues.


The "on screen" thing is still, possibly, a challenge in that I suspect that small difference can affect one's perception. In the old days (and still, afaik in the documentation for the calibration devices) it was recommended to claibrate daily but only after the monitor had been switched on for at least 20 minutes. I think that was mainly aimed at the CRT devices but I would guess that it is still true if one wants really critical accuracy for 'modern' screen technologies and supporting electronics.


In 'real life', whatever that is, I think our brains make many more 'interpretive' adjustments, especially to colour but also to luminosity, than we are aware of. That option is partly removed (or at least confused) when we set images side by side on screen - even a good screen with colour balance and high quality, consistently even illumination.


For that reason I try to avoid dealing with specific colour edits unless they look very badly wrong.


Percieved luminosity is another area with so many variables it can be difficult to guarantee a balanced result even though, in theory, it should be easier than balancing the perception of colour.





I found this old post:

I found this old post:

I moved one display from the manufacturer-provided ICC profile to the generic sRGB ICC profile.  Exited LZ and opened it again.  WB looked right.  Moved LZ to the other monitor and WB looked yellow-ish again.  Repeated with the second monitor.  On #2, WB is maybe less yellow, but not as neutral as #1.

I neither like nor understand this.

  • How can a "generic" color model be "better" than a color model that was developed for a specific device?
  • With the original device-specifc color profiles for each monitor, color cast looked the same across both monitors.  Now the color balance is different enough between left and right monitors that it is distracting.
  • I used to have a color problem with one program on any monitor. That's turned into a color problem on one monitor with every program.
  • I don't understand how changing a monitor color profile would affect only one program.  As per above, since one monitor looks more yellow-ey, maybe it affected all programs a little, but LZ-specifically by a lot.

This is like a thorn in my eye.