martin_van_hemert's profile

6 Messages

 • 

130 Points

Fri, Mar 13, 2020 11:59 PM

Output from Lightroom as "Untagged RGB"

I would like the option of outputting files from Lightroom as "Untagged RGB".  Could this feature be added?  Some years back I started a conversation about this, which basically devolved into a discussion about why on earth would I want that.  Rather than get into a lengthy debate, let's just say I'd like that functionality for the same reason that Adobe regularly uses untagged images on their web pages.  For example, some of the images on this page: https://www.adobe.com/

Thanks,

Martin

Responses

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

2 y ago

No, no you don't. RGB mystery meat is bad, very bad. And LR should never allow this! And it never will. 

If you really must, find a way outside of LR to strip the profiles which are (for RGB Working Spaces) a mere 4K in size. 

Don't request Adobe do something really damaging to its user base. If you want to hose the RGB data, do so on your own. Use Photoshop if you must.  

6 Messages

 • 

130 Points

2 y ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Lightroom - Add export option "Untagged RGB".

I would appreciate the option to export files from Lightroom as "Untagged RGB".

Champion

 • 

6K Messages

 • 

103.7K Points

2 y ago

"I'd like that functionality for the same reason that Adobe regularly uses untagged images on their web pages.  For example, some of the images on this page: https://www.adobe.com/"

I don't think Adobe is following best web-design practices here. Untagged images can look pretty bad in the Firefox browser on a wide-gamut display. Tagging them with sRGB would ensure the images look the same in all the leading browsers. 

Including the sRGB ICC profile in those adobe.com images would increase their file size by 3K, a measly 1.5%.  But if you really cared about that last 1.5%, you could follow my suggestion in our last discussion about this: Use the free Exiftool in an Export preset post-processing action to replace the 3K ICC profile with the tag EXIF:ColorSpace = sRGB.

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

The Adobe images look fine on my wide gamut display because they are in sRGB and Safari assume all untagged data is sRGB. They preview correctly. Ditto with Apples Preview app. But indeed, Adobe and others should just tag the images in the first place.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Champion

 • 

6K Messages

 • 

103.7K Points

Chrome also assumes sRGB, but Firefox doesn't (as of my testing yesterday).

Champion

 • 

2.4K Messages

 • 

39.2K Points

FireFox 74.0 assumes sRGB for untagged images on my Windows 10 system.

(How does your browser interpret untagged images?)
https://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/



2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

It assumes sRGB on Mac too; just checked. Both Safari, Photoshop (assign sRGB) and FireFox produce identical previews on a wide gamut display. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Champion

 • 

6K Messages

 • 

103.7K Points

By default, Firefox color-manages tagged images but not untagged images:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/3.5/ICC_color_correction_in_Firefox

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455077

Perhaps you changed the preference gfx.color_management.mode to 1 (color-manage all images) at a time when the default was 0 (no color management).  You can verify the setting in your config by going to URL about:config and searching for gfx.color_management.mode.

The current default is 2 (color-manage tagged images but not untagged images). I verified this by installing Firefox 74 in a virgin Windows virtual machine, and gfx.color_management.mode = 2.

Here are the test results of Firefox 74 on my MacBook Pro with a Retina (DCI-P3) display:


6 Messages

 • 

130 Points

2 y ago

Thanks  Andrew and John for your replies.  John, You have a good memory!  I will take a look at the Exiftool that you mentioned last time.