Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Bonjour,
Je viens de partager mon document InDesign pour révision en générant un lien public (pour rappel, ce lien permet de consulter ce document sur n'importe quel navigateur).
Pourtant, lors de la consultation du document : les couleurs des images sont fades/ternes.
On dirait que le profil colorimétrique n'est pas conservé : est-ce une limitation de cette fonctionnalité ?
Existe-t-il un moyen pour faire en sorte que le profil soit conservé comme lors d'un export ?
Merci,
Cordialement
Honestly don't see a huge difference between the two.
There is some artifacting going on in the one for Review online - I can see that without even zooming in.
Here's my take on it - it's just my personal opinion:
Even if one of the reviewers is in a room with no windows and fluorescent lights on an uncalibrated monitor the colours would be different to someone sitting in a room with a monitor perpendicular to a window with good daylight and no lights on in the room.
Share for review is re
...Copy link to clipboard
Copied
What computer/OS - was it on a monitor or a mobile device?
What are your settings, where are you viewing it?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hello Eugene,
I work on Windows 10 Professionnal edition (Version 21H2 - 19044.2728) with a calibrated (i1Display) Thinkvision monitor (Lenovo).
I try to view my document on Google Chrome 11.0.5563.147, same result with Firefox (111.0.1).
My document use an Adobe RGB (1998) profile.
Thanks for your help.
Regards
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Without seeing the original and the result it's difficult to know what's going on.
And everyone's monitor is going to be different, and then you have different mobile devices and different tablets etc.
Typically browsers display in sRGB - even though they don't necessarily have a colour profile.
sRGB is a narrower gamut than Adobe RGB
Adobe RGB has a wider gamut than sRGB, particularly in the green and red areas of the spectrum. However, it's less compatible with many devices and applications, which can lead to colour shifting or inaccurate colour rendering when images are viewed outside of a colour-managed environment.
sRGB would be the standard color space for web content and digital imaging, while Adobe RGB is preferred for high-quality printing and photography.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Eugene,
Thanks for your feedback, I agree if I wanted to get the same result everytime and everywhere.
You are right, let me show you:
You will notice a subtle difference between each version, even if your monitor is way different than mine: it seems that the InDesign version doesn't use any colour profile, colours are much blander, duller.
Maybe we can't use that feature (shared InDesign document) to work with high quality / rich colored pictures?
But it seems possible as the PDF works fine. What do you think?
Thanks for you help,
Regards
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Honestly don't see a huge difference between the two.
There is some artifacting going on in the one for Review online - I can see that without even zooming in.
Here's my take on it - it's just my personal opinion:
Even if one of the reviewers is in a room with no windows and fluorescent lights on an uncalibrated monitor the colours would be different to someone sitting in a room with a monitor perpendicular to a window with good daylight and no lights on in the room.
Share for review is really only to make text/image change edits - I wouldn't count on it for someone to start colour correcting images or even talking about it.
Share for review, in my opinion, is to review the content/placement/edits etc.
If someone is concerned about colour - you could send them a colour proof PDF or some pages of colour proofs to alieve their anxiety.
However, unless you get a RIPed proof from the printer viewed on a colour-corrected monitor in the correct lighting - you are going to see different values from someone else.
--------------
@rob day What do you think about this one?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
What do you think about this one?
Hi Eugene, I haven’t used Share for review in my work, but looking at the review link @defaultldmoxn5ne7lz shared, the review page is a reconstruction of the InDesign page as HTML. I would assume the coding for the review feature converts all color into sRGB for HTML web viewing, but I’m not sure that’s happening.
Here I’ve drilled down into the HTML with Firefox to find the converted display image—obviously this is not the actual image placed into the ID file:
I assume the PDF is a direct Export for the ID doc— its color is all profiled CMYK ICCBased Coated FOGRA 39. Most browsers will color manage the display of profiled images, so I would say the PDF is providing a more accurate soft proof in a browser.
It’s also worth noting that if the final print destination for this PDF is to some CMYK space other than Coated FOGRA there will be a CMYK-to-CMYK conversion and the black only text will convert to 4-color blacks.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@Eugene Tyson You're right, it seems more approriate to use this feature to review the content/placement/edits only, not as a colour checker. At least, I just wanted to be sure that it is possible, unlike Color management in Adobe XD : https://community.adobe.com/t5/adobe-xd-discussions/feature-request-color-management-in-adobe-xd/m-p...
If someone is concerned about colour - you could send them a colour proof PDF or some pages of colour proofs to alieve their anxiety.
However, unless you get a RIPed proof from the printer viewed on a colour-corrected monitor in the correct lighting - you are going to see different values from someone else.
I agree with you, for specific comments about colours: we work as much as possible with some printed pages from our press operator.
_____________________
I would assume the coding for the review feature converts all color into sRGB for HTML web viewing, but I’m not sure that’s happening.
I guess that where the problem comes from.
I assume the PDF is a direct Export for the ID doc— its color is all profiled CMYK ICCBased Coated FOGRA 39. Most browsers will color manage the display of profiled images, so I would say the PDF is providing a more accurate soft proof in a browser.
Exactly, that's why it's currently our best solution to get a closer result of the printed version.
Even if we still have variations depending on the configuration of each "reviewer".
It’s also worth noting that if the final print destination for this PDF is to some CMYK space other than Coated FOGRA there will be a CMYK-to-CMYK conversion and the black only text will convert to 4-color blacks.
We generally work with these parameters, so there should be no surprises, but thanks pointing this out.
_____________________
Thanks for your help and your time.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Exactly, that's why it's currently our best solution to get a closer result of the printed version.
Even if we still have variations depending on the configuration of each "reviewer".
If you are making a separate PDF for a screen color review a safer approach might be an export to flattened sRGB. I’m not sure you can assume all browsers and readers will color manage CMYK or transparency accurately. I use this preset for showing clients color.
Also, you may know this, but one of the advantages of the PDF/X Standard presets is they export document CMYK color with no profile, but with an Output Intent Profile for the defult soft proof. This minimizes the chances of CMYK-to-CMYK conversions and their associated problems. You would not want to use PDF/X for screen color reviews, only for press PDFs—browsers will not see the Output Intent profile.
Your PDF as X4: