Hi Friends
I'm working on a photorealism project. Because there are so many tiny objects, in so many layers, I'm finding it easier to view the image in Windows Photo Viewer, as I work, rather than close off all the layers to see the embedded reference photo. Hopefully we'll soon see a button to hide all layers, which will make it easier, but for now, it's easier to use the WinPhoto Viewer.

However, I've just realized that Inkscape and the photo viewer don't display the image with the same brightness of the colors. The embedded JPG in Inkscape looks a little duller, or faded than it looks in the photo viewer. When it's time to set the color for an object, I do hide all the layers, and use the Dropper tool on the embedded image, to get the right color. And I really can make the colors pretty darn close that way. But then when I use the photo viewer for a wider view, the colors don't seem quite right. And it's apparently because the photo viewer and Inkscape use different ways of rendering images....or at least that's what I assume accounts for the difference. It's very subtle, but they are different!

Here's a screenshot to show the issue:


So my question -- Is the new renderer likely to result in colors more like what's seen in the photo viewer? Or is it just a fact of computer graphics life that different software will render colors sightly differently?

Thanks for any comments

Stupid question ('cos I can't think of anything else): are you sure your bitmap object has 100% opacity in Inkscape? I had happened to me, if you have for some reason 80% or 90% on top of a whit background...

Well not so stupid actually. I thought I was about to be embarassed, but I just checked it. 100% opacity, Normal Blend mode. I think it's probably just the way the viewer renders the image compared to Inkscape. I do know that some viewers can display SVG and others can't, which leads me to conclude that there are several different ways to display an image (perhaps rendering engine is the proper term?). In this case they are both JPGs, but the Windows viewer does it better, for some reason.

I did think of a solution to my problem. I'll just take a screenshot of the JPG that's embedded in Inkscape. Or I should say potential solution. It sounds like it should work, lol!

Or maybe something about embedding it? I'll import it again, but this time link it.

Edit
No, the linked image looks just like the embedded one.

Anyway, I do hope the new renderer expected with 0.49 will be better in this way

Thanks Uktrunie.

Inkscape preferences > Input/output > Color management > 'simulate output on screen' checked? Display rendering intent and printer say the same thing? What printer do you have selected? Does your display profile selection match your actual monitor - by name?

Yay, lessons from druban!

I haven't done anything to Inks Prefs > Color Management because I don't understand any of it.

Simulate output on screen = not checked
Printer....no settings for printer there, unless that's what's meant by "device".
Display and Device rendering intent both = Perceptual
No printer is selected because I haven't ever needed to print from Inkscape. Actually I don't even have a printer connected to this computer.
Display Profile = none, and the name of my monitor isn't one of the 3 choices.

Have you misunderstood the problem? Or is there some reason why setting up a printer would affect what I see on the screen? I was thinking that unless I decide to do some sort of professional work, I probably don't need any special color profile. And I don't expect to ever do professional graphics. But if it could be beneficial to have a color profile otherwise, maybe I'll look into it.

Thanks druban

hi brynn, try plug and play monitor if you don't see the name of your monitor. check retrieve profile from display and see if you have some choices in that menu now, and try changing the intent to absolute colorimetric. leave the simulation box unchecked, cross your fingers (unless you're typing) and try again. It might be necessary to close and reopen IS to have the changes take effect.

This is what I saw before using "Retrieve profile from display"



After I check "Retrieve profile from display", then close and re-open Inkscape, there is just the "none" option and no others. Note that there's a whole color calibration thing that I could do for Windows. I've looked into it briefly, but not sure it would be helpful. I looked all through the Device Manager for anything with "IEC61966-2.1" but didn't see anything. My monitor is called "Generic PnP Monitor". Display adapter "ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470".

I changed both display intents from Perceptual to Absolute Colorimetric, then restarted Inkscape, but no change in display.

My turn for asking a dumb question...

brynn, have you tried exporting the image to see if there's any color shift?

No, but I could try that. I'm the dumb one though, because I don't understand what I would learn from doing that.

Edit
The PNG looks identical to the JPG in the Windows Viewer. And if I import it to Inkscape, it looks identical to the JPG in Inkscape.

brynn wrote:No, but I could try that. I'm the dumb one though, because I don't understand what I would learn from doing that.

Not at all, I think you understand perfectly, we have established that Inkscape is applying some sort of display profile to images before putting them on screen. we are just patiently trying to find where this is being done.
If you still have the patience for it, I think you should change from <none> to <SRGB profile with ... BLABLA .. data .. from calibration> and see if that makes a difference.

Thanks guys
I'll give it a try druban. But I do know that I haven't created any kind of custom color calibration on this computer. Perhaps there is some kind of default one in use though. I'll let you know what happens shortly.

Edit
No, that didn't make any difference. If it did anything at all, it made the colors even a little duller, but it's hard to say. I think it really didn't do anything.

Maybe it's the other end! The display profile in Windows Photo viewer, that is. Have you tried the same procedure but with the GIMP, i.e. opening the jpeg in a small GIMP window and having it next to the Inkscape window? Or if you don't have the RAM for that, maybe a lower resource program like FastStone?

Ah-HA!!

I think you've solved it....sort of. It appears identical, for all I can tell, in GIMP, as it does in Inkscape. Here's a screenie:



Now that we've vindicated Inkscape.....well, I guess not necessarily. I suppose it could be that GIMP and Inkscape use the same kind of thing to display images, and that it's somehow inferior. But my original theory, that Inkscape and the Win Photo Viewer must use different ways of rendering the image, is that probably the case? I wonder if the new renderer (coming in 0.49) will affect this?

Edit
Actually, the more I look at the GIMP comparison, the more I do see a difference. But it's very, very slight. The GIMP one looks just a very tiny bit brighter. Certainly not nearly as much as the Win Viewer, but I think I do notice a very slight difference.

brynn wrote:Actually, the more I look at the GIMP comparison, the more I do see a difference. But it's very, very slight. The GIMP one looks just a very tiny bit brighter. Certainly not nearly as much as the Win Viewer, but I think I do notice a very slight difference.

Easy to check - open the screenshot in GIMP and use the info dialog to check the same pixel on each half to get the exact RGB data.

Ok, yes, they are indeed different! Fascinating!

So, clearly what the case appears to be is this: Inkscape, GIMP, etc. all render the image differently. Sounds like there's no real set standard being adhered to when it comes to rendering. But that's to be expected considering the range of Graphic cards out there.

It seems logical that how Inkscape shows us green leaves should be the same as what everyone else does, right? But the display technology owned by Microsoft isn't one they share with others (ahh, the joys of proprietary software).

So rendering from software to software won't be identical. So we wait for Inkscape 0.49 to emerge with many nice new features... and hopefully the ability to render images as richly as everyone else does. =D

brynn wrote:No, but I could try that. I'm the dumb one though, because I don't understand what I would learn from doing that.

brynn? When I asked that question, I was thinking of this post. I think we see Inkscape is struggling with its colours.

I think that post will clear things up.

Oh, I see
When I compared the exported PNG to the original JPG, I just looked at it, and they look the same. It may be that if I imported it and used the Dropper tool, like druban suggested, to check the same pixel, it would be slightly different.

I guess it makes sense that different technology will render images differently. And as long as they're fairly close to what we see with our eyes, I have no complaint. But I guess if you think about it, we have.....well, not many ways of knowing whether we all see colors the same. I mean, there's colorblindness, so we know that not everyone sees colors the same. From what I understand about colorblindness, it has to be pretty severe before it can be discovered. So perhaps the different software rendering colors differently stems from our own human eyes. But it seems to me there should be some standard somewhere.

Anyway, thanks again for your help