We build. You grow.

Get best community software here

Start a social network, a fan-site, an education project with oxwall - free opensource community software

Color profiles | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Support » General Questions
Ralph Weber
Ralph Weber Jul 26 '16
Hi,


I am in the middle of setting up a site with Oxwall which focuses on photography. One of my users has noted that her pictures come out with the wrong colors when she views them after uploading them to her albums. I am using the standard Photos plugin.


I checked and, true enough, her colors are desaturated and lack luminance, while the colors in my own pictures look fine. Digging into the file, I noticed that both share the same RGB color space but while mine are using sRGB as a color profile, hers are using 'Pro Photo RGB' (She's a pro and I won't ask her to savein srgb just for my site, I consider myself very lucky that she posts her pictures there in the first place). I believe that Oxwall, on import, does not know how to deal with that color profile. Whatever Oxwall uses as a graphics library (GD2? WideImage? I couldn't find clear info on that), does know what to do with that data, then goes ahead and misinterpretes the colours into a new file, which then results in wrong colors when you view the picture. I think ImageMagick should be able to deal with this profile perfectly fine (the pic works very well on Flickr, no color issues there, so it must be on my end.


Is there a way to find out whether Oxwall uses Imagemagick and force it to if it doesn't?


Or might it not be Oxwall's fault altogether and the issue stems from Apache web server? I couldn't find any extension for Apache that allows it to deal with color profiles.


Please help, on a photography website, color accuracy are extremely important. 

dave Leader
dave Jul 26 '16
From the files i found it appears oxwall supports GD2 and WideImage however i am not sure as to what extent.


Here is an old conversation about it if you care to read it..


  https://developers.oxwall.com/forum/topic/2193


Also remember that oxwall is open source so if you need better picture presentation you are welcome to edit the files to accomplish this.  However remember that all edits will be removed when the script is updated. 



The Forum post is edited by dave Jul 26 '16
Senior Developer Leader
Senior Developer Jul 26 '16
Oxwall uses WideImage in all image resize, right now there is no way to switch to ImageMagick so if you need it, you have to add the code in the core.


You can replace the code in ow_utilities\image.php for your own code in order to use ImageMagick instead of Wideimage.


If you want to do a little testing before change the code for ImageMagick, try this, edit the file ow_utilities\image.php

Look for this code: const IMAGE_QUALITY = 80;


and change the quality value to 100 instead of 80. I don't really think that this solve the problem but we don't know until you do the test.


The Forum post is edited by Senior Developer Jul 26 '16
Ralph Weber
Ralph Weber Jul 27 '16
@Dave: As far as I understand it uses WideImage on top of GD2, like an extension or something.


Thanks for the link to the conversation, I'll read through that.


@Senior Developer: Many thanks for pointing out what file the script is in. I set it to 100 and will see what gives.


I would love to modify the code to make it use ImageMagick but that is far, far beyond what my coding capabilities let me do ;) I mean I can sort of make sense of what image.php does but then it relies on things defined in wideimage.php and that's where I get lost. Imagemagick works like a command line, but making it work inside image.php, I wouldn't even know where to start :(


Just out of curiosity: why is Oxwall using WideImage? As far as I can see it is not nearly as good as ImageMagick, there are some issues with it and it hasn't been updated since 2011. There must be a reason for it, though.

dave Leader
dave Jul 27 '16
Good question thanks for asking. 


Could be a number of reasons.. 


Could be that since the team is small other features were more critical to implement

Could be that there have not been volume of requests from users

Could be the old saying "if it works dont fix it"

Could be that there is no one on the team that is experience in the conversion process

Could be they just simply dont want to

Could be that wideimage though old offers features that ImageMagick does not

Could be that wideimage is more universally supported


And could be all of these things or none of these things.  :)  We just dont know.. 

The Forum post is edited by dave Jul 27 '16