Why do JPEGs render differently?

[Teknic]

I downloaded some pictures of me; when I examine them using Win 7's default picture viewer (Windows Photo Viewer) they look like they have too much contrast. However, when I view the same files using Windows Paint, the pictures look more color accurate with decreased contrast.

The pictures are JPEG, but why would two different programs render the same image differently? I just tried this with different images, and the result is the same -- using Paint yields a slightly different image from Windows Picture Viewer.

I know with raw files the images may render differently depending on the program used to interpret the files, but I was under the assumption that JPEGs should render consistently.

 

[Gooberlx2]

My guess is color management/profiles. Windows 7's Photo Viewer and Windows Live Photo Gallery are color aware. I'm guessing paint is not.

It may help to use the color management app in the control panel to try and calibrate your screen.

 

[Teknic]

Oh okay. That makes sense. Thanks

 

[yhelothar]

Try to avoid using AdobeRGB in general since there are a lot of compatibility issues with apps, especially browsers.
I personally haven't noticed any benefit of AdobeRGB. I think it's mostly suited for print where the gamut is wider than monitors.

 

[fire400]

jpeg - junk that's optimized for quick view or speedy Internet environments, or just basically wallpaper.

there's a clear reason why .png files are a lot larger in storage size, and of course higher quality not to mention.

agreed with the adobe thing, and even if other programs can open them, it may not even save correctly, and then you open it up again in adobe programs, and you're like ... "wtf?"

 

[Gooberlx2]

I personally haven't noticed any benefit of AdobeRGB. I think it's mostly suited for print where the gamut is wider than monitors.

If you have a wide-gamut monitor, then using wider working space, like aRGB, may have some benefit. I know a number of the RAW workflow progs default to a wide-gamut working space. Lightroom uses ProPhotoRGB, for example.

However, you have to remember to convert to sRGB for web, emailing, etc...even most walgreens/costco type printing since sRGB is the standard interpretation.

 

[Teknic]

sRGB and adobeRGB only comes up when converting from RAW to JPEGs right? I usually just save my images in JPEG form because I was under the impression that with RAW files, the appearance of the image was dependent on the program used to render it, and I wanted consistency in how the images look regardless of the program used to view the file. Are you ever worried about how different versions of software might render the raw files differently?

Maybe I am missing something, but the RAW files look very similar to the JPEG files (or maybe my monitor sucks?). I do know that RAW files leave a lot more headroom for editing though. For convenience though, I've just been saving things as JPEGs.

 

[yhelothar]

Yeah it could either be from converting RAW to JPG, or it could be a setting in your camera.