alias : pwd :       secure login | forgot pwd? ]
1 members online. 
23 users watching this topic.
[ Watch This Topic ]
Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | > |

Show Printer Friendly Message Reply To Topic
Crippen

Photographer
City: Sheffield
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Aug 8, 2004
Posts: 3852

Can I double check something with you, Paul.

When converting to SRGB

The pop up window appears with the following...

Engine: Adobe (ACE)
Intent: Relative Colourimetric
Tick - Use Black Point
Tick - Use Diter

Any of them correct?

Cheers
Dave

Send Nm Mail to Crippen Add Crippen to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Allinthemind

Photographer
City: Gloucester
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Aug 31, 2004
Posts: 2501

quoting post from Crippen:

Can I double check something with you, Paul.

When converting to SRGB

The pop up window appears with the following...

Engine: Adobe (ACE)
Intent: Relative Colourimetric
Tick - Use Black Point
Tick - Use Diter

Any of them correct?

Cheers
Dave


This one is about how PS maps from one colourspace to another (I'm with Rob on the quality output method and with Paul on the "for Net Model" method).

As the larger colourspaces need to "map" the information into the smaller colourspaces, they can do so in a number of ways, "Relative colourimetric and perceptual" would be the usual choices for photographers, although it is worth understanding what they do.

I'm a fan of editing in the smallest colourspace that the picture will allow, if this is sRGB, then great (allows a smoother gradient).

Si

Send Nm Mail to Allinthemind Add Allinthemind to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Westend

Photographer
City: Almeria
Country: Spain
Member Since: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 208

quoting post from Allinthemind:

This one is about how PS maps from one colourspace to another (I'm with Rob on the quality output method and with Paul on the "for Net Model" method).

As the larger colourspaces need to "map" the information into the smaller colourspaces, they can do so in a number of ways, "Relative colourimetric and perceptual" would be the usual choices for photographers, although it is worth understanding what they do.

I'm a fan of editing in the smallest colourspace that the picture will allow, if this is sRGB, then great (allows a smoother gradient).

Si


Spot on!

Much better to work in sRGB, get none of these problems and you do get a smoother gradient, which suits skin tones better.

Send Nm Mail to Westend Add Westend to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
 doctorontop



Photographer
City: La Condamine
Country: Morroco
Member Since: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 2592

Since most monitors in general use are not calibrated sGB as the edit space is more likely to provide a more generic image. The problem with converting the space can lead to a flattening effect. but as with all things its a trade off.

Send Nm Mail to doctorontop Add doctorontop to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
paulcoxphotography

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Manchester
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 11498

quoting post from Westend:

Spot on!

Much better to work in sRGB, get none of these problems and you do get a smoother gradient, which suits skin tones better.


Hi Kevin - didn't realise you had rejoined the site but nice to see you back.

This guide is not so much about choice of colourspace (I personally prefer the largest colourspace I can get) but rather how to make sure the colourspace is adjusted before you put your images on the web. If I was shooting web content I'm bound to say I'd shoot (or rather set my raw converter to) SRGB.

Send Nm Mail to paulcoxphotography Add paulcoxphotography to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
paulcoxphotography

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Manchester
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 11498

quoting post from  doctorontop:

Since most monitors in general use are not calibrated sGB as the edit space is more likely to provide a more generic image. The problem with converting the space can lead to a flattening effect. but as with all things its a trade off.

D'ya want to run that one by me again as I'm not following you. You don't set the colour space on output devices you set the colour profile with which they interpret the colour space of the image.

Send Nm Mail to paulcoxphotography Add paulcoxphotography to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
 doctorontop



Photographer
City: La Condamine
Country: Morroco
Member Since: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 2592

quoting post from paulcoxphotography:

D'ya want to run that one by me again as I'm not following you. You don't set the colour space on output devices you set the colour profile with which they interpret the colour space of the image.

It is the case that alot of LCD screens do not allow for calibration but the better ones do. Most computer users do not have their screens calibrated if all screens were colour calibrated then in theory and in an ideal world you would expect colour to be treated in roughly the same way. But since this is not the case and screen internal design and components are not identical and even screen technologies differ ie. Plasma,LCD,Tube etc its fairly obvious that colour will be represented in different ways I won't throw in the curve ball of graphic cards. So hence the need for colour profiles these are effectively a matrix of available colours blacks/whites and greys and how they are mapped/balanced and represented within the workspace and then handled on by I/O devices. The output standard to screen is Srgb this being the smallest profile. Working in Larger profiles means that at some point the matrix will need to be compressed to SRGB if the image is to be displayed and yes I am aware that some screens/graphics cards can display larger rgb values but for the purpose of this we will ignore that and I also accept that images worked on in other profiles will display just not correctly although this itself is subjective. I am making the point that if you convert a profile from larger to smaller it can then make the image look flat. So assuming that you work along the lines that your picture is going to viewed on lower quality screens with lower quality image files. Working with a smaller colour profile stands a better chance of your image being represented in a closer way too the original especially if that profile also happens to be the hardware default. The idea being that it can be viewed by more people with less variances. A simple rule of thumb being the less compression in the process the better the quality, this applies to colour and tone as well. Some compression is unavoidable when producing image for web. So a big element of personal taste comes into this as working in all profiles comes down to choice fit for the purpose with regard to final output. The trade offs are numerous and will affect different computer users in different ways depending on their individual hardware/software configurations. John

Send Nm Mail to doctorontop Add doctorontop to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by doctorontop at 02-19-2008 9:52 PM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
paulcoxphotography

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Manchester
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 11498

quoting post from  doctorontop:

It is the case that alot of LCD screens do not allow for calibration but the better ones do. Most computer users do not have their screens calibrated if all screens were colour calibrated then in theory and in an ideal world you would expect colour to be treated in roughly the same way. But since this is not the case and screen internal design and components are not identical and even screen technologies differ ie. Plasma,LCD,Tube etc its fairly obvious that colour will be represented in different ways I won't throw in the curve ball of graphic cards. So hence the need for colour profiles these are effectively a matrix of available colours blacks/whites and greys and how they are mapped/balanced and represented within the workspace and then handled on by I/O devices. The output standard to screen is Srgb this being the smallest profile. Working in Larger profiles means that at some point the matrix will need to be compressed to SRGB if the image is to be displayed and yes I am aware that some screens/graphics cards can display larger rgb values but for the purpose of this we will ignore that and I also accept that images worked on in other profiles will display just not correctly although this itself is subjective. I am making the point that if you convert a profile from larger to smaller it can then make the image look flat. So assuming that you work along the lines that your picture is going to viewed on lower quality screens with lower quality image files. Working with a smaller colour profile stands a better chance of your image being represented in a closer way too the original especially if that profile also happens to be the hardware default. The idea being that it can be viewed by more people with less variances. A simple rule of thumb being the less compression in the process the better the quality, this applies to colour and tone as well. Some compression is unavoidable when producing image for web. So a big element of personal taste comes into this as working in all profiles comes down to choice fit for the purpose with regard to final output. The trade offs are numerous and will affect different computer users in different ways depending on their individual hardware/software configurations. John

I see. Personally I've not seen this flattening effect and wonder why it would occur by converting at the end of the editing process rather than at capture (in the case of shooting jpeg) or at RAW conversion.

Send Nm Mail to paulcoxphotography Add paulcoxphotography to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Eldubois

Photographer
City: London
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jul 23, 2005
Posts: 141

quoting post from paulcoxphotography:

I would / do. It keeps in any copyright info in the EXIF too.

Check to make sure it still has an SRGB profile attached, not that it makes any difference in a browser but does ensure that it has been converted.


Is there any other difference between 'sfw' and 'save as' after converting to sRGB? Some time ago, I compared a couple of couple of images saved in both ways and the 'sfw' versions appeared wider - is that possible? Might just be my eyes!

Send Nm Mail to Eldubois Add Eldubois to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
 doctorontop



Photographer
City: La Condamine
Country: Morroco
Member Since: Jun 25, 2007
Posts: 2592

quoting post from paulcoxphotography:

I see. Personally I've not seen this flattening effect and wonder why it would occur by converting at the end of the editing process rather than at capture (in the case of shooting jpeg) or at RAW conversion.

maybe I should have used the term rounding errors rather than word compression although much of a muchness in the example given. I use 8 bit image a lot during the editing process so the difference in colour is more marked when converting. My screens are very high resolution and show everything as I said before different hardware profiles give different results.

Send Nm Mail to doctorontop Add doctorontop to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
OldMaster

Photographer
City: Harpenden
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Dec 30, 2007
Posts: 1950

I am a bit confused..I use the up load facility on Net Model, just create a folder/file in My Pics or whatever and up load them individually.

I found a good size which also opens at a sensible size when clicked on was the following...

For a portrait picture, save as a Jpeg (obviously..around "High Quality" or 8-10 on the scale?), 450 pixels wide at 72ppi (Screen Res)....Save all the images like that and then rotate for landscape format...I agree with sRGB colour space but most digital cameras or images for high street printers (Fuji Frontier) are already saved in this space....

Hope this helps!!!

Send Nm Mail to OldMaster Add OldMaster to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
paulcoxphotography

Thread Starter / Photographer
City: Manchester
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 11498

They will. That's why I said

Quote:

Unless you are using Safari the browser will not pick up on the colour profile and therefore treat it as if it were SRGB.


Send Nm Mail to paulcoxphotography Add paulcoxphotography to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Annie_h

Model
City: glasgow
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jul 7, 2008
Posts: 75

Tis all greek to me! but im trying to learn... its slow.... painfully, painfully slow.....

Send Nm Mail to Annie_h Add Annie_h to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
handro

Photographer
City: Cebu
Country: Phillippines
Member Since: Mar 14, 2009
Posts: 13

try to downdload 3rd party softwares that will calibrate your monitor.

Send Nm Mail to handro Add handro to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
martyncoup

Photographer
City: Hull
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 19, 2010
Posts: 19

Nice! This is really useful, thanks for this.

Send Nm Mail to martyncoup Add martyncoup to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
 Diceman199

Photographer
City: Uxbridge
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 1372

I'm viewing in internet explorer and there is a marked difference in the images. I would describe the first image as having a more greyed skin tone, the red in the bodice is less pronounced and the image generally darker.

My PC is hooked to a 32" LCD TV and it certainly pays to run the full configuration process using both the TV / monitor and the PC configuration tools.

As i've only recently started using PS this is useful info and i'll have to look for a photoshop for dummies book soon i think

Send Nm Mail to Diceman199 Add Diceman199 to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by Diceman199 at 09-01-2010 11:20 AM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Petesky

Photographer
City: Portsmouth
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Dec 30, 2009
Posts: 1092

Thanks this post has helped me out. I converted the image in photoshop to sRGB and the colours look fine now when I upload.

But my question is, normally my pictures are fine and I don't have to do this so why did I have to do it with this particular image?

I first processed it in Lightroom 3 then exported to photoshop, converted to 8 bit(if i don't do this it will only let me save as a tiff and not a jpeg) then saved as a jpeg.

This is what I often do and the colours look fine, but for some reason with this particular pic the colours looked desaturated and greenish.

They also looked dodgy when I resized it using Picture Tray.

Anyone got any ideas where I might have gone inadvertantly wrong with this particular pic? And why I don't normally have to convert the colour space?

Pete

Send Nm Mail to Petesky Add Petesky to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
 Myk



Photographer
City: Pant
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1225

things move on ...

the differences in the 3 OP images are obvious in my old IE but in current FireFox they are the same

Send Nm Mail to Myk Add Myk to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Adrian_Sole

Photographer
City: Havant
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Nov 3, 2010
Posts: 174

I use safari and cant tell any difference in things.

Out of interest, can anyone see a difference in these two of mine. They both look the same to me on here.

If there is a difference, what is it.

sRGB

sRGB by soleadrian, on Flickr

RGB

RGB by soleadrian, on Flickr

*EDIT*

Just had a look on daughters windows pc and its pretty obvious.

I'm not sure I like the sRGB version. Far too intense. Which do you guys prefer? Oddly, everything I print at home is spot on for colour so I'm a little dubious about changing things around now.

Send Nm Mail to Adrian_Sole Add Adrian_Sole to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by Adrian_Sole at 03-12-2011 6:03 PM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
TerryDraper

Photographer
City: Nottingham
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Feb 25, 2011
Posts: 930

quoting post from Adrian_Sole:

I use safari and cant tell any difference in things.

Out of interest, can anyone see a difference in these two of mine. They both look the same to me on here.

If there is a difference, what is it.



The second image is much lighter and less saturated.
One somewhere in between may look better.

Terry

Send Nm Mail to TerryDraper Add TerryDraper to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by TerryDraper at 03-12-2011 6:09 PM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Adrian_Sole

Photographer
City: Havant
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Nov 3, 2010
Posts: 174

Thanks guys....

I think I'll leave well alone...

Send Nm Mail to Adrian_Sole Add Adrian_Sole to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Petesky

Photographer
City: Portsmouth
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Dec 30, 2009
Posts: 1092

Thanks for the info Paul. I did some basic processing in lightroom to some images then edited in photoshop making sure to set 'mode' to sRGB and 8 bit and when saving as a Jpeg they looked fine but when I uploaded one it looked greenish and unsaturated like your first pic.Following your advice I looked in 'assign profile' and it was indeed set to prophoto rgb, so I set it to sRGB and the image changed to how it looked when uploaded which is great because I can now adjust the colours as to how they will look on the web.

Two questions though....

I never manually set it to prophoto rgb,did lightroom do that automatically(or when it opened in photoshop), and is there any way to set lightroom to assign photos to srgb automatically?

And is there any way to adjust the colours back to how they looked in prophoto rgb after they are converted to srgb other than manually with trial and error?

I never have this problem when just editing in photoshop so think that lightroom must be the problem.


Pete.

Send Nm Mail to Petesky Add Petesky to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
PhilGW

Photographer
City: Weston-super-Mare
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Jan 27, 2008
Posts: 1163

Lightroom automatically exports files for external editing as prophoto rgb, you can change this setting using Edit/Preferences/External Editing from within Lightroom

www.philgwphotography.com

Send Nm Mail to PhilGW Add PhilGW to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
Petesky

Photographer
City: Portsmouth
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Dec 30, 2009
Posts: 1092

ah, so it's Lightroom that's the culprit!! Thanks :-)

That will solve any problems in the future. But can anyone help with how to get my images back to looking how they did before I converted them from prophoto rgb to srgb.

I've opened them up in photoshop they look fine(still prophoto rgb) convert them to srgb - they look muddy and horrible,play around with saturation/colour balance/levels to try to replicate how it originally looked but although I can make them look much better I'm struggling to get them looking as good as they did before.

Will i just have to resign myself to starting over with these images and learning from my mistakes?


pete.

Send Nm Mail to Petesky Add Petesky to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
ajc07977

Photographer
City: Ipswich
Country: United Kingdom
Member Since: Nov 9, 2007
Posts: 2672

Unbelievable ... this 'internet use / high street lab / main online lab' need for sRBG' ... is such an obviously well known fact, that any photographer worth his f-stops should know (I would have thought). The OP may have enlightened many, via his late 2007 posting ... but how so many seemingly well-established individuals seemed to be 'in the dark' is somewhat disturbing to me.



Andrew
______

" Grumpy cynicism now an optional extra, not standard "

Send Nm Mail to ajc07977 Add ajc07977 to your favorites list
Top  IP: Logged | Edited by ajc07977 at 04-18-2011 5:34 PM Report Post Reply Reply w/Quote
< Previous Thread | Next Thread >
Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | > |







Forum Settings : [ Open Forum ]

You may post topics
You may post replies
You may post images
You may delete your posts