Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Export from LR looks pale  (Read 6863 times)
Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« on: April 14, 2008, 02:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
My workflow is now 90% Lightroom and I like it.
I work with an imac 24" and a Macbook. Both profiled with a spider.
recently I started sharing my photographs online, but I cannot get the colours right online.

I export RAW files (in adobe colorspace) and then convert to sRGB. The saturation of my pics just seem to vaporise!

When I prepare files using Photoshop, I'm used to the option 'don't color manage' which gives me the best results. But this option is not present in Lightroom...

Is there a correct way of handling this?
Logged

Giedo
Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2008, 04:45:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Did I post a stupid question? Or does no one have a clue on this issue?
I'm hoping someone has the answer to solve my problem, or might know where I can look for it...
Anyone?
Thank you, Giedo
Logged

Giedo
Theodore
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2008, 08:10:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I export RAW files (in adobe colorspace) and then convert to sRGB. The saturation of my pics just seem to vaporise!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Giedo - when you export from LR, at that point export the file as sRGB and that should work just fine.  I typically will export from LR to a folder and then upload to the web - again the file is converted to sRGB at the time of export.  This may not be the best way to do it, but I've found that it works just fine.
Logged
AndyDahlem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2008, 02:55:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Giedo,

although I'm running Lightroom on Windows XP, I encountered a similar problem, which I described in a post a few weeks ago.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=24013

I received some helpful replies which explain the problem but do not necessarily solve the problem of being certain that other people will see the photos as intended. I also contacted Adobe's Lightroom team but haven't received any feedback yet. They are probably too busy working on LR 2. Though it would be helpful if they would acknowledge the problem as it doesn't seem to be the result of user error.

Good luck!
Logged
DavidB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2008, 06:07:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I export RAW files (in adobe colorspace) and then convert to sRGB.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
RAW files don't have a colourspace (well no profile, at least!) so it's not clear what you're doing.  Are you exporting AdobeRGB files and converting to sRGB in some external application (e.g. Photoshop)?  Or are you simply exporting sRGB files from Lightroom?

Quote
When I prepare files using Photoshop, I'm used to the option 'don't color manage' which gives me the best results. But this option is not present in Lightroom...
If you get "best results" by turning off colour management then there's something weird going on!  BTW, in that case Photoshop will display the images as though they were in your default RGB colourspace (see the Color Settings) even though it treats them as having no profile.

Quote
Is there a correct way of handling this?
When you put images up on the web there are no guarantees as to how the colours will be seen at "the other end".  If the images have a profile embedded in them, some browsers (e.g. Safari, Firefox 3) will use the appropriate display profile to show the correct colours (if the user has actually profiled their display of course!).  If the images are untagged, some browsers (e.g. Firefox 3) will assume they're meant to be sRGB and attempt to show the correct colours (I think this was the intent behind the W3c web standard).  Most other browsers will just send the pixel values to the display unmodified (effectively assuming the images are in the display's colourspace/profile).

Quote
I work with an imac 24" and a Macbook. Both profiled with a spider.
What type of Spyder (e.g. Express)?  What colour temperature/gamma did you calibrate them to during the profiling?
We expect that all displays (even those on Macs) are calibrated to a gamma of 2.2 (ok, so this is a generalisation) and most displays will be calibrated to 6500K.  These are characteristics of the sRGB space, and one of the effects of calibrating your display to these values is that if software doesn't use profiles and just sends data to the display (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox 2) then the display's colour space should be roughly similar to sRGB, and thus if the image was supposed to be in sRGB then the colours should be vaguely correct.

Given all the variables involved, if colour management is not used then it should be obvious that different users will see different colour shifts.  User A's display is probably calibrated slightly differently to user B's.  If each user has a profiled display then Photoshop/Lightroom/Safari/etc will know how to compensate and can draw correct colours on each display, but only by using the appropriate display profile at each end.
Note that different calibration/profiling software will do calibration differently.  Software like Eye-One Match, ColorEyes Display, and the advanced Spyder software will guide you through adjusting R/G/B controls, brightness, contrast, etc.  On top of that they will do some of the calibration by manipulating the video card lookup tables (LUTs).  Of course, with the screens on a MacBook and an iMac the only hardware controls available are for brightness, and the LUTs have to do all the work.
Software like the Spyder2express and the huey software will only do calibration by manipulating the LUTs.  With those when using external displays you will usually get a better calibration by at least adjusting the monitor controls manually before generating a profile.

Quote
I received some helpful replies which explain the problem but do not necessarily solve the problem of being certain that other people will see the photos as intended.
The bottom line remains: each monitor out there will probably be calibrated differently (some dramatically differently) and there is no way of "being certain that other people will see the photos as intended"!
Logged

Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2008, 02:28:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Giedo - when you export from LR, at that point export the file as sRGB and that should work just fine.  I typically will export from LR to a folder and then upload to the web - again the file is converted to sRGB at the time of export.  This may not be the best way to do it, but I've found that it works just fine.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Theodore. That's exactly how I do it, but funny enough, the export (to a folder in sRGB and then upload from that folder to a webpage) from my imac looks ok (not brilliant) but the export from my MacBook look appalling...
Same pictures, same software, same workflow, both computers are profiled....
But thanks for your answer!
Giedo
Logged

Giedo
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 921


« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2008, 01:11:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Why do you convert to sRGB?

Do you need the images for the web?

Otherwise, you are throwing a lot of good color space away.

Also, why not work in ProPhoto color space?
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2008, 02:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
RAW files don't have a colourspace (well no profile, at least!) so it's not clear what you're doing.  Are you exporting AdobeRGB files and converting to sRGB in some external application (e.g. Photoshop)?  Or are you simply exporting sRGB files from Lightroom?

If you get "best results" by turning off colour management then there's something weird going on!  BTW, in that case Photoshop will display the images as though they were in your default RGB colourspace (see the Color Settings) even though it treats them as having no profile.

When you put images up on the web there are no guarantees as to how the colours will be seen at "the other end".  If the images have a profile embedded in them, some browsers (e.g. Safari, Firefox 3) will use the appropriate display profile to show the correct colours (if the user has actually profiled their display of course!).  If the images are untagged, some browsers (e.g. Firefox 3) will assume they're meant to be sRGB and attempt to show the correct colours (I think this was the intent behind the W3c web standard).  Most other browsers will just send the pixel values to the display unmodified (effectively assuming the images are in the display's colourspace/profile).

What type of Spyder (e.g. Express)?  What colour temperature/gamma did you calibrate them to during the profiling?
We expect that all displays (even those on Macs) are calibrated to a gamma of 2.2 (ok, so this is a generalisation) and most displays will be calibrated to 6500K.  These are characteristics of the sRGB space, and one of the effects of calibrating your display to these values is that if software doesn't use profiles and just sends data to the display (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox 2) then the display's colour space should be roughly similar to sRGB, and thus if the image was supposed to be in sRGB then the colours should be vaguely correct.

Given all the variables involved, if colour management is not used then it should be obvious that different users will see different colour shifts.  User A's display is probably calibrated slightly differently to user B's.  If each user has a profiled display then Photoshop/Lightroom/Safari/etc will know how to compensate and can draw correct colours on each display, but only by using the appropriate display profile at each end.
Note that different calibration/profiling software will do calibration differently.  Software like Eye-One Match, ColorEyes Display, and the advanced Spyder software will guide you through adjusting R/G/B controls, brightness, contrast, etc.  On top of that they will do some of the calibration by manipulating the video card lookup tables (LUTs).  Of course, with the screens on a MacBook and an iMac the only hardware controls available are for brightness, and the LUTs have to do all the work.
Software like the Spyder2express and the huey software will only do calibration by manipulating the LUTs.  With those when using external displays you will usually get a better calibration by at least adjusting the monitor controls manually before generating a profile.

Quote
I received some helpful replies which explain the problem but do not necessarily solve the problem of being certain that other people will see the photos as intended.
The bottom line remains: each monitor out there will probably be calibrated differently (some dramatically differently) and there is no way of "being certain that other people will see the photos as intended"!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks David for your lengthy and usefull reply!
Reading all your (and other) knowledge on this subject, it seems to me that we are still in the early ages of colour management. It feels like MSdos on computers again. Too technical, too little real control (at least for the dummies like me).
I can understand a bit now but it still feels strange to me that the same picture, using the same  settings in the same software results in a damatically different display on the web when uploaded from 2 different computers (though both profiled)!

The only thing that I'm goin to try next is profile my monitor at 2.2 gamma as you suggested
(Mac suggests to profile it at 1.8!)

Thanks again and kind regards,
Giedo
Logged

Giedo
DavidB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2008, 09:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Why do you convert to sRGB?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the start of this thread Giedo wrote "I cannot get the colours right online" (presumably in the context of sharing images via the Web).
sRGB is the best choice for Web images, and in fact arguably ProPhoto would be one of the worst.  If you're exporting images for further manipulation, the opposite might be true.

Quote
The only thing that I'm goin to try next is profile my monitor at 2.2 gamma as you suggested
(Mac suggests to profile it at 1.8!)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that advice is descended from the days of the original Macintosh where the (B&W) screen was calibrated to a gamma of 1.8 to match the output of devices like the Apple LaserWriter.  In Mac-only environments where it was sensible to have all the machines displaying similar images, the gamma=1.8 setting stuck around for a long time.
Today when it's more usual to have mixed environments as well as a mixture of colour-managed applications (e.g. Lightroom) and non-CM apps (e.g. Internet Exploder) it makes more sense to calibrate everything to gamma=2.2 (which is also closer to the native behaviour of most monitors than 1.8, requiring less manipulation).  There are some specialised applications where different gammas are appropriate, but they're often in environments where _everything_ is colour-managed.
Logged

Snook
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2008, 03:34:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At the start of this thread Giedo wrote "I cannot get the colours right online" (presumably in the context of sharing images via the Web).
sRGB is the best choice for Web images, and in fact arguably ProPhoto would be one of the worst.  If you're exporting images for further manipulation, the opposite might be true.

I think that advice is descended from the days of the original Macintosh where the (B&W) screen was calibrated to a gamma of 1.8 to match the output of devices like the Apple LaserWriter.  In Mac-only environments where it was sensible to have all the machines displaying similar images, the gamma=1.8 setting stuck around for a long time.
Today when it's more usual to have mixed environments as well as a mixture of colour-managed applications (e.g. Lightroom) and non-CM apps (e.g. Internet Exploder) it makes more sense to calibrate everything to gamma=2.2 (which is also closer to the native behaviour of most monitors than 1.8, requiring less manipulation).  There are some specialised applications where different gammas are appropriate, but they're often in environments where _everything_ is colour-managed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I usually work straight through with just Adobe RGB 1998...
From beginning to end!
Especially on a macintosh.
My web images look pretty good I think.
You may be experiencing something else..
Hope you get it worked out.
Snook
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2008, 05:48:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,
My workflow is now 90% Lightroom and I like it.
I work with an imac 24" and a Macbook. Both profiled with a spider.
recently I started sharing my photographs online, but I cannot get the colours right online.

I export RAW files (in adobe colorspace) and then convert to sRGB. The saturation of my pics just seem to vaporise!

When I prepare files using Photoshop, I'm used to the option 'don't color manage' which gives me the best results. But this option is not present in Lightroom...

Is there a correct way of handling this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=189501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi!

The symptoms of saturation disappearing sounds like you might be assigning the sRGB-profile to the adobeRGB-image instead of actually converting to sRGB. Another possibility is that you have some supersaturated colors in your (adobeRGB-)images that simply do not fit into sRGB.
Also imac has a larger gamut display than the macbook whether profiled or not, thus if you compare the same images on different type of displays and in different programs, there may be considerable differences in color appearance.
It would be best to simply adjust and export the web-intended images from LR in sRGB, thus you will avoid unnecessary color conversions and you will see the exact web colors when editing the images in PS.

Cheers,
J
Logged
Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2008, 02:19:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi!

The symptoms of saturation disappearing sounds like you might be assigning the sRGB-profile to the adobeRGB-image instead of actually converting to sRGB. Another possibility is that you have some supersaturated colors in your (adobeRGB-)images that simply do not fit into sRGB.
Also imac has a larger gamut display than the macbook whether profiled or not, thus if you compare the same images on different type of displays and in different programs, there may be considerable differences in color appearance.
It would be best to simply adjust and export the web-intended images from LR in sRGB, thus you will avoid unnecessary color conversions and you will see the exact web colors when editing the images in PS.

Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you Juicy.
The thing is, I don't want to edit in Photoshop. I edit my images in LR and when I like the result, I export them to a folder from where I can upload them to different websites.
In your workflow I then would have to export the files in sRGB ad then reimport them in LR for final editing in sRGB before exporting them again? It has to be more simple than that.

I was just thinking that probably the best way is to shoot RAW in adobeRGB + a small JPEG in sRGB directly from the camera, but I doubt if that is possible...


Anyway, thanks for the suggestion. In the mean time I found that my Macbook has a colourprofile called AdobeRGB that I can choose. It seems to deliver beter results than the profile I created.

Giedo
Logged

Giedo
DavidB
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2008, 08:59:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was just thinking that probably the best way is to shoot RAW in adobeRGB + a small JPEG in sRGB directly from the camera, but I doubt if that is possible...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That doesn't make sense.  There's no "shoot RAW in adobeRGB".

When you shoot in JPEG the camera produces a JPEG file (duh!).  That file will be in sRGB or AdobeRGB depending on the camera settings.

When you shoot in RAW the camera produces a RAW file.  The RAW file has no colour space: it's just the numbers off the camera's sensor before integration into a colour image.  But the camera still produces JPEG data: even if you don't shoot in RAW+JPEG, the image you see on the LCD is a JPEG file created by the camera and embedded into the RAW file as a preview.  These JPEG files are affected by the camera's settings (e.g. colour space, saturation, sharpness, white balance, B&W, etc) but those settings have no effect on the RAW data.

In your RAW processor (e.g. LR) you can choose what colour space to render the data into (e.g. AdobeRGB even if your camera was set to sRGB).


Quote
In the mean time I found that my Macbook has a colourprofile called AdobeRGB that I can choose. It seems to deliver beter results than the profile I created.
What profile did you create?  The monitor profile with a Spyder?  So are you saying that something works "better" if you use AdobeRGB as your display profile?
I seriously doubt that AdobeRGB is an accurate representation of the behaviour of your MacBook's screen!  Certainly, specifying this as your display profile will probably reset the video card's LUTs, but but none of this can be getting you closer to "correct" behaviour!
Logged

Giedo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2008, 08:04:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That doesn't make sense.  There's no "shoot RAW in adobeRGB".

When you shoot in JPEG the camera produces a JPEG file (duh!).  That file will be in sRGB or AdobeRGB depending on the camera settings.

When you shoot in RAW the camera produces a RAW file.  The RAW file has no colour space: it's just the numbers off the camera's sensor before integration into a colour image.  But the camera still produces JPEG data: even if you don't shoot in RAW+JPEG, the image you see on the LCD is a JPEG file created by the camera and embedded into the RAW file as a preview.  These JPEG files are affected by the camera's settings (e.g. colour space, saturation, sharpness, white balance, B&W, etc) but those settings have no effect on the RAW data.

In your RAW processor (e.g. LR) you can choose what colour space to render the data into (e.g. AdobeRGB even if your camera was set to sRGB).
What profile did you create?  The monitor profile with a Spyder?  So are you saying that something works "better" if you use AdobeRGB as your display profile?
I seriously doubt that AdobeRGB is an accurate representation of the behaviour of your MacBook's screen!  Certainly, specifying this as your display profile will probably reset the video card's LUTs, but but none of this can be getting you closer to "correct" behaviour!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok thanks David. I think you made it clear that I am not an expert here.
I thank you though, because I can try and shoot RAW + jpeg, using sRGB for the jpegs and using those files for webpurpose!



Thanks again, Giedo
Logged

Giedo
Mosccol
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2008, 04:31:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Giedo, similar but different...

- Regarding calibration, I tried lots of different settings and I found that my MacBook Pro behaved best under 2.2 but with 'native' as the temperature. Much more natural colours than at 6500 degrees

- Regarding LR, I have experimented with some RAW pictures last week and edited them in photoshop. Because I have LR setup as a prophoto default, this is what it used when creating a psd file. So far no problem. However, when I then 'saved for web' after my PSD edit, I lost all the vibrance in the colours, as if a grey veil had put on the photograph! My hunch is that I should have done the edits, then saved the psd as sRGB and then reopened it for web resizing or perhaps simply changed the colour space from within photoshop. Anyway, this is a long way to say that colour space changes can make quite a big difference, so check that the whole workflow is consistent...
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2008, 09:39:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Giedo, similar but different...

- Regarding calibration, I tried lots of different settings ...

- Regarding LR, ... when I then 'saved for web' after my PSD edit, I lost all the vibrance in the colours, ...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should calibrate using a hardware calibrator (eyeone, Huey, etc.)  You'll never get it right just eyeballing it.  Trust me, a properly calibrated monitor doesn't look right to begin with, and you'll adjust.

In LR preferences ensure your import and export settings are ProPhoto, 16 bit TIFF.

In PS, ensure your default colorspace is also ProPhoto, preserve RGB colorspace, ACE engine and perceptual intent.

Keep your colorspace the same throughout any edits until you export final jpeg (using save for web).  Ensure the convert to sRGB option is selected in the optimize preset panel (click the arrow).

You can also view the gamma intent in the optimized window settings (the arrow top right of the optimize view window).  I keep it on uncompensated.

I have done this both round trip via PS and straight export to sRGB jpeg fro LR and all image saturations look like the RAW in LR.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad