Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR Exported RGB pics to Website are D-U-L-L  (Read 4536 times)
mchudzik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


WWW
« on: June 02, 2010, 01:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

My photos look great on my Adobe RGB calibrated monitor look great and print "spot on" to my printer.
But, when I export the photos via Lightrom's PDF/RGB export utility, the colors end up looking terribly dull on my website.  I am following the LR defaults to convert the photos to RGB.  So what is the problem ad how do I solve it?

Steps and equipment:
I am importing my Raw photos into Lightroom.  My Nikon is set to AdobeRGB, but I was told that if I am shooting RAW, there is no assignment of the photo to anycolorspace, until Lightroom converts it on import.
On import, I allow the photo working colorspace to default by Lightroom to "ProPhoto RGB".
Monitor color profile is Xrite-i1 calibrated to Adobe RGB.  I do that because I have an HP z3100 wide format printer that the manual recommends AdbobeRGB profile for best printing; and I always send it to the printer with the Print Manager set to "Application Controls Printing".  The results in the printing is that the prints are as good as I see them on the monitor, by my fussy standards.

So,  what am I missing?  I am suspecting that it is that the photo adjusted to look good on an AdobeRGB calibrated screen for oprimized printing is converting to a bad looking photo on sRGB standard set monitors.  I don't see other Lightroom users work on the internet look like these though.
My website is www.michaelchudzik.com.

Help?
Logged
acktdi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2010, 02:50:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Web browsers only display in sRGB
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2010, 03:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: acktdi
Web browsers only display in sRGB


Not really...

Only two web browsers are color managed so even when you upload sRGB, you’re not guaranteed to see the colors as you saw them in color managed apps. You could easily upload any RGB color space to the web, and in Safari and Firefox, which are color managed, they would look fine.... On your machine. Everyone else using non color managed browsers, no such luck. So sending sRGB up to the web attempts to provide a file that covers the lowest common denominator on non color aware browsers.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
mchudzik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 03:55:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Not really...

Only two web browsers are color managed so even when you upload sRGB, you’re not guaranteed to see the colors as you saw them in color managed apps. You could easily upload any RGB color space to the web, and in Safari and Firefox, which are color managed, they would look fine.... On your machine. Everyone else using non color managed browsers, no such luck. So sending sRGB up to the web attempts to provide a file that covers the lowest common denominator on non color aware browsers.

Thanks Dog,
So, I'm still not sure how to remedy this problem.
I use MS Explorer 99% of the time.  Just old habit - and since Explorer still has the majority of the market, I'd like to have the majority of visitors to my website see my photos in their best color, as I am seeing them in LR.

Based on what you said,
"Everyone else using non color managed browsers, no such luck. So sending sRGB up to the web attempts to provide a file that covers the lowest common denominator on non color aware browsers" ...How are all of the Lightroom users that I see displaying photos, not having the problem I am having?

Would changing my monitor profile from AdobeRGB to ProPhotoRGB (to leave the photo in the widest volor gamut with the least amount of correction) help with the web color profile conversion?
I don't know what that does to printing.  I send print jobs "Application Managed" and profiles set to the paper calibration and have very little proof correcting now, because I adjusted my photos on an AdobeRGB profiled monitor screen.

The main question is HOW do I get both out of one photo file in Lightroom:
A good print rendition on my screen for my printing;
Plus a realistic picture rendition sent to the majority of visitors' web screens (who don't have color managed browsers).

Thanks
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 03:57:46 PM by mchudzik » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 04:26:40 PM »
ReplyReply

There’s no way to fix this issue if others (or you) use non ICC aware applications. They don’t understand how to properly preview color images.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
JonathanBenoit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 05:31:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
There’s no way to fix this issue if others (or you) use non ICC aware applications. They don’t understand how to properly preview color images.


You can drive yourself crazy with this.
Most people are using a monitor that is far from color accurate as well. Its a waste of time to worry about it because there is nothing you can do. In the best case scenario, there really is only a small percentage of the world that will be seeing what you intended.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 05:45:58 PM »
ReplyReply

There are numerous threads about this very topic here. As pointed out above, the conclusion from all of them is to not worry about it since you can't impact it now or in the foreseeable future. Put them up on the web as sRGB and be zen about how others see them.

Hell, even many hardcore photographers are just as complacent about accurate colors - just look at all the talk about using iPads as a portable portfolio or remote viewfinder on this very forum. (iPad doesn't have color management.)
Logged

Wolf Eilers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 11:35:28 PM »
ReplyReply

By the way, colour management in the latest releases of Firefox is broken (see Firefox 3.5 Color Management) if you use v4 profiles for your monitor. (I use a Huey Pro which generates v4 profiles.) This is particularly annoying with a high gamut monitor, resulting in Firefox displaying garish images.

I see no evidence that Mozilla will fix Firefox.
Logged
mchudzik
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2010, 12:41:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
Put them up on the web as sRGB and be zen about how others see them.
Truly the best advice so far.

Still, I am asking a question that does not get directly answered so far.  I just wanted to know how I can keep Lightroom from converting my highly satisfactory print-adjusted photos into dull mud-tone when I instruct LR to convert them into RGB jpegs for web viewing.

I see a lot of photos on the web with really great color that I have to believe many of them passed through Lightroom applications on a lot of desktops.
How are they not having the same problem if they go to print to a printer that suggests an AdobeRGB color profiled photo?  Make two set of photos?  One set for web and one printing?

If I calibrated my monitor for the most up to date ICC web compliant color profile, which according to International Color Consortiums website,
is sRGB v4 ICC; and then adjusted photos to have close-to-best web viewing, my guess is that I'd lose something on the printing side.  
I am very satisfied with my camera-to-print color management set up right now, which includes my monitor (HP4275) which provides a 100% view of the AdobeRGB Gamut, and I have calibrated to AdobeRGB - and didn't want to start messing that up.
Logged
Nacnud
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2010, 06:14:43 AM »
ReplyReply

This is one of the best descriptions of this problem that I've come across.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_p...EGprofiles.html
It includes a whacked colour space sample so you can tell if your browser is colour managed.

I've always followed the earlier advice - for images displayed on the Web, use SRGB and keep your fingers crossed.
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2010, 07:15:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mchudzik
Still, I am asking a question that does not get directly answered so far.  I just wanted to know how I can keep Lightroom from converting my highly satisfactory print-adjusted photos into dull mud-tone when I instruct LR to convert them into RGB jpegs for web viewing.

I would solve this by exporting for web separately as sRGB jpg of desired size/compression (sharpend normal & for screen viewing)
This is much simpler to manage and you have no risk of jeopardizing your carefully crafted adobeRGB files that you use for printing.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2010, 07:52:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
You can drive yourself crazy with this.
Most people are using a monitor that is far from color accurate as well. Its a waste of time to worry about it because there is nothing you can do. In the best case scenario, there really is only a small percentage of the world that will be seeing what you intended.
The other thing you can do is put a note on your website saying that the printed images look much better than what viewers are seeing on their screens.  When I show actual prints (or better yet sell one), there is amazement on the part of the viewer.  Most people are used to the 4x6 prints they get from their point and shoot.  I did some work for a colleague the other day developing a JPG that was shot at the Dead Sea.  The original was washed out and 10 minutes of work in Lightroom brought out colors in the sky that were in the original capture but lost in the Costco print.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 03, 2010, 08:31:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wolf Eilers
By the way, colour management in the latest releases of Firefox is broken (see Firefox 3.5 Color Management) if you use v4 profiles for your monitor.

Lots of stuff is broken when encountering V4 profiles. Best not to make em just yet.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 03, 2010, 12:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wolf Eilers
By the way, colour management in the latest releases of Firefox is broken (see Firefox 3.5 Color Management) if you use v4 profiles for your monitor. (I use a Huey Pro which generates v4 profiles.) This is particularly annoying with a high gamut monitor, resulting in Firefox displaying garish images.

I see no evidence that Mozilla will fix Firefox.

According to the page linked below my FF 3.6.3 is color managed - was surprised to see that result. Also tried with the others I have installed: Safari for PC is color managed, Google Chrome or Opera are not.

Quote from: Nacnud
This is one of the best descriptions of this problem that I've come across.
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_p...EGprofiles.html
It includes a whacked colour space sample so you can tell if your browser is colour managed.

I've always followed the earlier advice - for images displayed on the Web, use SRGB and keep your fingers crossed.

It's telling that it takes six or so pages to explain color management - and I have a feeling that explanation is far from clear to anyone who's not familiar with the subject already. No wonder no one outside of photography and graphic design circles can't be bothered with it.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM by feppe » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5536



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2010, 01:16:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mchudzik
... Still, I am asking a question that does not get directly answered so far.  I just wanted to know how I can keep Lightroom from converting my highly satisfactory print-adjusted photos into dull mud-tone when I instruct LR to convert them into RGB jpegs for web viewing.
...
It must be that I "didn't take my pills" today (as MR likes to joke), but I am completely baffled that this is still considered not answered. Several people, feppe and pegelli in particular, have already said it simply: convert it to sRGB during export. Why is that still such an issue!? Doing so has nothing to do with your printing set up. It is one of the main compelling advantages of Lightroom workflow: set up a master file once and repurpose it for many different uses later, during export or printing. If I am not mistaken, Lightroom uses a proprietary workspace (though rather close to ProPhoto RGB), which is then converted to whatever space you want during export or printing. For web use, it is sRGB... for printing, whatever is appropriate for your printer.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 358


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2010, 02:46:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
It must be that I "didn't take my pills" today (as MR likes to joke), but I am completely baffled that this is still considered not answered. Several people, feppe and pegelli in particular, have already said it simply: convert it to sRGB during export. Why is that still such an issue!? Doing so has nothing to do with your printing set up. It is one of the main compelling advantages of Lightroom workflow: set up a master file once and repurpose it for many different uses later, during export or printing. If I am not mistaken, Lightroom uses a proprietary workspace (though rather close to ProPhoto RGB), which is then converted to whatever space you want during export or printing. For web use, it is sRGB... for printing, whatever is appropriate for your printer.
Slobodan,

Can you give an example, send me a master file (with up to date XMP) and a derived jpg file? I use LR as my master system, and do not recall such problems as you appear to have. Send it to info@janrsmit.com, or send me a mail with the ftp info so i can download it.

Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2010, 06:19:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JRSmit
Slobodan,

Can you give an example, send me a master file (with up to date XMP) and a derived jpg file? I use LR as my master system, and do not recall such problems as you appear to have. Send it to info@janrsmit.com, or send me a mail with the ftp info so i can download it.

I think Slobodan is fine, I think it's mchudzik who's having a "problem".

Don't think it's a real problem though, If you export in adobeRGB for printing and then just resize for web posting they will look dull, but that's not a technical problem, but the wrong workflow (I think).
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 358


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2010, 08:12:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
I think Slobodan is fine, I think it's mchudzik who's having a "problem".

Don't think it's a real problem though, If you export in adobeRGB for printing and then just resize for web posting they will look dull, but that's not a technical problem, but the wrong workflow (I think).

Mea culpa Slobodan, i should have taken my pills first ;-)

I agree with Pegelli and Slobodan, it should work if proper path/workflow is followed.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
jimby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2010, 07:20:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mchudzik
Thanks Dog,
So, I'm still not sure how to remedy this problem.
I use MS Explorer 99% of the time.  Just old habit - and since Explorer still has the majority of the market...

You might want to reevaluate this assumption about IE market share.

See here.
Logged
Peter Stacey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2010, 01:21:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jimby
You might want to reevaluate this assumption about IE market share.

See here.

Like all statistics, it's important to look at it in broader terms and not just the figures.

In the case of these stats, the data is based on visitors to the W3Schools website and at the bottom, the following information is provided:

[blockquote]W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.[/blockquote]

Explorer still has a strong market position.

Regards,

Peter
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad