Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Bryce and embedded profile  (Read 3352 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« on: July 06, 2014, 12:29:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Kev, not for nothing, but how do you prepare images for posting on LuLa and your blog?

Drag & drop from the LuLa home page shows the image having no embedded profile but clicking on the larger blog image shows an image with an embedded ProPhoto RGB profile. No image on the web should really ever have anything other than sRGB...

So, when I view the main image on LuLa the image is over saturated...but when I grab the image and look at it in PS and assume an sRGB profile, it look normal...when viewed in Safari without a tagged profile it looks oversaturate...my display is set to Adobe RGB.

The image posted on your blog (the image after clicking on the main image) appears ok but when downloaded, it reports ProPhoto RGB as the profile.

So...what's real? I think the image on LuLa with a stripped profile is actually not sRGB. The image on your blog seems to be ProPhoto RGB but displays correctly in Safari (since on Mac it is profile sensitive)

Here's some advice...ALWAYS transform from the working space to sRGB. If you strip the profile, ok...but at least the image is down transformed to sRGB. Depending on the OS & the browser, at least sRGB images will look "ok".

But if any image is mismatched (meaning with or without a profile but uploaded in the original working space) you run the risk of images displaying incorrectly...

This may be one reason why some people (myself included) accuse you of over processing images. Any image in ProPhoto RGB that is displayed in a non-color managed browser will look like crap...

Check out your process for processing and uploading images to both LuLa but your blog...(and anywhere else you post). This stuff is tricky...it's easy to miss a step or two.

Just sayin'...
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2014, 12:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This may be one reason why some people (myself included) accuse you of over processing images. Any image in ProPhoto RGB that is displayed in a non-color managed browser will look like crap...

Very true!
Many image hosting sites use sRGB as their workspace, and one should convert the image to sRGB from Prophoto.
But I don't see the over processed look in those images on my screen. Rather the opposite. If you submit an image to them in Prophoto, they will assign it to sRGB (instead of convert), and the image looses all vibrance and warmth, and it looks cooler and more bland.
Logged

Kevin Raber
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


Kevin Raber


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2014, 06:21:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff
Thanks for the feedback and we can talk further on this when we speak this week.

On LuLa we us Save For Web in PS to size and save an image for the site.  Supposedly this feature strips or assigns an sRGB and scales the image to the right PPI and such.  Seems to work so far.  I check the images on Safari as well as Chrome and they match pretty good.  On the blog I Import a 12 inch print with the white matte my standard presentation on blog and FB etc..   It may have come in as ProPhoto as that is what I work in almost always.  When I import into WP it is supposed to undergo a few things, sizing to different sizes and a profile change to display properly as well as PPI scaling.  It seems to always look good and when I was learning WP I was told don't worry about the color as WP will do a conversion or reassign. This method of importing a large image allows a person to click though a few times on an image and see it really large.

At this moment I have the original image in PS open, and the LuLa Home page and the Blog and they all look the same with maybe some minor differences.  (at least on my machine).

So, I am just following  procedure that I have been doing for a while.   Yes, it would seem to me I should reassign a profile in PS prior to importing the image into either system.  But there seems to be something that goes on at import into WP that does some kind of conversion.

When we meet next I'll show you the process.  Always open to suggestions.

Kevin
Logged

Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
kwr@luminous-landscape.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7655


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2014, 12:26:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Kevin,

I am pretty sure that the image your blog is tagged Prophoto RGB. If it is retagged to sRGB it looks much different. In general, I would say that having a JPEG image in Prophoto RGB is a bad idea, as steps are to large. Prophoto is an RGB best enjoyed in a 16 bit space.

Best regards
Erik


Jeff
Thanks for the feedback and we can talk further on this when we speak this week.

On LuLa we us Save For Web in PS to size and save an image for the site.  Supposedly this feature strips or assigns an sRGB and scales the image to the right PPI and such.  Seems to work so far.  I check the images on Safari as well as Chrome and they match pretty good.  On the blog I Import a 12 inch print with the white matte my standard presentation on blog and FB etc..   It may have come in as ProPhoto as that is what I work in almost always.  When I import into WP it is supposed to undergo a few things, sizing to different sizes and a profile change to display properly as well as PPI scaling.  It seems to always look good and when I was learning WP I was told don't worry about the color as WP will do a conversion or reassign. This method of importing a large image allows a person to click though a few times on an image and see it really large.

At this moment I have the original image in PS open, and the LuLa Home page and the Blog and they all look the same with maybe some minor differences.  (at least on my machine).

So, I am just following  procedure that I have been doing for a while.   Yes, it would seem to me I should reassign a profile in PS prior to importing the image into either system.  But there seems to be something that goes on at import into WP that does some kind of conversion.

When we meet next I'll show you the process.  Always open to suggestions.

Kevin
Logged

Kevin Raber
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


Kevin Raber


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2014, 12:38:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks.... I will change the next blog image save and also check with WP.  I do believe the save for web for LuLa in PS has been working fine.  Maybe just using the save for web feature on my images in ProPhoto will do the proper conversion.  I'll mess with it a bit and see what happens.

Kevin
Logged

Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
kwr@luminous-landscape.com
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2014, 01:06:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I also downloaded the blog picture and it was tagged with Prophoto RGB. That is not a problem using a color managed browser like Safari and Firefox. And Chrome also if you enable monitor profile. I don't see that this would be retagged as sRGB, only if uploaded without a profile. I do agree that Prophoto is not a good idea on the web generally although almost all main browsers are now color managed, except Windows Internet Explorer which to my knowledge is profile aware but ignores the monitor profile. Last I checked Opera it was not color managed. I'm not sure about browsers in phones and tablets as I have not checked these.

I do see the picture on LuLa as a bit soft and save for Web does not sharpen the downsized unless this is done as a separate step. Save for Web does have an option for saving the sRGB profile with the downsized picture and I think it is better to have a profile always rather than having the browser assuming the profile or any program if the picture is downloaded.

I'm a little surprised that the pictures on the blog are that large.

Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2014, 01:23:05 PM »
ReplyReply

When I was learning WP I was told don't worry about the color as WP will do a conversion or reassign.

Don't be too confident. When you upload that image, WP creates a range of smaller JPEGs and typically strips out the colour profile and other metadata. Depending on the size of picture the visitor is viewing, they'll either get one of these untagged smaller versions or the uploaded file which might have proPhoto if you've mistakenly applied it.

Apart from ensuring you upload an sRGB JPEG, you need to ensure WP is not using the old GD image processing library as it strips the colour profile. Usually the server will also have available the more modern ImageMagick image processing library which doesn't strip the profile/metadata, and you can force WP to use it using the ImageMagickEngine plugin.

John
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 03:20:53 AM by john beardsworth » Logged

Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2014, 02:25:20 PM »
ReplyReply

But there seems to be something that goes on at import into WP that does some kind of conversion.

Kevin

What is WP?

Added: I guess you mean Wordpress?  On a self-hosted Wordpress platform (Wordpress.org) , it depends on the theme.  Some themes strip away the image profiles or ignore them.  I don't know how Wordpress.com is handled. 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 02:31:24 PM by Rajan Parrikar » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2014, 02:29:49 PM »
ReplyReply

What is WP?


wordpress.com
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2014, 04:26:03 PM »
ReplyReply

On a self-hosted Wordpress platform (Wordpress.org) , it depends on the theme.  Some themes strip away the image profiles or ignore them.

It's not the theme, Rajan, it's the graphics library that the WP installation is using. See my post above.

John
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2014, 04:54:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks.... I will change the next blog image save and also check with WP.  I do believe the save for web for LuLa in PS has been working fine.  Maybe just using the save for web feature on my images in ProPhoto will do the proper conversion.  I'll mess with it a bit and see what happens.

Kev,

So, this is what I'm seeing...the first image is the home page image dragged and dropped into Photoshop and assigning sRGB for the untagged image. This is what I think you meant the image to look like, right?



This is a screenshot of how the image appears in the blog post on Safari on Mac. This one pretty well matches the sRGB above...



So, far, all good if you are on color managed browser with an image tagged as ProPhoto RGB. But the problem comes when you hit different situations. The image below is what I see on my NEC display using an Adobe RGB speced color space and profiled.



Because the image on LuLa is untagged, the browser does not do color management and passes the image to the vid system. It becomes over blown because Safari is assuming the image will be displayed on a screen similar to sRGB but in fact, it's Adobe RGB.

The last image is what a ProPhoto RGB version will look like on non-color managed displays...



So, there you have it...the good, the bad & the ugly...

The problem boils down to the lack of cross-platform color management and how to handled tagged and untagged images. I don't fault you for using Save For Web and stripping out the sRGB profile. But, it means people with wide gamut displays are gonna be seeing something other than what you expect. I've gotten used to the issue and live with it...

I do fault you for posting images in ProPhoto RGB with the profile embedded because then anybody with a browser that isn't color managed is gonna be seeing crap looking images.
Logged
prairiewing
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2014, 07:13:08 PM »
ReplyReply

That was a helpful discussion.  Thanks for doing it in public.
Logged

Pat Gerlach
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1097


« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2014, 01:54:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for bringing up the blog, I would not have found it otherwise.
Logged
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2014, 02:36:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps this document proves useful for some readers here as well:

http://www.poynton.com/Poynton-color.html

Logged
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2014, 03:19:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is a recent presentation that is comparing a variety of different media color spaces, such as cameras from 1DX over D800 to A7R  - be prepared for a jaw drop if you haven't seen this before!  Grin - printing papers etc. and visually explains about sRGB Adobe RGB and ProPhotoRGB.

Jeff, I can not remember the software that he used to plot into LAB, do you happen to know?

http://vimeo.com/96582689
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 03:21:14 AM by laughingbear » Logged
viewfinder
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2014, 05:09:55 AM »
ReplyReply

So,.....Which rendering is actually 'like' Bryce Natinal park?   I have never been there so I would like to know.....Does it have peaks of Edinburgh rock and icing sugar shaded in coral pink?...or what?
Logged
Kevin Raber
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


Kevin Raber


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2014, 05:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jeff!  I'll call you later on other matters.  I will change the next image that goes up.  Let's see how that works.  The ProPhoto RGB I was told didn't matter when the import happened but now see otherwise.  I think this can all be fixed with a small change in the workflow prior to getting an image ready for the web no matter where it goes. 

The top two images in Jeff's post are the ones that are pretty accurate.


Kevin
Logged

Kevin Raber
Publisher - luminous-landscape.com
kwr@luminous-landscape.com
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2014, 09:02:36 AM »
ReplyReply

So how come 'save for web' is saving in profoto? I thought it automatically saved as sRGB. If not in more recent versions of PS I have to keep an eye out.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8075



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2014, 12:01:16 PM »
ReplyReply

So how come 'save for web' is saving in profoto? I thought it automatically saved as sRGB. If not in more recent versions of PS I have to keep an eye out.
I stopped using "save for web" a while ago because it wasn't doing what it was supposed to. I think I first tried it in CS5, now in CS6. So now when I want a web version, I first make a copy (so I don't screw up the printable tif), then convert the profile to sRGB, and then save as a jpeg.

This could all be put in an action if I wanted to spend the few seconds necessary.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
E.J. Peiker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2014, 01:03:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Save for web only converts to sRGB if that box is checked in the Save For Web dialog.  If it is not checked it retains the color space that you were working in.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad