Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Bryce and embedded profile  (Read 3341 times)
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2014, 01:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is the photographers workbench in my opinion. Anything you do in an external application (e.g. Photoshop) is imported into Lightroom if you invoke that application from Lightroom. So for publishing to the web, you either use publish for those websites having a plugin for Lightroom (.e.g. Smugmug and Zenfolio) og have an export template for the JPG you want to upload manually. In both cases Lightroom has options for the file format, color space, size and output sharpening. Why would anybody use manual steps in Photoshop these days when having Lightroom. Like who prints from Photoshop these days when Lightroom does it so much better?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 05:31:54 PM by Hans Kruse » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9188



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2014, 01:24:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Why would anybody use manual steps in Photoshop these days when having Lightroom. Like who prints from Photoshop these days when Lightroom does it so much better?
+1. That said, LR doesn't appear to strip out as much metadata as SFW (you can't not put a copyright in although I guess you should). Other than that, making a suite of LR export presets for this work just makes life easier and does the job faster.
Logged

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

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2014, 02:18:14 PM »
ReplyReply

+1.

Erik

+1. That said, LR doesn't appear to strip out as much metadata as SFW (you can't not put a copyright in although I guess you should). Other than that, making a suite of LR export presets for this work just makes life easier and does the job faster.
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866



« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2014, 04:07:46 PM »
ReplyReply

So,.....Which rendering is actually 'like' Bryce National 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?

Depends on the day. Depends on the time of day. Anyway, when it comes to tonality photography is IMO an interpretive pursuit.   Smiley

-Dave-
Logged
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2014, 02:44:45 PM »
ReplyReply

It can be time-consuming to produce correctly profiled images at numerous sizes for the web. My solution has been the following: upload to server full-size jpegs in their original profile with full meta-data. Then use a script running on the server to automatically prepare images for the web. This includes resize, sharpen, convert to sRGB, embed sRGB profile, strip out unwanted metadata, add caption & copyright meta-data, add border. All of that can be done by the Imagemagick command-line "convert" which is easy to install on any linux server.
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2884



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2014, 09:02:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom is the photographers workbench in my opinion.
Pretty good chance Kevins MFDB workflow would involve C1 through photoshop.  Although from C1 it’s pretty easy to create a processing recipe for web jpegs ...
Logged

Mark Guertin
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 233



« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2014, 08:00:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It can be time-consuming to produce correctly profiled images at numerous sizes for the web. My solution has been the following: upload to server full-size jpegs in their original profile with full meta-data. Then use a script running on the server to automatically prepare images for the web. This includes resize, sharpen, convert to sRGB, embed sRGB profile, strip out unwanted metadata, add caption & copyright meta-data, add border. All of that can be done by the Imagemagick command-line "convert" which is easy to install on any linux server.

I just wanted to chime in on this one as well (I didn't see it until today).  The poster above has nailed it on the money.

For users that are running things like Wordpress, etc on a *nix based server and care about the image quality and colorspace and proper downsampling, etc ... make sure you are using Imagemagick (as above) in the WP backend and not GD.  GD is probably one of the worst things out there in terms of mangling profiles -- it honestly just doesn't seem to know about them or care, it has some horrible horrible algorithms for downsampling and dithering, etc.  Imagemagick, on the other hand, is probably the best "server-side" option out there in terms of converting images.

But then if you're a purist like me, you would rather prepare all the sizes of the image(s) needed for web yourself Wink
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2014, 01:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Pretty much the way I work with my own web site. I export from Lightroom at full size and use ImageMagick to downscale.

It is really simple:

- I first exports all images as DNG (or IIQ :-( )
- I also export the same images as JPG from Lightroom
- I use "rsync" to upload images to my webserver that is running Linux
- On the webserver I run a small program called "Dirscanner" to generate an "index.html" file
- On the web server I run a small script to generate necessary size images using ImageMagick

Best regards
Erik


I just wanted to chime in on this one as well (I didn't see it until today).  The poster above has nailed it on the money.

For users that are running things like Wordpress, etc on a *nix based server and care about the image quality and colorspace and proper downsampling, etc ... make sure you are using Imagemagick (as above) in the WP backend and not GD.  GD is probably one of the worst things out there in terms of mangling profiles -- it honestly just doesn't seem to know about them or care, it has some horrible horrible algorithms for downsampling and dithering, etc.  Imagemagick, on the other hand, is probably the best "server-side" option out there in terms of converting images.

But then if you're a purist like me, you would rather prepare all the sizes of the image(s) needed for web yourself Wink
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad