Difficulty with CS2, Colorspace, and smugmug
mf44
Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
Hi folks,
I am having troubles with color space and accuracy using Photoshop CS2 and smugmug. Here's my situation. I recognize that I need to convert my photos to sRGB before I upload. As such, I created an action that goes to Edit:Convert to Profile and then makes sure sRGB is selected and converts it. It then saves the image and embeds the colorspace information. When I look at the info it shows the Source colorspace as sRGB in photoshop, so I assume this is correct.
Now I upload my photos to smugmug. The problem is, however, when I view them. I'm using Safari, so I know that it's the only browser that supports colorspace. You see, when I look at the original size it shows me the photo just how I like it with vibrant colors. All the smaller versions are washed out. I was under the impression that converting to sRGB before uploading would solve this. What have I done wrong? Or is this simply not curable? I really don't want all my thumbnails to be washed out looking.
Thanks a lot for your help, I'm so lost at this point.
Mike
I am having troubles with color space and accuracy using Photoshop CS2 and smugmug. Here's my situation. I recognize that I need to convert my photos to sRGB before I upload. As such, I created an action that goes to Edit:Convert to Profile and then makes sure sRGB is selected and converts it. It then saves the image and embeds the colorspace information. When I look at the info it shows the Source colorspace as sRGB in photoshop, so I assume this is correct.
Now I upload my photos to smugmug. The problem is, however, when I view them. I'm using Safari, so I know that it's the only browser that supports colorspace. You see, when I look at the original size it shows me the photo just how I like it with vibrant colors. All the smaller versions are washed out. I was under the impression that converting to sRGB before uploading would solve this. What have I done wrong? Or is this simply not curable? I really don't want all my thumbnails to be washed out looking.
Thanks a lot for your help, I'm so lost at this point.
Mike
0
Comments
Now, I don't really trust the smaller versions of the photo on smugmug. I'm not sure what engine they're using to resample and resize the photo, but I doubt it's genuine fractals or some good resampling algorhithm. Remember that resizing a picture is a lossy and calculation-heavy process, and don't be surprised if you see adverse effects on sharpening, tone, and color.
Beyond that I'm not sure, but any difference between the different sized photos is probably a resampling problem, not a color space problem.
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
I had the exact same problem. The images I uploaded to Smugmug and viewed with Safari looked "wrong" (washed out or sallow). Viewing them on the Mac using Internet Explorer also looked "wrong".
I looked at my Smugmug site at work on a PC using Internet Explorer and the images looked very close to the way they appear in Photoshop on my mac.
The solution for me was to purchase a hardware monitor calibration device and build a profile for my iMac monitor (17 "). Now my Smugmug images look the same in Photoshop, Safari, and on my PC.
I knew it would help to perform a hardware calibration of my monitor, but I really didn't think it would help with the problem you described. But it did!
Hope this helps,
Harvey
Nikon D610, Nikon D300S
Sony A6000
http://harveylevine.smugmug.com
aRGB doesn't have more points in it, no more information, they're just spread out a bit more than sRGB, covering a wider gamut.
I know that pros say that the adobe RGB is the only way to go, but I'm not sure they're right.
Baldy has a lot to say on this...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I had bought into the "pro" view until I read the help screens at Smugmug. Now I'm not so sure. Against Baldy's very convicing argument are 16 authors all saying the opposite. So far I've stayed in Adobe RGB with my raw files right up until the time I convert to jpeg to post onto Smugmug. For my Casio images that start out as jpegs, I've stayed with sRGB space in Photoshop. I wonder if it makes enough difference to worry about. Then there's the issue of whether to convert the 8 bit jpegs into 16 bits ... There atleast the pros are divided.
Regards,
Harvey
Nikon D610, Nikon D300S
Sony A6000
http://harveylevine.smugmug.com
http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_management/cm_06/essay.html,
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1203/mh1203-1.html.
My understanding is that Adobe RGB and sRGB differ in the breadth of the color gamut, but fundamentally they offer the same total number of colors due to their bit depth. ProPhoto RGB is different than these two in a couple respects. First, and most importantly, it is by design a 16-bit color space, so its gamut is spread over 2^16 possible colors; Adobe RGB and sRGB are based on 8-bit depth, so their gamuts are distributed over 2^8 colors. Just as important, it is a FAR larger gamut than Adobe RGB, and in fact of common color gamuts it is second in size only to Lab color.
In general is it important? Probably only if you are 1) doing a lot of image editing (thereby stretching and compressing the limits of your color gamut), 2) working with very saturated colors (which is where the larger gamuts may show their utility), 3) working with 16-bit images, and most importantly 4) printing using printers that will support the larger color gamuts AND have sufficient ink colors to represent them.
When is it definitely unnecessary? 1) If your only output is web sharing (because you're just going to have to convert to sRGB in the end anyway, as most web applications will only support sRGB), 2) shooting and working with 8-bit images, and3) printing through smugmug or other printers that only support sRGB.
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck
I also wouldn't bother converting AdobeRGB to ProPhoto RGB. If you're shooting RAW, the shooting color space doesn't apply anyway, because the color space is assigned at the RAW converter. On cameras, as far as I've ever known, the color space setting only affects JPEGs and RAW previews.
I have good results using the smugmug help recommendations. Calibrate and profile the monitor at gamma 2.2 (even if it's a Mac), then shoot and edit whatever way works best, but when it comes time to upload, convert to sRGB and strip the profile. This is so different from my originals that I duplicate any JPGs bound for smugmug into a completely dedicated folder where I use iView Media Pro and Adobe Bridge to strip them of their profiles and any personal metadata I don't want to upload. My smugmug image filenames now include an SMG so that I know they are not to be used as source because they are missing profiles and some metadata. It's a couple extra steps but works best for me.
Read the smugmug help pages and blog entries as to why Safari is not quite doing color management correctly. While I'm a proud Mac user, I make the images so that they work for the majority - unprofiled monitors and browsers somewhere around gamma 2.2.
Here's more from the read-it-and-weep department (but I still love the Mac):
http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/27/mac-browsers-can-you-believe-your-eyes/
Thanks,
Baldy
It's important when on a mac to at the very least use the calibration tool in sys prefs, and while there change the gamma from 1.8 to 2.2, the pc standard. That addresses PART of your blog post. But granted, grandma isn't going to do that...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
My Gallery
"Hammer my bones in the anvil of daylight..." -Beck