Proposed new way to process photos

Baldy

Big problem: we're getting an increasing number of photos in color spaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB (1998).

Since the dawn of time, we've converted CMYK jpegs to sRGB since the web can't display them.

So now we're proposing to do the same, sort of, for Adobe RGB files. There are two ways we can do it:

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy

DavidTO

Baldy, I'm not a pro, no expert, barely informed on this subject.

I gave up on Adobe RGB because smugmug didn't display it and didn't print it.

You're proposing to solve half the problem by reducing the display problems, but it will still get converted to sRGB when printed, right?

So, I'm still at a loss as to what's the advantage to Adobe RGB. I guess the rub is that you cater to pros and amateurs alike, and you offer the best consumer processing there is. Problem is, there are pro shops that offer Adobe RGB...but they're specialized.

I guess my answer is that if you do either of the above, I'm gonna stick with sRGB, since I don't see a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Nikolai

Same here...

DavidTO wrote:

Baldy, I'm not a pro, no expert, barely informed on this subject....
I guess my answer is that if you do either of the above, I'm gonna stick with sRGB, since I don't see a compelling reason to do otherwise.

I'm even stripping the colorspace info from mine (which makes it sRGB by default and saves some space)

Cheers!

rutt

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.

onethumb

DavidTO wrote:

I gave up on Adobe RGB because smugmug didn't display it and didn't print it.[/QOUTE]

Minor correction: smugmug displays it fine. View it in Safari or some other ICC-profile-aware application, and it looks perfect. It's the application, like say Internet Explorer, which chooses to display it badly.

You were right on the money with everything else. There's no reason to use Adobe RGB, and indeed, most of our money-making Pros don't use it - it's often the ones who don't yet understand the whole colorspace dilemma (who does?!) who have chosen it.

And then we get tons of complaints because it looks washed out and is printed washed out. That's what we're trying to avoid.

Don

onethumb

rutt wrote:

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.

We currently keep original, pristine JPEGs and GIFs as long as they're in RGB (not CMYK or something). Everything else is converted to JPEG, if we can, and stored that way, including TIFFs.

The big problem is that when you upload to smugmug, because of the way every Windows browser handles images, your photo looks shockingly different than it does in Photoshop if you used Adobe98. So while we are saving the file exactly, the perception is that we're changing the file. We're not - IE and Firefox and everything else are just ignoring your settings.

That's our dilemma, and it's a tough one.

Don

DavidTO

onethumb wrote:

Minor correction: smugmug displays it fine. View it in Safari or some other ICC-profile-aware application, and it looks perfect. Don

I'm in Safari, and my aRGB files always look a bit more washed out than the sRGB--compared to viewing them in PS, not to each other. In other words, when I view the same file in PS and on smugmug via Safari, smugmug looks washed out. Not so for sRGB

In aRGB:


The EXACT SAME IMAGE with the sole exception that I used PS to convert to sRGB:

DavidTO

onethumb wrote:

You were right on the money with everything else. There's no reason to use Adobe RGB, and indeed, most of our money-making Pros don't use it - it's often the ones who don't yet understand the whole colorspace dilemma (who does?!) who have chosen it.

And then we get tons of complaints because it looks washed out and is printed washed out. That's what we're trying to avoid.

Don

And there I was up in Yosemite, and Marc Muench insisted that you should always use aRGB, and only use shops that process it...

If color theory wasn't complicated enough, the opinions that go along with it are worse...

Baldy

DavidTO wrote:

So, I'm still at a loss as to what's the advantage to Adobe RGB.

Adobe RGB is a bit broader than sRGB, meaning it can represent more colors. For example, the pure cyan in HP's original logo (the company that helped Microsoft develop sRGB), is included in Adobe RGB but not in sRGB, so sRGB has to pick a color as close to it as possible, but not quite it.

This would be meaningful to someone who (a) has a shot with colors outside of sRGB's box of crayons, (b) has a printer that can print it, and (c) can notice the difference between those colors if they have to be altered to fit in sRGB.

Wrt to (a), the colors that are outside of sRGB rarely occur in nature. They're often day-glo colors. We think 99% of photos fall completely inside sRGB, especially ones of people in natural settings.

Wrt (b), here's the crux of the issue: photographic paper and chemicals, which we've used for more than a century, have a smaller box of crayons than sRGB, let alone Adobe RGB. Since commercial printers like EZ Prints use photographic paper, there isn't much need for a wider color space since the paper can't handle it anyway. In fact, they can do better with sRGB because they can spend each of their 256 shades of red, greeen, and blue in the colors photographic paper and chemicals can actually paint, instead of making the increments coarser to be able to paint HP's logo, which the paper can't anyway.

Ink jets, however, don't use photographic chemicals. The ones with many ink cartridges can paint broader colors, if you have them and have a sharp enough eye to realize sRGB substituted a color for the one you really had.

Commercial offset printers also use Adobe RGB, and hence if you're Marc Muench and preparing shots for brochures, your client will ask for it in that space.

Clear as mud?

Thanks,
Baldy

winnjewett

I would like to throw out a third option. What about displaying a message to the user letting them know that some photos are not in sRGB, and might not display properly? Then give them the option to have you convert to sRGB, leave it alone, or convert the non-originals to sRGB.

I feel that the solution to the problem is education. The conversions baldy proposed are work-arounds.

-winn

lenscape

Baldy wrote:

Big problem: we're getting an increasing number of photos in color spaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB (1998).

Since the dawn of time, we've converted CMYK jpegs to sRGB since the web can't display them.

So now we're proposing to do the same, sort of, for Adobe RGB files. There are two ways we can do it:

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy

I don't like the idea of converting from Adobe 1998 to sRGB,Unless I could print with the Adobe color space. So I always shoot at sRGB.

Baldy

winnjewett wrote:

What about displaying a message to the user letting them know that some photos are not in sRGB, and might not display properly? Then give them the option to have you convert to sRGB, leave it alone, or convert the non-originals to sRGB.

With all due respect, I believe that for 50% of our pros and 99% of our consumers, that message would read like:

"Your files are willa garubish monsa. They won't display correctly. Would you like us to convert them to ikamebbe so they display well?"

"For more information about garubish and ikamebbe and why your files are no good and how you can spend $599 for Photoshop to fix them, wade through this pretty heavy help section and please ignore this topic in most of the Photoshop books you read."

And please decide whether you want your hi-res original converted or just the smaller images we make from them and remember that sometimes your original is a display copy and here's another help section about that.

Honestly, I think they just want good display and good prints. For the few who want to read about it, we have help sections to point them to.

Baldy

Nikolai wrote:

I'm even stripping the colorspace info from mine (which makes it sRGB by default and saves some space)

Cheers!

Unfortunately... If your file is in Adobe RGB and you strip the profile, the file is still in Adobe RGB and your browser will still wash it out. You have to choose "convert to profile" in Photoshop which does the actual pixel manipulation to make it an sRGB file so your browser can display it correctly.

Baldy

rutt wrote:

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.

I do too.

So the question is are we willing to face the following scenarios:

1. A pro like Marc Muench carefully crafts his photo to be 800 pixels wide but leaves it in Adobe RGB. When people view his galleries, they see rich thumbnails, small and medium-sized images. They click on large and suddenly it doesn't look as good as the medium they were just viewing.

2. Someone chooses slideshow when viewing Rutt's galleries. They are so swept away by your shots that they hit the full-screen button. Smugmug sniffs their monitor size and finds out it's 1024x1280. We don't have a display size that big, so we make them on the fly for the slide show to fit your monitor, from the original. Hard enough to make them fast enough but now we have to also convert to sRGB on the fly before they see the next slide or their full-screen slide show will look washed out compared to the regular slide show.

See the dilemma?

winnjewett

To get an idea of the scope of the problem, roughly what percentage of the photos are not stored in sRGB?

Also, what is the distribution of pro to non-pro?
-winn

colourbox

My suggestion is in two parts, expanded on below:

1. On the original-size page viewed only by the logged-in gallery owner, add an advisory message as simple as possible like "If your image colors don't look right, please make sure you've converted it to the sRGB colorspace before uploading."
2. In all relevant portions of the help file, direct all users to convert to sRGB before uploading.

Reason for A: It could prompt the owner to take a second look at the colors, and give a simple suggestion for fixing it. This message must be as simple as possible to avoid the above-mentioned real danger of the message being read as technobabble that causes the eyes to glaze over. This is why the message only says "hey, convert to sRGB." If the user can simply be motivated to convert to sRGB, it won't matter if the profile is embedded or not. It will just be right. So I think that "motivating all users to convert to sRGB first" is the only realistic goal to aim for. It has to say "convert" so people don't just "assign." The message could contain a link to a help topic.

Reason for B: I know how much people don't pay much attention to help files. But converting to sRGB the "right thing to do" for any image going to the Web and smugmug's printing service. I can't think of a good reason to upload Web images in a color space other than sRGB unless, as mentioned above, smugmug were to offer some kind of super fine art printing service on really wide gamut devices, which would require that uploaders have an extremely comfortable handle on color management (uh huh). Converting to sRGB before any upload is not a natural tendency for most levels of users, but I strongly believe it's behavior that needs to be reinforced. While smugmug is not the only online location where sRGB conversion should be encouraged, it's in smugmug's best interest to reinforce that behavior. Ironically, I'm not actually pro-sRGB; I use Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB quite a bit. But I also know that those color spaces stand almost no chance of looking good on the Web or in non-color-managed applications, so all galleries I upload are sized and sRGB-converted copies made through a batch Photoshop action so I don't have to think about it.

The obvious problem with my ideas are that they don't do anything to address what happens when smugmug gets an image that is in a color space other than sRGB yet has no embedded profile. But there's no good uniform way for smugmug to guess. Too many images will be wrong no matter what smugmug guesses.

Again, the reason for this suggestion is that if users could simply be motivated to convert to sRGB, and they can be told that they'd been warned, smugmug no longer has to guess.

Mitch

Baldy wrote:

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy

I like option #2. Maybe my pictures might look better than someone's who doesn't upload in sRGB.:D

Mitch

flyingpylon

Apply a hefty surcharge for files uploaded in aRGB... that will get them fixed in a hurry.

Mike Lane

flyingpylon wrote:

Apply a hefty surcharge for files uploaded in aRGB... that will get them fixed in a hurry.

That'll keep those pesky customers away too. Just think how much easier life would be without all us demanding customers always trying to get their way.

mercphoto

Baldy wrote:

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

This appears a big delima. One thing you could do is not accept anything other than JPG in sRGB files in the first place. No more CYMK, TIFF, etc.

The other problem is how do you determine what a JPG has for a color space that has that info stripped? How do you catch a Nikoli who has uploaded what is really an aRGB file, but he strippped out the info so that you don't know that?

Myself, I only shoot in sRGB space anymore, and I have my working space in PS/CS setup as sRGB as well.

mercphoto

Mike Lane wrote:

That'll keep those pesky customers away too. Just think how much easier life would be without all us demanding customers always trying to get their way.

That's not really a good analogy here. There is no way, as a customer, you are going to get "your way" with respect to the color space issue. And the only way Smugmug is going to get consistently good results from prints is if the "pesky customers" learn what color spaces are and which color space to use.

Baldy

winnjewett wrote:

To get an idea of the scope of the problem, roughly what percentage of the photos are not stored in sRGB?

Also, what is the distribution of pro to non-pro?
-winn

It's a good question and I'm afraid I don't know the answer. Reason I don't know is there's nothing in the database that logs which color space they're in.

What I do know is how often we see support issues about it. For prints, it's roughly one order every other day — we reprinted 4 orders for this last week. If the rule of 10:1 applies (90% of customers never complain, they just never come back), then perhaps 40 orders were affected.

The interesting thing about those 4 orders was how critical they were. One was a wedding involving around 300 prints. It took me almost two hours to disarm the furious photographer, convert all the files, and replace the order. Another involved enlargements made for a charity auction. In both cases, we had to rush them by FedEX to meet the deadlines they were in danger of missing because of this problem.

I'd have to check the log for how many help emails we get for washed out display. Maybe 1 a day? But frequently they've got a very edgy tone because they feel that we're somehow changing the beautiful shots they see in Photoshop to something less vibrant, which would make me mad too.

bkriete

I'm sure there are some (many?) who use Smugmug at least partly as an off-site backup for pictures (to me that's one of the biggest appeals of unlimited storage), and that many of those pictures are probably in "hidden" galleries.

Keeping that in mind, I would be annoyed if I found out that the file I had uploaded to SM for safekeeping had been modified in a destructive fashion.
Maybe the solution is to make processing the various sizes part of the "upload" process and to leave the original untouched. That would do away with on-the-fly resizing issues, and would make sure that the pictures that most customers see display properly (I know many pros don't allow visitors to view "original resolution" images).

mercphoto

bkriete wrote:

Maybe the solution is to make processing the various sizes part of the "upload" process and to leave the original untouched. That would do away with on-the-fly resizing issues, and would make sure that the pictures that most customers see display properly (I know many pros don't allow visitors to view "original resolution" images).

But it does nothing to solve the delima of prints being washed out because they are in the wrong color space. Prints are made from the original file, which you propose to leave untouched.

Baldy

Somebody said this or something close to it, which resonates with me and JT:

When we receive the files and if we detect they're not sRGB, we could either produce a message or email saying, "the files you sent were blah blah blah and we'll convert them to sRGB because we're so wonderful and here to serve and here's a pointer to a help section on why."

Still have the dilemma of whether to convert the original or not.

I feel that it's the right thing to do to convert the original so that viewing originals works as people expect, but I feel that we'll have a tall order defending it.

I've been worried about the help burden of explaining why their originals will look bad when displayed, but maybe we nip that in the bud with the message right after the upload.

Baldy

mercphoto wrote:

But it does nothing to solve the delima of prints being washed out because they are in the wrong color space. Prints are made from the original file, which you propose to leave untouched.

We could convert them to sRGB before sending to EZ Prints to dance around that issue.

Better yet, we could flag them as needing conversion so EZ Prints could apply their profile to them directly from Adobe RGB (we're currently pressuring them to do this, but we can convert to sRGB on the fly as a backup plan if they don't come through).

That way we retain the Adobe RGB original on our disks but EZ Prints gets a file in the format they expect.

Baldy

bkriete wrote:

I'm sure there are some (many?) who use Smugmug at least partly as an off-site backup for pictures (to me that's one of the biggest appeals of unlimited storage), and that many of those pictures are probably in "hidden" galleries.

Keeping that in mind, I would be annoyed if I found out that the file I had uploaded to SM for safekeeping had been modified in a destructive fashion.

And that's quite a powerful argument for keeping the originals unmodified.

winnjewett

Is the issue of processor time during full screen slideshows the only reason to convert the original file to sRGB?

If so, then it seems that one solution would be to store two 'originals'. One untouched, one in sRGB.

It would seem that this is simply an economics question. Is it cheaper to buy more processing power or more storage space for additional originals.

Another option is to create and save a duplicate original only when needed. From then on, you would have the duplicate, and no further processing power is needed.

-winn

winnjewett

Baldy wrote:

With all due respect, I believe that for 50% of our pros and 99% of our consumers, that message would read like:

"Your files are willa garubish monsa. They won't display correctly. Would you like us to convert them to ikamebbe so they display well?"

I completely agree. I don't think consumers should ever have to see the words 'color space', sRGB, or gamut if they didn't ask. But, pros should be aware of these issues. I think it is akin to a pro not knowing that there is a difference between processing b+w film and color slide film. Well, that analogy isn't very good, but it's an important topic for a pro regardless.

-winn

Baldy

We seem to have about three kinds of pro photographers in roughly equal numbers:

1. Fine art/landscape like you see here on dgrin, dpreview, on PBase, etc. Generally, they're pretty good at knowing about sRGB versus Adobe RGB, etc., and aren't very hard to get focused on the issue.

2. Sports event photographers, and to some extent wedding photographers. Many of them are quite technically inclined and you see some of them here on dgrin, like Shay Stephens and Eric Olsen, who know this stuff cold. But the age of digital has ushered in quite a few event photographers who really don't know/don't want to know.

3. Stay-at-home moms with young children shooting portraits, families and engagements. It's amazing how much print volume they generate. They're generally absent on the forums.

I have a great deal of respect for them because they're so good with people and very frequently have a great eye for shots other moms want to buy.

But boy are they usually technically phobic. They consider themselves artists, not geeks, and they really don't want to get into techobabble. We have to make this really easy for them.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

winnjewett

Baldy wrote:

We seem to have about three kinds of pro photographers in roughly equal numbers:

Boy, nothing's as simple as it seems. I think I'm fresh out of ideas.
-winn