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.
That's cause they've got lives, unlike us bumps-on-a-log.
I'm a nature AND event photographer and I shoot 100% in sRGB. I tested RGB, sRGB, and aRGB on my D70 and decided to stick with sRGB in the end simply because I found that PS is a more powerful tool (as far as color tweaking, saturation enhancing etc. goes) than my camera is.
I say we get over it, and use sRGB 100% of the time. What we should be spending our time on instead is ridding the world of evil internet browsing software. If smugmug used Inkjet printers for their prints, then things would be different, we'd all be using RGB. But currently, you heard them, digital-chemical printers can't even handle all of sRGB's colors, let alone RGB. So I say we make everything sRGB and work on saving the world from Windows-based browsers, and buying me a Mac w/CSII for ultimate color control. heheh like how I slipped that one in there, doncha?
OK. I was working on posting this earlier but it was 5 so I had to leave work. Here it goes. There is no good answer. You can eaither keep an originals folder and a converted folder on the server. But if you do that you double your storage needs. You can create a idiot message pop-up that warns them their file is going to be converted and they had better save an original. Or you can have an idiot message pop-up that says "Your colorspace is incompatible. We can convert it for you, however if you do not want us to convert it then it will not print properly when you order prints. Do you want us to convert it? yes/no". As far as the files that are already there. No good solution, at least no easy solution. You could create another pop-up idiot message (thats what I call them on my network in the office no offence anyone) everytime someone logs into their smugmug account that doesn't go away till they fix the color space. Annouying people gets stuff done.
OK. I was working on posting this earlier but it was 5 so I had to leave work. Here it goes. There is no good answer.
Actually, part of me wants to say the only good solution is to not try and hold the hands of those who's photographic skills and workflow needs correcting. Don't accept anything that is not in sRGB space, period. Don't convert it, simply reject it. I heard that some say they use Smugmug as an off-site storage facility. Smug should ask themselves if they want this biz or not.
I strongly believe the only long-term solution to any problem is at the source, not at the destination. Don't hold people's hands too much, it keeps them from learning from their mistakes. Sorry if it offends anyone.
Actually, part of me wants to say the only good solution is to not try and hold the hands of those who's photographic skills and workflow needs correcting. Don't accept anything that is not in sRGB space, period. Don't convert it, simply reject it. I heard that some say they use Smugmug as an off-site storage facility. Smug should ask themselves if they want this biz or not.
I strongly believe the only long-term solution to any problem is at the source, not at the destination. Don't hold people's hands too much, it keeps them from learning from their mistakes. Sorry if it offends anyone.
The text below is directly from Smugmug's pitch on the website, so I hope they still want me! I am one of those non-techinical moms who don't know the difference between sRGB and RGB except I am not a mom, but a dad. Please don't be sexist and please don't discriminate against us elitist RGB'ers if we are one despite our best intentions. Help us come back to the fold, and please Lord of the Smugmug, don't always listen to the few who bark on dgrin. No offense to any particular dgrin dog, but with thousands of smugmuggers, the dgrinners only represent a vocal minority.
What if you lost them?
It doesn't take a burning home to lose your digital photos. Just a computer crash. Or accidental erasure. Which may make the $29.95/year for a smugmug account priceless.
Smugmug keeps two exact copies of the photos you upload in a secure datacenter that the most trusted Internet brands use. And you can order CD and DVD backups anytime. Or download your originals back to your computer.
The text below is directly from Smugmug's pitch on the website, so I hope they still want me! I am one of those non-techinical moms who don't know the difference between sRGB and RGB except I am not a mom, but a dad. Please don't be sexist and please don't discriminate against us elitist RGB'ers if we are one despite our best intentions. Help us come back to the fold
As I stated, its not best to hold people's hands, but rather to educate them. And via this thread you have just become educated as to color spaces. I see that as a good thing. And if Smugmug had held your hand and did the right thing for you without you realizing what was going on and why, how does that help you any? Answer, it doesn't.
As you may recall, my earlier post was in agreement with mercphoto. The good news is that in theory this should all fall out properly: The less technical someone is, and the less they know the difference between color spaces, the more likely they have been operating in sRGB all this time, because that is the space that consumer equipment defaults to and assumes. Someone would usually have to have the expensive version of Photoshop, and go in and consciously change the color defaults, in order for Adobe RGB to become their working space. A regular guy having fun with Photoshop Elements should be safely in sRGB without needing to know about it.
If someone is in Adobe RGB because they are a pro, then being a pro, it is their responsibility, not smugmug's, to know about color spaces. And it should not take much text to advise a working professional to convert their images to sRGB and/or change their default Photoshop space to sRGB if they don't want to keep converting.
I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?" That literature is aimed at color-finicky pros going to press, but I suppose non-pros hear it from "their neighbor who knows about computers."
I say we start eliminating some of these neighbors. They are the same ones who send my clients viruses and tell them that bonzai buddy is a cool thing to download.
I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?"
Probably. Its part of the "wider is better", or "bigger is better" mantra. To someone who doesn't know any better it sounds perfectly reasonable. But even pros can be wrong. For example, how many pros will tell you that the best color space to use is the color space that is the smallest that does not produce an out-of-gamut color? Very few. Most will tell you that it is always best to work in the largest color space, which is easy to show is false if you know a bit about the math involved.
As you may recall, my earlier post was in agreement with mercphoto. The good news is that in theory this should all fall out properly: The less technical someone is, and the less they know the difference between color spaces, the more likely they have been operating in sRGB all this time, because that is the space that consumer equipment defaults to and assumes. Someone would usually have to have the expensive version of Photoshop, and go in and consciously change the color defaults, in order for Adobe RGB to become their working space. A regular guy having fun with Photoshop Elements should be safely in sRGB without needing to know about it.
If someone is in Adobe RGB because they are a pro, then being a pro, it is their responsibility, not smugmug's, to know about color spaces. And it should not take much text to advise a working professional to convert their images to sRGB and/or change their default Photoshop space to sRGB if they don't want to keep converting.
I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?" That literature is aimed at color-finicky pros going to press, but I suppose non-pros hear it from "their neighbor who knows about computers."
Same here, since all of the consumer grade cameras default to sRGB.
My protocol, FWIW, is to shoot in sRGB in RAW, convert using AdobeRGB, and then based on its purpose change profiles as necessary after editing. Much of my stuff goes for print/to art directors.
So for stuff bound for smugmug, it's to sRGB. I have a whole set of galleries of e-mailed postcards that are still in aRGB because I was too lazy to convert them, and put a little notice on each of those galleries that they will look washed out, but those are open for download and will look okay then. One of these days I'll batch convert and re-upload them, but didn't want to lose the stats.
I have shot tens of thousands of nature and fish shots. I clearly see a difference when shooting adobeRGB. Matter-o-fact, when shooting fish there is a substantial difference in the result the two color spaces produce. So noticeable that many times my images no longer seem to jump off the screen or paper when I use srgb. I hate srgb, it was basically built for monitors and I wish that is how it had stayed. I try to NEVER shoot in sRGB. Its a smaller colorspace, a lot smaller. You are potentially capturing more info in adobeRGB and thats that.
I would not want smugmug altering my originals! Thats just crazy! Easy solution is, let us upload the adobeRGB file, you convert the original on the fly to srgb for our comping size images and thumbs and ezprints, and the gallery owner can lock down the original so no viewing is allowed.
This does not seem like a big problem to me. Only problem I see here is people scrapping adobeRGB for convienence. Crazzzy, I think. Unless the web is your ultimate output device, and even then I still would not shoot sRGB.
Is there any way to disable print services for anything that is aRGB? A gallery option that either turns printing for aRGB pics off completely (by default), or allows printing and highlights the pics in the order that simply states that printing these pictures may be washed out/not comparable to what is viewed?
In the gallery settings page, you can have your short blurb about colorspace and a link to better describe the nature of the problem if the photog doesn't quite understand the differences.
Either
A) accept ONLY sRGB -- which leaves aRGB people behind. accept aRGB, and do educate the photog (more - as it's really their problem, but it becomes a SM CS issue once consumers freak out)/consumer (less - "prints may not result as they appear for this photograph, contact photog").
Maybe, during the checkout process, there could be another page that isolates aRGB pics only, with a before/after conversion view before finalizing?
Is there any way to disable print services for anything that is aRGB? A gallery option that either turns printing for aRGB pics off completely (by default), or allows printing and highlights the pics in the order that simply states that printing these pictures may be washed out/not comparable to what is viewed?
In the gallery settings page, you can have your short blurb about colorspace and a link to better describe the nature of the problem if the photog doesn't quite understand the differences.
Either
A) accept ONLY sRGB -- which leaves aRGB people behind. accept aRGB, and do educate the photog (more - as it's really their problem, but it becomes a SM CS issue once consumers freak out)/consumer (less - "prints may not result as they appear for this photograph, contact photog").
Maybe, during the checkout process, there could be another page that isolates aRGB pics only, with a before/after conversion view before finalizing?
I disagree. Printing seems like an easy problem to solve. Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes. Everyone is happy. It is viewing and storing that's the issue.
I disagree. Printing seems like an easy problem to solve. Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes. Everyone is happy. It is viewing and storing that's the issue.
I would (and have previously) state that holding people's hands behind their backs (i.e. fixing their problems without them knowing about it) is a practice that should be avoided. Educating people when they do something wrong, so that they can fix what they are doing, is always the better solution. Nobody wins when ignorance is allowed to flourish.
Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes.
That will work if a profile has been embedded in the file. It will fail in the case where no profile is embedded and the file is not in the color space that smugmug guesses.
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
edited June 24, 2005
So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.
We already do that for CMYK JPEGs, along with other file formats like tiff, bmp, etc. And we do it for the same reason: they cannot be displayed correctly on the Internet.
Our center of gravity is good sharing and printing, not archiving, which is an additional nice feature but not the driving reason why people come to us. It's not good sharing when you click on the original link and you see a color shift and pixelation.
The real kicker is we see too many instances of someone bringing thousands of photos to smugmug and painstakingly organizing galleries, only to find out that the education they thought they had so diligently pursued on the topic (by reading best-selling authors Scott Kelby and Bruce Fraser) had led them astray.
And the multiple daily occurences we see of uploaded Adobe RGB files where we attempt the education process and find that it's too hard... They have to have Photoshop or similar program, come to understand how to do a conversion (not enough to assign a profile), only to have them ask, "why don't you just do it for me?"
It's on our list of things to do but I don't have a date when it will be in effect.
So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.
Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation.
We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.
On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.
Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation.
We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.
On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.
Don
Wise choice to do the conversion on new files. No point in hosting photos that you know are going to look lousy and just confuse people. If your conversion is good, this will also make it a LOT easier for people that like to work in aRGB, but sometimes share on the web too - much like you automatically take care of making multiple sizes for us when we upload originals.
If someone is buying service purely for backup, they should probably go elsewhere anyway since that isn't what smugmug is really built for. I like that you draw the analogy with BMPs, TIFFs, etc... as file types that can't be properly displayed in most browsers - same for aRGB. Nobody complains when those are converted.
Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation.
We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.
On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.
Don
Most of this discussion has sounded like garubish monsa and ikamebbe to me. I bravely struggled through it, however, glad to know that somebody is thinking about how to best display photos.
I think I'm one of Baldy's housewife-artiste types. Not phobic though. I'm not scared. I'd just like to get to photos of the pretty flowers right now; that other stuff makes my eyes glaze over with disinterest. Yes, I know. I'm gonna have a lot of difficulty getting photos of the pretty flowers without that other stuff... What can I say other than I'm working on developing an interest in ikamebbe.
So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.
We already do that for CMYK JPEGs, along with other file formats like tiff, bmp, etc. And we do it for the same reason: they cannot be displayed correctly on the Internet.
Our center of gravity is good sharing and printing, not archiving, which is an additional nice feature but not the driving reason why people come to us. It's not good sharing when you click on the original link and you see a color shift and pixelation.
The real kicker is we see too many instances of someone bringing thousands of photos to smugmug and painstakingly organizing galleries, only to find out that the education they thought they had so diligently pursued on the topic (by reading best-selling authors Scott Kelby and Bruce Fraser) had led them astray.
And the multiple daily occurences we see of uploaded Adobe RGB files where we attempt the education process and find that it's too hard... They have to have Photoshop or similar program, come to understand how to do a conversion (not enough to assign a profile), only to have them ask, "why don't you just do it for me?"
It's on our list of things to do but I don't have a date when it will be in effect.
I'd respectfully ask that you reconsider and/or at a minimum ensure this new policy is clearly stated and widely publicized to include some form of "active" communication like email etc to your client base (many of whom may not use the forums). I know for myself, and I'm sure many others, the archiving/storage of my "original" files (as mentioned previously) was a huge reason for my establishing an account with Smugmug. If these files will no longer be originals, but actually a converted version, that’s an important shift in the service you provide and that should be really driven home to your client base. It may not matter to some, but I'd suspect some of us who use aRGB for a reason and do (or are trying) to understand the pro's and con's of sRGB for commercial printing, web viewing etc this new policy has the potential of having a significant impact.
I tend to print most of my own pictures on a Canon i9900 which does support aRGB so I’m understandably not enthused to switch my default color space. But, having said that, I also don’t have that much of an issue converting (if needed) the pictures that I’ll upload to Smugmug and/or that I want to have printed by a commercial lab for printing. The key really is to understanding what’s going on (aRGB vs sRBG) and how this new policy could and maybe already has affected the pictures that I’ve uploaded.
Personally, I’d prefer to have my original files stored as sent (aRGB) and if I don’t like the way they’re displayed after the upload/conversion to sRGB then I can opt to convert them myself and re-upload them. In many cases the difference may not be significant enough to worry about, but if I'm going to have a large print made I want it to look "exactly" the way I intended so for those the additional step would be well worth it. Would I be right in assuming that the printed version should match the displayed version – assuming my monitor is calibrated etc?
I do agree with you and others that this is a complex issue, both from a technical (understanding color space) issue and for you from a business perspective to ensure your customers are happy. I would also agree that (arguably) the best solution is one of education. Having read this thread has helped to accomplish a lot of that for me and I appreciate the openness and your consideration in bringing this up!
Canon 1D Mk II N - Canon 5D - Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM - Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM - Canon EF 85 f/1.8 USM - Canon EF 100 f/2.8 macro - Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
I know for myself, and I'm sure many others, the archiving/storage of my "original" files (as mentioned previously) was a huge reason for my establishing an account with Smugmug. If these files will no longer be originals, but actually a converted version, that’s an important shift in the service you provide and that should be really driven home to your client base.
Is there a middle ground, perhaps? Smugmug has an obvious customer satisfaction issue with files in the wrong color space, and that needs a solution, in one way or another.
1) Originals are left as-is. This lets people use the site to archive files in whatever format they want.
2) Files without an embedded profile are printed as if they were in sRGB.
3) Files with an embedded profile that is not sRGB will be converted before being sent to EZ Prints.
Is this a possible solution? As per the education route, I'll admit that is an ideal solution for sure. Probably very difficult to do, however. I have received the best, most complete education about color spaces from Smugmug and this forum. I have paid to attend photo classes that actually get the concept of color spaces wrong!
Is there a middle ground, perhaps? Smugmug has an obvious customer satisfaction issue with files in the wrong color space, and that needs a solution, in one way or another.!
I agree with Smugmug's decision to, by default, convert photos to sRGB. They are a site who's primary purpose is photo sharing on the web with the option to order prints and their default processes should make that the best experience possible, even for people that don't understand about color management.
If they'd have converted everything to sRGB from day one, probably there would not be a lot of complaints about that today. That said, there are obviously some users who are using Smugmug slightly different than just for photo sharing (archiving originals). If Smugmug wants to allow those users to continue to do what they do (that's their own business decision), then the easiest way to do that would be to support some new preferences that control whether photos get converted to sRGB or not. There could be either a global account preference to disable this new functionality or there could be a per-gallery preference to disable the sRGB conversion. This would allow account holders to control this issue, but allow them to set the default to ON (so new photos are converted to sRGB and viewing and printing delivers a better experience when the non-color-savvy user screws up).
I'd respectfully ask that you reconsider and/or at a minimum ensure this new policy is clearly stated...
Personally, I’d prefer to have my original files stored as sent (aRGB) and if I don’t like the way they’re displayed after the upload/conversion to sRGB then I can opt to convert them myself and re-upload them. In many cases the difference may not be significant enough to worry about, but if I'm going to have a large print made I want it to look "exactly" the way I intended so for those the additional step would be well worth it. Would I be right in assuming that the printed version should match the displayed version – assuming my monitor is calibrated etc?
Hi CalfeeRider,
I ride a Calfee too! Love those bikes and know Craig.
You would be right in assuming that if the file were sRGB then it would look right on a calibrated monitor and match the print. If it's aRGB, it won't display well or print well using photographic paper & chemicals (but would on an inkjet).
So, the only reason you'd upload an aRGB to smugmug is to store it. You can re-download it sometime and print it on your inkjet. But using a web browser to display it or a printer we're connected to will cause problems.
This is really a big problem for us because we have to fend off all the people who say we alter their colors in print and for display when they upload aRGB files.
There is a popular notion that aRGB is a better archiving format than sRGB because it has more colors. Actually, for the purpose of displaying on the Internet or printing with photographic chemicals and paper, it has fewer colors. Here's why:
Comments
That's cause they've got lives, unlike us bumps-on-a-log.
I'm a nature AND event photographer and I shoot 100% in sRGB. I tested RGB, sRGB, and aRGB on my D70 and decided to stick with sRGB in the end simply because I found that PS is a more powerful tool (as far as color tweaking, saturation enhancing etc. goes) than my camera is.
http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/393206
I say we get over it, and use sRGB 100% of the time. What we should be spending our time on instead is ridding the world of evil internet browsing software. If smugmug used Inkjet printers for their prints, then things would be different, we'd all be using RGB. But currently, you heard them, digital-chemical printers can't even handle all of sRGB's colors, let alone RGB. So I say we make everything sRGB and work on saving the world from Windows-based browsers, and buying me a Mac w/CSII for ultimate color control. heheh like how I slipped that one in there, doncha?
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
Actually, part of me wants to say the only good solution is to not try and hold the hands of those who's photographic skills and workflow needs correcting. Don't accept anything that is not in sRGB space, period. Don't convert it, simply reject it. I heard that some say they use Smugmug as an off-site storage facility. Smug should ask themselves if they want this biz or not.
I strongly believe the only long-term solution to any problem is at the source, not at the destination. Don't hold people's hands too much, it keeps them from learning from their mistakes. Sorry if it offends anyone.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
The text below is directly from Smugmug's pitch on the website, so I hope they still want me! I am one of those non-techinical moms who don't know the difference between sRGB and RGB except I am not a mom, but a dad. Please don't be sexist and please don't discriminate against us elitist RGB'ers if we are one despite our best intentions. Help us come back to the fold, and please Lord of the Smugmug, don't always listen to the few who bark on dgrin. No offense to any particular dgrin dog, but with thousands of smugmuggers, the dgrinners only represent a vocal minority.
What if you lost them?
It doesn't take a burning home to lose your digital photos. Just a computer crash. Or accidental erasure. Which may make the $29.95/year for a smugmug account priceless.
Smugmug keeps two exact copies of the photos you upload in a secure datacenter that the most trusted Internet brands use. And you can order CD and DVD backups anytime. Or download your originals back to your computer.
As I stated, its not best to hold people's hands, but rather to educate them. And via this thread you have just become educated as to color spaces. I see that as a good thing. And if Smugmug had held your hand and did the right thing for you without you realizing what was going on and why, how does that help you any? Answer, it doesn't.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
If someone is in Adobe RGB because they are a pro, then being a pro, it is their responsibility, not smugmug's, to know about color spaces. And it should not take much text to advise a working professional to convert their images to sRGB and/or change their default Photoshop space to sRGB if they don't want to keep converting.
I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?" That literature is aimed at color-finicky pros going to press, but I suppose non-pros hear it from "their neighbor who knows about computers."
I say we start eliminating some of these neighbors. They are the same ones who send my clients viruses and tell them that bonzai buddy is a cool thing to download.
www.zxstudios.com
http://creativedragonstudios.smugmug.com
Probably. Its part of the "wider is better", or "bigger is better" mantra. To someone who doesn't know any better it sounds perfectly reasonable. But even pros can be wrong. For example, how many pros will tell you that the best color space to use is the color space that is the smallest that does not produce an out-of-gamut color? Very few. Most will tell you that it is always best to work in the largest color space, which is easy to show is false if you know a bit about the math involved.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Same here, since all of the consumer grade cameras default to sRGB.
My protocol, FWIW, is to shoot in sRGB in RAW, convert using AdobeRGB, and then based on its purpose change profiles as necessary after editing. Much of my stuff goes for print/to art directors.
So for stuff bound for smugmug, it's to sRGB. I have a whole set of galleries of e-mailed postcards that are still in aRGB because I was too lazy to convert them, and put a little notice on each of those galleries that they will look washed out, but those are open for download and will look okay then. One of these days I'll batch convert and re-upload them, but didn't want to lose the stats.
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
I would not want smugmug altering my originals! Thats just crazy! Easy solution is, let us upload the adobeRGB file, you convert the original on the fly to srgb for our comping size images and thumbs and ezprints, and the gallery owner can lock down the original so no viewing is allowed.
This does not seem like a big problem to me. Only problem I see here is people scrapping adobeRGB for convienence. Crazzzy, I think. Unless the web is your ultimate output device, and even then I still would not shoot sRGB.
In the gallery settings page, you can have your short blurb about colorspace and a link to better describe the nature of the problem if the photog doesn't quite understand the differences.
Either
A) accept ONLY sRGB -- which leaves aRGB people behind.
Maybe, during the checkout process, there could be another page that isolates aRGB pics only, with a before/after conversion view before finalizing?
-winn
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
That will work if a profile has been embedded in the file. It will fail in the case where no profile is embedded and the file is not in the color space that smugmug guesses.
We already do that for CMYK JPEGs, along with other file formats like tiff, bmp, etc. And we do it for the same reason: they cannot be displayed correctly on the Internet.
Our center of gravity is good sharing and printing, not archiving, which is an additional nice feature but not the driving reason why people come to us. It's not good sharing when you click on the original link and you see a color shift and pixelation.
The real kicker is we see too many instances of someone bringing thousands of photos to smugmug and painstakingly organizing galleries, only to find out that the education they thought they had so diligently pursued on the topic (by reading best-selling authors Scott Kelby and Bruce Fraser) had led them astray.
And the multiple daily occurences we see of uploaded Adobe RGB files where we attempt the education process and find that it's too hard... They have to have Photoshop or similar program, come to understand how to do a conversion (not enough to assign a profile), only to have them ask, "why don't you just do it for me?"
It's on our list of things to do but I don't have a date when it will be in effect.
Here's a help section that explains the issue:
http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998
Thanks,
Baldy
Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation.
We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.
On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.
Don
Wise choice to do the conversion on new files. No point in hosting photos that you know are going to look lousy and just confuse people. If your conversion is good, this will also make it a LOT easier for people that like to work in aRGB, but sometimes share on the web too - much like you automatically take care of making multiple sizes for us when we upload originals.
If someone is buying service purely for backup, they should probably go elsewhere anyway since that isn't what smugmug is really built for. I like that you draw the analogy with BMPs, TIFFs, etc... as file types that can't be properly displayed in most browsers - same for aRGB. Nobody complains when those are converted.
--John
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I think I'm one of Baldy's housewife-artiste types. Not phobic though. I'm not scared. I'd just like to get to photos of the pretty flowers right now; that other stuff makes my eyes glaze over with disinterest. Yes, I know. I'm gonna have a lot of difficulty getting photos of the pretty flowers without that other stuff... What can I say other than I'm working on developing an interest in ikamebbe.
I'd respectfully ask that you reconsider and/or at a minimum ensure this new policy is clearly stated and widely publicized to include some form of "active" communication like email etc to your client base (many of whom may not use the forums). I know for myself, and I'm sure many others, the archiving/storage of my "original" files (as mentioned previously) was a huge reason for my establishing an account with Smugmug. If these files will no longer be originals, but actually a converted version, that’s an important shift in the service you provide and that should be really driven home to your client base. It may not matter to some, but I'd suspect some of us who use aRGB for a reason and do (or are trying) to understand the pro's and con's of sRGB for commercial printing, web viewing etc this new policy has the potential of having a significant impact.
I tend to print most of my own pictures on a Canon i9900 which does support aRGB so I’m understandably not enthused to switch my default color space. But, having said that, I also don’t have that much of an issue converting (if needed) the pictures that I’ll upload to Smugmug and/or that I want to have printed by a commercial lab for printing. The key really is to understanding what’s going on (aRGB vs sRBG) and how this new policy could and maybe already has affected the pictures that I’ve uploaded.
Personally, I’d prefer to have my original files stored as sent (aRGB) and if I don’t like the way they’re displayed after the upload/conversion to sRGB then I can opt to convert them myself and re-upload them. In many cases the difference may not be significant enough to worry about, but if I'm going to have a large print made I want it to look "exactly" the way I intended so for those the additional step would be well worth it. Would I be right in assuming that the printed version should match the displayed version – assuming my monitor is calibrated etc?
I do agree with you and others that this is a complex issue, both from a technical (understanding color space) issue and for you from a business perspective to ensure your customers are happy. I would also agree that (arguably) the best solution is one of education. Having read this thread has helped to accomplish a lot of that for me and I appreciate the openness and your consideration in bringing this up!
Thanks!
http://www.SplendorousSojourns.com
Canon 1D Mk II N - Canon 5D - Canon EF 17-40 f/4L USM - Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM - Canon EF 85 f/1.8 USM - Canon EF 100 f/2.8 macro - Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Is there a middle ground, perhaps? Smugmug has an obvious customer satisfaction issue with files in the wrong color space, and that needs a solution, in one way or another.
1) Originals are left as-is. This lets people use the site to archive files in whatever format they want.
2) Files without an embedded profile are printed as if they were in sRGB.
3) Files with an embedded profile that is not sRGB will be converted before being sent to EZ Prints.
Is this a possible solution? As per the education route, I'll admit that is an ideal solution for sure. Probably very difficult to do, however. I have received the best, most complete education about color spaces from Smugmug and this forum. I have paid to attend photo classes that actually get the concept of color spaces wrong!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I agree with Smugmug's decision to, by default, convert photos to sRGB. They are a site who's primary purpose is photo sharing on the web with the option to order prints and their default processes should make that the best experience possible, even for people that don't understand about color management.
If they'd have converted everything to sRGB from day one, probably there would not be a lot of complaints about that today. That said, there are obviously some users who are using Smugmug slightly different than just for photo sharing (archiving originals). If Smugmug wants to allow those users to continue to do what they do (that's their own business decision), then the easiest way to do that would be to support some new preferences that control whether photos get converted to sRGB or not. There could be either a global account preference to disable this new functionality or there could be a per-gallery preference to disable the sRGB conversion. This would allow account holders to control this issue, but allow them to set the default to ON (so new photos are converted to sRGB and viewing and printing delivers a better experience when the non-color-savvy user screws up).
--John
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
How about on the Pro service level you let us decide? Don't change the "Original" files or don't call them "Original".
I ride a Calfee too! Love those bikes and know Craig.
You would be right in assuming that if the file were sRGB then it would look right on a calibrated monitor and match the print. If it's aRGB, it won't display well or print well using photographic paper & chemicals (but would on an inkjet).
So, the only reason you'd upload an aRGB to smugmug is to store it. You can re-download it sometime and print it on your inkjet. But using a web browser to display it or a printer we're connected to will cause problems.
This is really a big problem for us because we have to fend off all the people who say we alter their colors in print and for display when they upload aRGB files.
There is a popular notion that aRGB is a better archiving format than sRGB because it has more colors. Actually, for the purpose of displaying on the Internet or printing with photographic chemicals and paper, it has fewer colors. Here's why:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm
I hope this helps,
Baldy