Where should I "begin" my post processing tutorial? This is all new to me, and you people are speaking Greek . Is there a definitive source for dummies?
I presume the monitor should be calibrated to sRGB too?
I've done some conversions from my jpegs which were shot in aRBG to sRBG, and the colors are definitely more vibrant... however the reds are fairly intense, maybe too much so. However, I don't see anything like the differences in the shots you posted, Andy.
I presume the monitor should be calibrated to sRGB too?
I've done some conversions from my jpegs which were shot in aRBG to sRBG, and the colors are definitely more vibrant... however the reds are fairly intense, maybe too much so. However, I don't see anything like the differences in the shots you posted, Andy.
Well, you should calibrate your monitor, period. You can use software that uses your eye, or even better, get a hardware calibration kit. Andy did a recent review of the Huey, which you can find up in the navbar on dgrin under Reviews. There's also this help page from smugmug.
As for the difference in vibrancy--where are you viewing them? The web will strip the colorspace entirely, which often results in the kinds of differences that Andy was demonstrating. If you're looking in an app like PS that understands colorspace you won't see that big a diff.
Oh, and also there's a calibration print available from smugmug. You can get that by sending a request to help@smugmug.com.
Else, use Photoshop or similar program to "Convert to sRGB."
Hi Andy,
I dug up a discussion from last year called "Proposed new way to process photos" -- http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11505&highlight=srbg where towards the end of the discussion Baldy told of plans to convert all incoming files to sRBG. Is that what is happening now?
I uploaded two files of the same image -- one sRGB one aRGB -- they look the same on my monitor (iMac G5). Thought maybe the conversion was why. I didn't research any further to see if the new way was implemented -- was it? If so doesn't that feature make this discussion somewhat moot?
I dug up a discussion from last year called "Proposed new way to process photos" -- http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11505&highlight=srbg where towards the end of the discussion Baldy told of plans to convert all incoming files to sRBG. Is that what is happening now?
I uploaded two files of the same image -- one sRGB one aRGB -- they look the same on my monitor (iMac G5). Thought maybe the conversion was why. I didn't research any further to see if the new way was implemented -- was it? If so doesn't that feature make this discussion somewhat moot?
Thanks,
Frank
Which browser are you using to view it? Some browsers ARE colorspace aware (although they are few).
Where should I "begin" my post processing tutorial? This is all new to me, and you people are speaking Greek . Is there a definitive source for dummies?
Hi xsquiggy. If you're not using any processing software, a good place to start would be to download and install Picasa. It's free and does a lot of basic editing without getting too complicated.
If you've moved to Photoshop Elements or CS2 a good book to get is "The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby. Amazon has it.
Where should I "begin" my post processing tutorial? This is all new to me, and you people are speaking Greek . Is there a definitive source for dummies?
Most tutorials use Photoshop. However, Photoshop Elements will also work
(I think it may have come with your camera). If you have questions, feel free
to ask and we'll do our best to help.
Oh, and the "Making your image pop" and "Basic Sharpening" are probably the
ones you want to start with.
Ian
P.S. I'm with Mr. Peas on the "you rode a different bike" theory
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Which browser are you using to view it? Some browsers ARE colorspace aware (although they are few).
I'm using Safari -- I believe Safari is colorspace aware. Would that completely explain my aRBG image looking the same as my sRBG one?
In any case I'm among those who use aRBG because my most important output is an inkjet printer. I try to remeber to convert to sRGB when posting but often forget. Once in a while one of my images appears flat (but not on SM) and that reminds me to convert -- but when this has happened I usually need to enhance to image in other ways so that it looks ok on the web.
I'm using Safari -- I believe Safari is colorspace aware. Would that completely explain my aRBG image looking the same as my sRBG one?
In any case I'm among those who use aRBG because my most important output is an inkjet printer. I try to remeber to convert to sRGB when posting but often forget. Once in a while one of my images appears flat (but not on SM) and that reminds me to convert -- but when this has happened I usually need to enhance to image in other ways so that it looks ok on the web.
Maybe this is a Windows only discussion!?
No, it's not, because the colorspace gets stripped if it's not sRGB.
I'm using Safari -- I believe Safari is colorspace aware. Would that completely explain my aRBG image looking the same as my sRBG one?
In any case I'm among those who use aRBG because my most important output is an inkjet printer. I try to remeber to convert to sRGB when posting but often forget. Once in a while one of my images appears flat (but not on SM) and that reminds me to convert -- but when this has happened I usually need to enhance to image in other ways so that it looks ok on the web.
No, it's not, because the colorspace gets stripped if it's not sRGB.
Hi David,
Gets stripped by what? According to one of the links Andy left this is the case:
"On the Mac, the browsers Internet Explorer and Safari look for an ICC profile (few photos on the net have them) and use whatever box of crayons it specifies. In that case, what you see on your Mac is not what someone sees on Windows, their TV, or the excellent Firefox browser, which many Mac owners use."
So I guess the stripping is done in Windows and FireFox environments. Correct?
I'll have to review my photos on my daughters HP Laptop -- she is an artist in fact three of my daughters are artists (two are professionals) I'll ask them what they see.
I don't intend to print using SM very much. I'm a believer in the theory that ink jet printers produce the best print quailties today. So I use my Epson 2200 or have prints made in a lab that uses high end ink jets.
But if my SM images look bad on most users monitors -- that's bad.
But I didn't find an answer to one of my questions -- Is SM now converting all images to sRGB as Baldy said would start to occur sometime last year? But I guess the answer must be no -- otherwise there wouldn't be this discussion. Right?
Smugmug will keep the aRGB profile on your original, if that's how you uploaded it, but the display sizes are not. They are sRGB, but unlike PS, which will convert aRGB to sRGB, making it look right, smugmug just says it's sRGB for those smaller (non-original) sizes, making the image looked washed out and wrong.
What you're referring to about Baldy's statement is that he and smugmug are trying to find a way to accomodate those shooting and uploading aRGB without messing up what smugmug is already doing.
But images uploaded to smugmug should be sRGB. If you're going to use them for printing it pretty much has to be, and if you're not, then why fight the tide?
Interesting discussion we're having. Let me throw this into the mix. My aRGB jpegs can be converted to sRGB jpegs in BreezeBrowser via the proof function, and the result is dramatic. But if I take the same aRGB files and convert them to sRGB jpegs via CS2, they look pretty much the same. What's the deal?
Smugmug will keep the aRGB profile on your original, if that's how you uploaded it, but the display sizes are not. They are sRGB, but unlike PS, which will convert aRGB to sRGB, making it look right, smugmug just says it's sRGB for those smaller (non-original) sizes, making the image looked washed out and wrong.
What you're referring to about Baldy's statement is that he and smugmug are trying to find a way to accomodate those shooting and uploading aRGB without messing up what smugmug is already doing.
But images uploaded to smugmug should be sRGB. If you're going to use them for printing it pretty much has to be, and if you're not, then why fight the tide?
Why fight the tide?
I'm not fighting anything -- mainly trying to understand color space issues. And I want to work in aRGB except for web display which right now is less important to me than printing. If I can stay in aRGB it would eliminate a step but if I need to be in sRGB -- so RGbe it! But I am still confused enought to want to learn a little more first hand.
So I just reviewed one of my SM galleries using my college age daughter's laptop right next to my iMac G5. She has a WinTel LT. Guess what -- the images on her screen looked fine. Mine are brighter -- hers a bit deeper color wise. But in no way did her images look washed out or faded. My gallery is a mixture of sRGB and aRGB images and they all looked goodish. These are images that have been published -- professionally printed and printed on my Epson 2200 as well. Everything looks pretty consistent. These are good photos -- not the very best you'll ever see I'm sure but good. A few have won prizes -- all have been well received generally.
I think I'll try ordering prints -- one of one of my sRGB photos and the other of one of my aRGB images -- I will expect the aRGB one to not look so good. Is that what I should be expecting?
Frank, as for your G5, have you set your gamma to 2.2? Macs come at gamma 1.8, and you should calibrate and change it to 2.2.
Also, you could try using PictureSync to upload your pictures and convert to sRGB along the way. That way your local pics will be aRGB and your smug pics will be sRGB like they should.
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited April 20, 2006
I'll take that 17-55 off your hands, if you're still pissed with it! Neither of my favorite camera stores rent the dang thing, and I need one for my next shoot! How's $200 sound? Hehehehe...
Frank, as for your G5, have you set your gamma to 2.2? Macs come at gamma 1.8, and you should calibrate and change it to 2.2.
Also, you could try using PictureSync to upload your pictures and convert to sRGB along the way. That way your local pics will be aRGB and your smug pics will be sRGB like they should.
Dear David,
What problem am I potentially solving with a gamma setting of 2.2? My monitor seems fine. Prints on my printer as well as those printed professionally match well to what I see on my monitor. But I'll look into it -- its been a while since I calibrated my monitor and I don't remeber the settings.
Is PictueSync a SM utility or iMac one? -- I guess I'll look into that as well. I still don't know what problem I'm solving unless its poor prints -- but printing through SM is not something I've used in the past.
Frank, as for your G5, have you set your gamma to 2.2? Macs come at gamma 1.8, and you should calibrate and change it to 2.2.
Also, you could try using PictureSync to upload your pictures and convert to sRGB along the way. That way your local pics will be aRGB and your smug pics will be sRGB like they should.
Ok -- I calibrated the monitor using a gamma of 2.2 and also set the target white point to a warm tone used by graphic artists (D50). This has created a richer look on the G5 and I guess will be more consistent with what PC users see.
I'll leave things as they are for a while and see how it all works.
Comments
I'm sure there are several methods to accomplish this goal. Here are two:
1. Configure Photoshop to convert files to sRGB when you open them, i.e. make sRGB the working space.
2. Create a PS action to convert to the sRGB space. Run the action on the file just before you do a save for the web.
Shoot in sRGB, that's the best/easiest.
Else, use Photoshop or similar program to "Convert to sRGB."
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I've done some conversions from my jpegs which were shot in aRBG to sRBG, and the colors are definitely more vibrant... however the reds are fairly intense, maybe too much so. However, I don't see anything like the differences in the shots you posted, Andy.
Well, you should calibrate your monitor, period. You can use software that uses your eye, or even better, get a hardware calibration kit. Andy did a recent review of the Huey, which you can find up in the navbar on dgrin under Reviews. There's also this help page from smugmug.
As for the difference in vibrancy--where are you viewing them? The web will strip the colorspace entirely, which often results in the kinds of differences that Andy was demonstrating. If you're looking in an app like PS that understands colorspace you won't see that big a diff.
Oh, and also there's a calibration print available from smugmug. You can get that by sending a request to help@smugmug.com.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Hi Andy,
I dug up a discussion from last year called "Proposed new way to process photos" -- http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11505&highlight=srbg where towards the end of the discussion Baldy told of plans to convert all incoming files to sRBG. Is that what is happening now?
I uploaded two files of the same image -- one sRGB one aRGB -- they look the same on my monitor (iMac G5). Thought maybe the conversion was why. I didn't research any further to see if the new way was implemented -- was it? If so doesn't that feature make this discussion somewhat moot?
Thanks,
Frank
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
Which browser are you using to view it? Some browsers ARE colorspace aware (although they are few).
If you've moved to Photoshop Elements or CS2 a good book to get is "The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby. Amazon has it.
www.dkoyanagi.com
www.flickr.com/photos/dkoyanagi/
Sure. Look for the "How To" link and have a look.
Most tutorials use Photoshop. However, Photoshop Elements will also work
(I think it may have come with your camera). If you have questions, feel free
to ask and we'll do our best to help.
Oh, and the "Making your image pop" and "Basic Sharpening" are probably the
ones you want to start with.
Ian
P.S. I'm with Mr. Peas on the "you rode a different bike" theory
I'm using Safari -- I believe Safari is colorspace aware. Would that completely explain my aRBG image looking the same as my sRBG one?
In any case I'm among those who use aRBG because my most important output is an inkjet printer. I try to remeber to convert to sRGB when posting but often forget. Once in a while one of my images appears flat (but not on SM) and that reminds me to convert -- but when this has happened I usually need to enhance to image in other ways so that it looks ok on the web.
Maybe this is a Windows only discussion!?
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
No, it's not, because the colorspace gets stripped if it's not sRGB.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/25/smugmug-alters-my-colors/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hi David,
Gets stripped by what? According to one of the links Andy left this is the case:
"On the Mac, the browsers Internet Explorer and Safari look for an ICC profile (few photos on the net have them) and use whatever box of crayons it specifies. In that case, what you see on your Mac is not what someone sees on Windows, their TV, or the excellent Firefox browser, which many Mac owners use."
So I guess the stripping is done in Windows and FireFox environments. Correct?
I'll have to review my photos on my daughters HP Laptop -- she is an artist in fact three of my daughters are artists (two are professionals) I'll ask them what they see.
I don't intend to print using SM very much. I'm a believer in the theory that ink jet printers produce the best print quailties today. So I use my Epson 2200 or have prints made in a lab that uses high end ink jets.
But if my SM images look bad on most users monitors -- that's bad.
I'll look into this further.
Thanks,
Frank
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
But I didn't find an answer to one of my questions -- Is SM now converting all images to sRGB as Baldy said would start to occur sometime last year? But I guess the answer must be no -- otherwise there wouldn't be this discussion. Right?
Thanks,
Frank
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
Smugmug will keep the aRGB profile on your original, if that's how you uploaded it, but the display sizes are not. They are sRGB, but unlike PS, which will convert aRGB to sRGB, making it look right, smugmug just says it's sRGB for those smaller (non-original) sizes, making the image looked washed out and wrong.
What you're referring to about Baldy's statement is that he and smugmug are trying to find a way to accomodate those shooting and uploading aRGB without messing up what smugmug is already doing.
But images uploaded to smugmug should be sRGB. If you're going to use them for printing it pretty much has to be, and if you're not, then why fight the tide?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Why fight the tide?
I'm not fighting anything -- mainly trying to understand color space issues. And I want to work in aRGB except for web display which right now is less important to me than printing. If I can stay in aRGB it would eliminate a step but if I need to be in sRGB -- so RGbe it! But I am still confused enought to want to learn a little more first hand.
So I just reviewed one of my SM galleries using my college age daughter's laptop right next to my iMac G5. She has a WinTel LT. Guess what -- the images on her screen looked fine. Mine are brighter -- hers a bit deeper color wise. But in no way did her images look washed out or faded. My gallery is a mixture of sRGB and aRGB images and they all looked goodish. These are images that have been published -- professionally printed and printed on my Epson 2200 as well. Everything looks pretty consistent. These are good photos -- not the very best you'll ever see I'm sure but good. A few have won prizes -- all have been well received generally.
This is the gallery:
http://bystander.smugmug.com/gallery/775165
I think I'll try ordering prints -- one of one of my sRGB photos and the other of one of my aRGB images -- I will expect the aRGB one to not look so good. Is that what I should be expecting?
Cheers,
Frank
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
Also, you could try using PictureSync to upload your pictures and convert to sRGB along the way. That way your local pics will be aRGB and your smug pics will be sRGB like they should.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Nikon shooter: D200, Tokina 12-24, 17-55 2.8, 70-200 VR 2.8, 50 1.4 :click
Dear David,
What problem am I potentially solving with a gamma setting of 2.2? My monitor seems fine. Prints on my printer as well as those printed professionally match well to what I see on my monitor. But I'll look into it -- its been a while since I calibrated my monitor and I don't remeber the settings.
Is PictueSync a SM utility or iMac one? -- I guess I'll look into that as well. I still don't know what problem I'm solving unless its poor prints -- but printing through SM is not something I've used in the past.
Take care,
Frank
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
Ok -- I calibrated the monitor using a gamma of 2.2 and also set the target white point to a warm tone used by graphic artists (D50). This has created a richer look on the G5 and I guess will be more consistent with what PC users see.
I'll leave things as they are for a while and see how it all works.
Thanks For the suggestion David.
http://frank-winters.artistwebsites.com/
Seeking the Decisive Moment, thanks Henri
PictureSync.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops