Heads up: aRGB and Prophoto files now converted to sRGB on upload

Andy

As of 6/15, if you upload files that are in the Adobe RGB or Prophoto colorspace, we're now converting them to sRGB - yes, the original file will be modified, only with respect to the colorspace. The reason for this is so that when you print from these files, or you sell prints, your prints will come out as they are seen on screen. Much more, here:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

This is an extension of what we've already been doing for files that are uploaded in CMYK (very rare, but we've had this for some time...)

We will get the help section(s) updated to reflect this as soon as we are able to.

Mike Lane

huh... cool. Maybe I should re-upload the pics I took oh so long ago (before I knew any better).

lynnesite

Mike Lane wrote:

huh... cool. Maybe I should re-upload the pics I took oh so long ago (before I knew any better).

Whoa--wow, that's incredible! It's been such a necessary extra step in my workflow to make sure I don't blow that (and do sometimes even though it's somewhat of a habit to do the conversion.)

Thanks! Does it slow the upload, so it's better to still do it ourselves if our upload speed is pokey?

mpmcleod

lynnesite wrote:

Whoa--wow, that's incredible! It's been such a necessary extra step in my workflow to make sure I don't blow that (and do sometimes even though it's somewhat of a habit to do the conversion.)

Thanks! Does it slow the upload, so it's better to still do it ourselves if our upload speed is pokey?

Its better to do it yourself to make sure it turns out as you expect. Most of the time the change is not noticeable but if key elements in your image are in the aRGB space and not in the sRGB space your image may be significantly shifted by the conversion.

Does anyone know why sRGB was chosen for photo printing?

For example a journal I publish in (PNAS) requires that images be submitted in CMYK (http://www.pnas.org/misc/digitalart.pdf).

I was told that RGB is the colors of light (monitor/ screen) and CMYK is the colors of paint (printing). Is magazine printing a different process than photo printing? Or is it that most people's monitors use RGB space for display and so the conversion is better on the printing side?

mpmcleod

mpmcleod wrote:

Its better to do it yourself to make sure it turns out as you expect. Most of the time the change is not noticeable but if key elements in your image are in the aRGB space and not in the sRGB space your image may be significantly shifted by the conversion.

Does anyone know why sRGB was chosen for photo printing?

For example a journal I publish in (PNAS) requires that images be submitted in CMYK (http://www.pnas.org/misc/digitalart.pdf).

I was told that RGB is the colors of light (monitor/ screen) and CMYK is the colors of paint (printing). Is magazine printing a different process than photo printing? Or is it that most people's monitors use RGB space for display and so the conversion is better on the printing side?

Another question.

Anyone know how to check colorspace in bulk on images I have on my system (in bulk)?

Perhaps how to convert them in bulk as well?

ivar

mpmcleod wrote:

Its better to do it yourself to make sure it turns out as you expect. Most of the time the change is not noticeable but if key elements in your image are in the aRGB space and not in the sRGB space your image may be significantly shifted by the conversion.

Does anyone know why sRGB was chosen for photo printing?

For example a journal I publish in (PNAS) requires that images be submitted in CMYK (http://www.pnas.org/misc/digitalart.pdf).

I was told that RGB is the colors of light (monitor/ screen) and CMYK is the colors of paint (printing). Is magazine printing a different process than photo printing? Or is it that most people's monitors use RGB space for display and so the conversion is better on the printing side?

Maybe this thread will give you some more insight in colorspaces. I guess CMYK is a smaller colorspace.

As far as the bulk changing, i have no idea, i never change colorspaces.

Andy

lynnesite wrote:

Whoa--wow, that's incredible! It's been such a necessary extra step in my workflow to make sure I don't blow that (and do sometimes even though it's somewhat of a habit to do the conversion.)

Thanks! Does it slow the upload, so it's better to still do it ourselves if our upload speed is pokey?

It's still better if you do it yourself, Lynne.

Andy

mpmcleod wrote:

Does anyone know why sRGB was chosen for photo printing?

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

Andy

mpmcleod wrote:

Another question.

Anyone know how to check colorspace in bulk on images I have on my system (in bulk)?

Perhaps how to convert them in bulk as well?

If you have Adobe Bridge, and CS2, it's very easy, I use an action to convert to profile.

mpmcleod

Andy wrote:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

thanks.

I read that and undestand why sRBG was chosen over Adobe. I did not find a reference to CMYK. I will dig around on Google some more and see what I can find out.

Andy

mpmcleod wrote:

thanks.

I read that and undestand why sRBG was chosen over Adobe. I did not find a reference to CMYK. I will dig around on Google some more and see what I can find out.

Magazines do use a different print process, yes.

colourbox

Does anyone know why sRGB was chosen for photo printing?... For example a journal I publish in (PNAS) requires that images be submitted in CMYK.

CMYK images are a niche. A huge niche worth billions (press publishing), but still a niche. Almost nobody outside of commercial printing needs CMYK and its limited color range.

Yes, the inks of a desktop printer are CMYK, but almost no OSs and apps think in terms of CMYK. Word and Excel know nothing about CMYK. Digital cameras don't produce CMYK. That means RGB is the de facto standard for color data exchange, and nearly every color printer driver is built to receive RGB data, and they convert it to CMYK on the fly to drive the ink nozzles. Digital photo labs are the same: engineered to receive RGB data, not CMYK.

CMYK used to be THE standard when press plates were separated by hand and there were no computer monitors or operating systems in the home or office. But now, digital presses are starting to make it possible to not have to prepare CMYK images at all, and let the machine convert to CMYK to lay the inks down. In a few years, if your journal goes all digital, meaning not just digital creation but digital press, it may stop requiring CMYK altogether. While there are more CMYK-ink printers than ever, the use of CMYK as a user color space is decreasing.

Adobe RGB is a niche because it is an appropriate range for press. But not for the general public, because it's too large to match up well with monitors and printer drivers, so images look washed out unless you know what you are doing with color management (and most people do not).

sRGB is chosen because it is the lowest common denominator RGB color space and isn't as terrible as some say.

rdlugosz

hey cool - i think I recommended this approach a while back on this forum!

Thanks as usual for all the hard work from the SM crew!

KevinKal

Questions about converting
Hi Andy,

I've read the information on Smugmug regarding printing that you linked to earlier in this thread but have not found an answer to the following questions - perhaps you could help me out:

1. Do I need to convert photos uploaded previously to sRGB space?

2. I have recently edited a number of pictures on my new MacBook (they're like L-glass, cause now I'm hooked!). Unfortunately I see that I edited them in adobeRGB mode and when uploaded to SmugMug the colors were quite different. Can I convert the pictures to sRGB from PS and then upload, or will this change the colors too (meaning I will have to go back and edit them in the correct color space)?

Thanks in advance,
Kevin K.

Andy

KevinKal wrote:

Hi Andy,

I've read the information on Smugmug regarding printing that you linked to earlier in this thread but have not found an answer to the following questions - perhaps you could help me out:

1. Do I need to convert photos uploaded previously to sRGB space?

2. I have recently edited a number of pictures on my new MacBook (they're like L-glass, cause now I'm hooked!). Unfortunately I see that I edited them in adobeRGB mode and when uploaded to SmugMug the colors were quite different. Can I convert the pictures to sRGB from PS and then upload, or will this change the colors too (meaning I will have to go back and edit them in the correct color space)?

Thanks in advance,
Kevin K.

1) only if you intend to sell prints from them
2) it's always best if you convert - wysiwyg, right?

KevinKal

Questions regarding conversion to sRGB & color rendition...
OK, follow-up question for those who understand color space theory better than I do: I converted the image I inadvertently edited in aRGB space to sRGB space. On PS CS2, the two images side-by-side look the same from a color & hue/sat point of view. However, when uploaded to SmugMug the sRGB photo still looks washed-out. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between the two photos online (the last two photos here: http://kalwerisky.smugmug.com/gallery/440796). I am viewing the photos online using FireFox if that makes a difference.

Regards,
Kevin K.

dogwood

are you calibrated?

KevinKal wrote:

OK, follow-up question for those who understand color space theory better than I do: I converted the image I inadvertently edited in aRGB space to sRGB space. On PS CS2, the two images side-by-side look the same from a color & hue/sat point of view. However, when uploaded to SmugMug the sRGB photo still looks washed-out. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between the two photos online (the last two photos here: http://kalwerisky.smugmug.com/gallery/440796). I am viewing the photos online using FireFox if that makes a difference.

Regards,
Kevin K.

Kevin:

Is your monitor calibrated? This is the starting point in figuring out why photos on your monitor look different than photos you post. There should be no difference on a calibrated system. Also, check in your customization if you have "true" or "auto" color selected. With a calibrated workflow, you'll usually have better luck with "true" color.

Andy

KevinKal wrote:

OK, follow-up question for those who understand color space theory better than I do: I converted the image I inadvertently edited in aRGB space to sRGB space. On PS CS2, the two images side-by-side look the same from a color & hue/sat point of view. However, when uploaded to SmugMug the sRGB photo still looks washed-out. In fact, I cannot tell the difference between the two photos online (the last two photos here: http://kalwerisky.smugmug.com/gallery/440796). I am viewing the photos online using FireFox if that makes a difference.

Regards,
Kevin K.

you can only tell a difference in the -O sizes, as all -L etc on SmugMug are and have always been sRGB

EDIT: I was wrong - the display copies are in the same space as the uploaded files. Apologies.

KevinKal

Replies
Dogwood: Thanks for the reply; I have not calibrated the screen yet and will look into doing that. However, would the same picture appear different (that is, colors are a bit subdued) when viewed online vs in PS? I have never noticed this problem before.

Andy: Perhaps the problem is, as Dogwood mentioned, a poorly-calibrated screen or, perhaps the problem is the fact that the picture was origianlly edited in aRGB and subsequently converted to sRGB. However, there is a difference in the picture when viewed on my screen in PS vs in my smugmug gallery. I have viewed the picture at M and L sizes. Perhaps I could send you the original for you to compare and you'd be able to tell me if it is my screen? In any case, thank you for all the help.

Cheers,
Kevin

Andy

KevinKal wrote:

Dogwood: Thanks for the reply; I have not calibrated the screen yet and will look into doing that. However, would the same picture appear different (that is, colors are a bit subdued) when viewed online vs in PS? I have never noticed this problem before.

Andy: Perhaps the problem is, as Dogwood mentioned, a poorly-calibrated screen or, perhaps the problem is the fact that the picture was origianlly edited in aRGB and subsequently converted to sRGB. However, there is a difference in the picture when viewed on my screen in PS vs in my smugmug gallery. I have viewed the picture at M and L sizes. Perhaps I could send you the original for you to compare and you'd be able to tell me if it is my screen? In any case, thank you for all the help.

Cheers,
Kevin

Yes, sure - and also please, what system, and browser (and version) are you using?

Baldy

KevinKal wrote:

Dogwood: ...would the same picture appear different (that is, colors are a bit subdued) when viewed online vs in PS? I have never noticed this problem before.

Hi Dogwood,

This is actually quite a common problem. It has to do with the way web browsers display the bits (they just throw them on the screen) versus the way Photoshop does (it uses a profile to convert the bits to the colors it believes they should be).

So it comes down to the configuration of your computer. Here's a blog post about it:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/great-prints/2005/06/25/smugmug-alters-my-colors/

If you have a Mac, there could be other things at work and I have a blog post about that too. Just let me know.

Baldy

rdlugosz wrote:

hey cool - i think I recommended this approach a while back on this forum!

Yes, it's been in the works for a long time:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11505&highlight=srgb

Someone asked about CMYK. It's a good color space, especially when skin tones are involved. It can't accurately represent some colors sRGB can, but it can represent some accurately that sRGB can't. You have to be a real color geek, however, to notice because color substitution is so good for most photos.

The reason we've always converted CMYK jpegs is browser software won't display them. With aRGB, browser software will wash them out, but it's not the disaster CMYK causes.

Adobe RGB is a good color space too, but it's best for ink jet prints and not as good for commercial photographic-process prints. Here's a good reference explaining why:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

SunGlo

Andy wrote:

As of 6/15, if you upload files that are in the Adobe RGB or Prophoto colorspace, we're now converting them to sRGB - yes, the original file will be modified, only with respect to the colorspace. The reason for this is so that when you print from these files, or you sell prints, your prints will come out as they are seen on screen. Much more, here:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

This is an extension of what we've already been doing for files that are uploaded in CMYK (very rare, but we've had this for some time...)

We will get the help section(s) updated to reflect this as soon as we are able to.

I don't recall being notified about this modification. I've been going crazy trying to discover why my newley uploaded images don't match the quality of my offline originals and prints. I shoot and work in arbg colorspace. The reds on my online images are now oversaturated. No matter how much I crank down the reds they still showup oversaturated. I'm not happy about this change and neither are my customers. Is there anyway this decision can be reversed?

Baldy

SunGlo wrote:

I don't recall being notified about this modification. I've been going crazy trying to discover why my newley uploaded images don't match the quality of my offline originals and prints. I shoot and work in arbg colorspace. The reds on my online images are now oversaturated. No matter how much I crank down the reds they still showup oversaturated. I'm not happy about this change and neither are my customers. Is there anyway this decision can be reversed?

Hi SunGlo,

Can you point me to a photo where you're seeing the oversaturated reds? I'd love to take a look and see what's going on.

No browser but Safari on the Mac can display aRGB files correctly on the Internet, hence the change (and Safari can only do it under special circumstances not usually seen in browsing).

Thanks,
Chris

SunGlo

Baldy wrote:

Hi SunGlo,

Can you point me to a photo where you're seeing the oversaturated reds? I'd love to take a look and see what's going on.

No browser but Safari on the Mac can display aRGB files correctly on the Internet, hence the change (and Safari can only do it under special circumstances not usually seen in browsing).

Thanks,
Chris

The examples below are two of the worst. This is after I crank-down the red on the original and after I used the smugmug auto color correct tool. Nothing has changed on my end. All my workflows are automated. I have two computers one with an LCD and the other has a CRT. They are both calibrated. Both show oversaturated red in the online images only. On the first image the problem is the two glasses. On the second image the problem is the blouse.

I have a galllery of images taken in a state capitol building. I would expect indoor fill flash images to be on the red side but these are overly red, but usable.

I just uploaded a couple of hundred images at the end of June and that's when this proble reared it's ugly head. No issues prior to that.

http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1610801/1/78613992
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1610801/1/78613996

Andy

SunGlo wrote:

The examples below are two of the worst. This is after I crank-down the red on the original and after I used the smugmug auto color correct tool. Nothing has changed on my end. All my workflows are automated. I have two computers one with an LCD and the other has a CRT. They are both calibrated. Both show oversaturated red in the online images only. On the first image the problem is the two glasses. On the second image the problem is the blouse.

I have a galllery of images taken in a state capitol building. I would expect indoor fill flash images to be on the red side but these are overly red, but usable.

I just uploaded a couple of hundred images at the end of June and that's when this proble reared it's ugly head. No issues prior to that.

http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1610801/1/78613992
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1610801/1/78613996

Hi Sunglo,

Would you mind, emailing me the aRGB jpg of one of the two files just above, and also, one of this shot:
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1589686/2/77921882

send them, attn: Andy, to help@smugmug.com in three separate emails pls. We want to evaluate what's going on in this conversion.

Also, it'll help if you tell us what sort of system you are on, what monitor, what browser you use for internet (and version), and your general processing steps. Thanks!

SunGlo

Andy wrote:

Hi Sunglo,

Would you mind, emailing me the aRGB jpg of one of the two files just above, and also, one of this shot:
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1589686/2/77921882

send them, attn: Andy, to help@smugmug.com in three separate emails pls. We want to evaluate what's going on in this conversion.

Also, it'll help if you tell us what sort of system you are on, what monitor, what browser you use for internet (and version), and your general processing steps. Thanks!

Andy,

Everything you requested is on its way in seperate emails.

Thanks,

Phil

SunGlo

Andy wrote:

Hi Sunglo,

Would you mind, emailing me the aRGB jpg of one of the two files just above, and also, one of this shot:
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/1589686/2/77921882

send them, attn: Andy, to help@smugmug.com in three separate emails pls. We want to evaluate what's going on in this conversion.

Also, it'll help if you tell us what sort of system you are on, what monitor, what browser you use for internet (and version), and your general processing steps. Thanks!

Andy,

Now I'm really confused. The example image below was uploaded on June 23rd, same camera, same process, same smile on my face. The reds are not over saturated even though it's a sunset with tons of red. It matches the original image and print exactly.

http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/92367

The other examples I sent were uploaded on June 17th and they don't match the originals and the reds are over saturated.

The additional image you selected was uploaded June 4th and it also matches the original image and print.

Phil

Andy

SunGlo wrote:

It matches the original image and print exactly.

Could I have the order numbers please, of these print orders?

Thanks.

SunGlo

Andy wrote:

Could I have the order numbers please, of these print orders?

Thanks.

OOPS, sorry, I was referring to high resolution prints (8x10, 13x19) I produced with my equipment not smugmug prints.

The point I was making was my Photoshop monitor image matched my printed image (my equipment) but neither matched my online image. If my monitor calibration was off, my printed image would not match my monitor image. Prior to this issues popping up, the online image came pretty close to matching my monitor and print image.

To add another rinkle. I uploaded another copy of the original two example images and did a side-by-side online with the old examples. The new images do not appear to have as much color saturation as the first upload.

At this point my head is hurting and I think I want to stick my head in the sand because nothing make sense.

Andy

SunGlo wrote:

At this point my head is hurting and I think I want to stick my head in the sand because nothing make sense.

Well, I should hope they match your home printer Our lab though, requires the files to be in sRGB to print. So that's why I was asking.

Stay tuned, we'll examine your files later and be back at some point soon to this thread.