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

SunGlo

Andy wrote:

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.

If the monitor is out of adjustment (calibration) my home prints won't match whats on my monitor...been there, done that.

All the prints I've ordered and my customers have order from your lab in the past have been high quality and also matched my monitor images even though they are aRGB colorspace.

I just received two mugs I ordered with this image
http://sunglo.smugmug.com/gallery/61012/1/65913899
on them and they were awesome. Order number #143463.

Take your time, if no one else is complaining there is no rush on my part. I may try reloading one of the galleries in question. Maybe it was just a glich during the timeframe I did my uploads.

Baldy

Hi Phil,

Thanks for sending those files.

Sorry this is so confusing. Here are a few simple guides for how it works:

1. Photoshop knows how to display both aRGB and sRGB correctly, but web browser software (such as Internet Explorer) doesn't.

2. Ink jet printers know how to print both aRGB and sRGB files. Most commercial printers don't.

In both cases — Internet browser software and commercial printers, the difference is not huge; the colors of aRGB files are simply subdued.

Here is one of your files in aRGB:



And here it is in sRGB:



The second one (sRGB) should most closely match what's in your RAW file, and the first should look more subdued (when using Firefox or IE to view them).

If that's not the case on your machine, there are two possibilities, but before deep-ending into them, I'll ask the question about how they look first.

Thanks,
Chris

SunGlo

Baldy wrote:

Hi Phil,

Thanks for sending those files.


The second one (sRGB) should most closely match what's in your RAW file, and the first should look more subdued (when using Firefox or IE to view them).

If that's not the case on your machine, there are two possibilities, but before deep-ending into them, I'll ask the question about how they look first.

Thanks,
Chris

My preference is the aRGB (first) image. My reasoning is that it closely matches the original scene and the skin tones appear more natural. The sRGB image (second) is passable, but on my machine the reds are slightly boosted giving it a "point and shoot Kodak moment look". The boosed red causes my eyes to go directly to the two red glasses when I first look at the image. Not sure if that answers your question or if I'm even making sense at this point.

Since I shoot in RAW format there is no image enhancement performed by my cameras so your first image is a closer match to my RAW image and to the photoshop enhanced jpg conversion image. On my machine the first image matches the image I produced and the look of my older Smugmug galleries. The second matches what I'm seeing in my recently uploaded Smugmug Galleries.

Please keep in mind, my system has color management set to the adobe RGB 1998 profile. I guess my question is what's the work-around since I do some in house printing and some online customer purchases? Does that mean I will requre two seperate versions of the same image?

Thanks,

Phil

Mike Lane

Just a bystander, I hope you don't mind me chiming in. In the 2 pics that baldy posted, the skin tones in the aRGB one are bluish on my monitor. In the smugmug help files (which use info from dan margules I believe) we learn this:

The surprising power of cyan

On pleasing photos, cyan usually falls between 30% to 50% of the magenta value. Less than 30% of magenta makes sunburn; more than 50% of magenta makes makes them ghostly blue.



When I do a screen capture of the woman on the right and get a color sample of her skin I get readings like this:

C:30%
M:32%
Y:32%
K:0%

C:32%
M:39%
Y:41%
K:1%

That means that in her skin tones the Cyan value is nearly 100% (!!) of the value of the Magenta values. IMHO, the aRGB files make the women look ghastly pale blue and the color picker (with a 5x5 area in PS CS2) seems to agree. OTOH, the sRGB file has CMYK values like this:

C:27%
M:50%
Y:56%
K:4%

C:29%
M:40%
Y:42%
K:1%

So even the sRGB photo needs some aditional color correction, but it's much closer to be accurate than the aRGB file.

IMHO of course.

jfriend

I'd have to agree with Mike

Mike Lane wrote:

So even the sRGB photo needs some aditional color correction, but it's much closer to be accurate than the aRGB file.

IMHO of course.

Phil, I'd have to agree with Mike. The aRGB photo does not visually look like natural skin tone to me (too cold) and the SRGB image does. Further, it is generally accepted that the CMYK logic that Mike mentions is an accurate method of assessing a normal caucassian skin tone that is monitor calibration independent (in fact some color blind people use this method).

Andy

jfriend wrote:

Phil, I'd have to agree with Mike. The aRGB photo does not visually look like natural skin tone to me (too cold) and the SRGB image does. Further, it is generally accepted that the CMYK logic that Mike mentions is an accurate method of assessing a normal caucassian skin tone that is monitor calibration independent (in fact some color blind people use this method).

I've found the basics in the photoshop bible to hold true.
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1085489