Are your uploaded files darker than the originals?

drdane · February 15, 2007

I'm in the early phases of creating my site on SmugMug, and have noticed something that doesn't seem right.

When I carefully compare an original jpg on my computer with the "identical" file that was uploaded, I see significant darkening of the shadows, and mild darkening of the midtones, giving the appearance of an increase in contrast.

Here's what I did:
Gallery customization to make it non-public, and the originals viewable.
Opened "same" file in PSCS, and viewing this at 100%, compared them side by side.

The computer version is always lighter, and of less contrast. To get it to approximate the on-line version, I use a curves layer to pull down the shadows by 10-15 pts (using the 50/50 point to start). Then pull down the midpoint from 5-10 points. The 203/203 point on the diagonal is usually pretty close.

I would appreciate the feedback from a few brave souls willing to repeat this test themselves. They should be identical, right? (at first glance, I thought they were, but more careful inspection revealed the difference.

I'm particularly interested in this, as my "True" prints have come out too dark, and I'm wondering is this isn't part of the problem. Certainly part of it was the way I was adjusting them on my over-bright monitor, so I'm learning to be careful of those shadows and raise up the midtones a bit.

Please try this little experiment and let me know what you discover - maybe it's all in my head

.

HEP · February 15, 2007

drdane wrote:

I'm in the early phases of creating my site on SmugMug, and have noticed something that doesn't seem right.

When I carefully compare an original jpg on my computer with the "identical" file that was uploaded, I see significant darkening of the shadows, and mild darkening of the midtones, giving the appearance of an increase in contrast.

Here's what I did:
Gallery customization to make it non-public, and the originals viewable.
Opened "same" file in PSCS, and viewing this at 100%, compared them side by side.

The computer version is always lighter, and of less contrast. To get it to approximate the on-line version, I use a curves layer to pull down the shadows by 10-15 pts (using the 50/50 point to start). Then pull down the midpoint from 5-10 points. The 203/203 point on the diagonal is usually pretty close.

I would appreciate the feedback from a few brave souls willing to repeat this test themselves. They should be identical, right? (at first glance, I thought they were, but more careful inspection revealed the difference.

I'm particularly interested in this, as my "True" prints have come out too dark, and I'm wondering is this isn't part of the problem. Certainly part of it was the way I was adjusting them on my over-bright monitor, so I'm learning to be careful of those shadows and raise up the midtones a bit.

Please try this little experiment and let me know what you discover - maybe it's all in my head .

You might to try and calibrate your monitor. I happen to use the Spyder 2 device to help keep my monitor and the printer calibrated. Just a suggestion.

pathfinder · February 15, 2007

I think this is a comparison that has to be done very carefully.

I am using a Mac with a 23 In LCD Cinema Display that was calibrated by a SPyder 2 Pro, and I use Safari as my browser.

When I very carefully look at the image in the gallery on smugmug vs the image on my computer within Photoshop, the smugmug image does seem slightly darker in the lower tones and maybe slightly higher contrast in the mid-tones. It is not noticeable to me unless I compare the images side by side. Even using a Pixel reader it is hard to discern measureable differences.

I do know that smugy does use some sharpening of the image when it displays the smaller image in the gallery on smugmug, as is typically needed with downsizing an image.

I have not tried comparing full size images, as mine are quite large. I do know that prints i have gotten from smugmug match my monitor very closely.

drdane · February 15, 2007

HEP wrote:

You might to try and calibrate your monitor. I happen to use the Spyder 2 device to help keep my monitor and the printer calibrated. Just a suggestion.

thanks, Harry

I forgot mention that I'd already calibrated (With Spyder2 - after updating the software).

Andy · February 15, 2007

drdane wrote:

They should be identical, right?

We need to know more

What browser are you viewing in?

How is your PS CS2 set for working colorspace?
How exactly, is your monitor profiled?

Rhuarc · February 15, 2007

Just to throw in my very limited know how, if you are used to viewing the photos in a color managed environment such as photoshop or bridge, and then you switch to an unmanaged workspace such as IE, wouldn't the shots look different?

drdane · February 15, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

I think this is a comparison that has to be done very carefully.

I am using a Mac with a 23 In LCD Cinema Display that was calibrated by a SPyder 2 Pro.

When I very carefully look at the image in the gallery on smugmug vs the image on my computer within Photoshop, the smugmug image does seem slightly darker in the lower tones and maybe slightly higher contrast in the mid-tones. It is not noticeable to me unless I compare the images side by side. Even using a Pixel reader it is hard to discern measureable differences.

I do know that smugy does use some sharpening of the image when it displays the smaller image in the gallery on smugmug, as is typically needed with downsizing an image.

I have not tried comparing full size images, as mine are quite large. I do know that prints i have gotten from smugmug match my monitor very closely.

Pathfinder
I'm using a 20" widescreen Dell "ultrasharp" LCD. I've turned the "brightness" adjustment all the way down, and re-calibrated with updated software (Spyder2). It is probably time to order some more test prints - I'm just trying to work out as many bugs as possible before printing more pics.

The difference isn't huge, but noticable to me now that I've been looking at it for a while. I wouldn't be making a deal out of it if my prints were close to what I see on my monitor.

The Auto turns out OK for the most part, but has even been too dark on some. True has been too dark, period. This is viewing them a few feet from a large window, or a soft boxed CFL daylight bulb. Do you use a standard viewing light? If so, could you give me wattage and viewing distance?

The curves adj required to approximate the images is the only way I have of quantifying it.

Here is my first attempt at linking to photos - hope it works! These are the pics I've done the comparison with, for what it's worth. Just having some feedback as to how they look on other's monitors may be helpful.

http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/129733287-M.jpg
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/124038080-M.jpg
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/129159842-M.jpg
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/129159973-M.jpg
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/129160137-M.jpg
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/129480424-M.jpg

I've lightened most of them up as much as I dare, trying to maintain saturated colors and contrast range. The "Ice Eggs" shot is the only one I've had printed, and have lightened it up since then.

I'm new to printing (I was on the road for two years), and have been spending a lot of butt time lightening up files that "looked good" on my monitor, but printed too dark. My eyes are gradually learning how to see . .

Thanks for your help!
Dane

Andy · February 15, 2007

If you view your files in sRGB via your computer - and then view them in Original form on SmugMug - in say, Firefox, there will be no difference. We do not process any changes to your sRGB Original.

pathfinder · February 15, 2007

DrDane,

I downloaded and looked at the files you posted. They are lovely images in sRGB colorspace. I see no exif data, it has apparently all been stripped.

What I do notice is that your colors are very intense and are frequently out of gamut for CMYK printing. When I look at your picture of the backlit green leaves, when I proof it in CMYK there is a significant shift due to gamut limitations of CMYK I believe. The rendering intent of the printer will then attempt to remap the color values to fit within the gamut of the printer inks and paper being used.

I looked at your gallery and the images are beautiful. Many of your landscapes have great skies with white, billowing clouds, and deep blues, but the forgrounds have low contrast as the available contrast range has been used entirely in the sky. Your macros are glowing.

As Andy said, images edited in sRGB should look in print like they look on screen either in Photoshop, or in a Smugmug gallery if you are using an ICC aware browser like Safari.

Prints of course are reflected media, not transmitted like an LCD, and will appear slightly darker.

I use an 18watt Ott desklamp for my print viewing at my computer.

drdane · February 15, 2007

Andy wrote:

If you view your files in sRGB via your computer - and then view them in Original form on SmugMug - in say, Firefox, there will be no difference. We do not process any changes to your sRGB Original.

Thanks, Andy

I'm using Inet Explorer 7, and have no idea how it interprets things, except what I've read here that browsers view in sRGB. Could it be that IE is injecting some contrast?

The fact is, the SM originals do NOT look the same as their respective files on my computer (when I view them with IE), and I am trying to find out why, in case that has been affecting my printing.

It sounds like you've done the experiment yourself, but I haven't heard you say so directly. If you've done it and see no difference (that would require a curves correction to match) upon careful scrutiny, then there must something in my system that is producing the shift I'm seeing. I'd really rather it weren't there, but there it is.

Perhaps another experiment would be for me to email a couple of 100K sRGB files to someone with a calibrated system who would compare them with the comprable Large files on my site. (the medium & large files have the same appearance as the originals on my system). Is there a pair of good eyes out there who's willing to try this?

I've poured my heart into this digital thing since starting from scratch a little over 3 years ago, and have some files that look good on a monitor to show for it. It has been very frustrating and disappointing to have difficulty in getting a good print at this point.

It may be due to a hardware or program (IE?) issue, or perhaps more likely, a gap in my knowledge or understanding of a key factor. I'm asking for help with getting that sorted out.

I've learned a lot in the past week or so of struggling with this, yet there is probably another piece, or two, or three . . .

Andy · February 16, 2007

drdane wrote:

Thanks, Andy

I'm using Inet Explorer 7, and have no idea how it interprets things, except what I've read here that browsers view in sRGB. Could it be that IE is injecting some contrast?

The fact is, the SM originals do NOT look the same as their respective files on my computer (when I view them with IE), and I am trying to find out why, in case that has been affecting my printing.

It sounds like you've done the experiment yourself, but I haven't heard you say so directly. If you've done it and see no difference (that would require a curves correction to match) upon careful scrutiny, then there must something in my system that is producing the shift I'm seeing. I'd really rather it weren't there, but there it is.

Perhaps another experiment would be for me to email a couple of 100K sRGB files to someone with a calibrated system who would compare them with the comprable Large files on my site. (the medium & large files have the same appearance as the originals on my system). Is there a pair of good eyes out there who's willing to try this?

I've poured my heart into this digital thing since starting from scratch a little over 3 years ago, and have some files that look good on a monitor to show for it. It has been very frustrating and disappointing to have difficulty in getting a good print at this point.

It may be due to a hardware or program (IE?) issue, or perhaps more likely, a gap in my knowledge or understanding of a key factor. I'm asking for help with getting that sorted out.

I've learned a lot in the past week or so of struggling with this, yet there is probably another piece, or two, or three . . .

Dane- for giggles, try Firefox and let us know.

I am viewing your files via SmugMug and CS2 side by side and they look identical to me.

drdane · February 16, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

DrDane,

I downloaded and looked at the files you posted. They are lovely images in sRGB colorspace. I see no exif data, it has apparently all been stripped.

What I do notice is that your colors are very intense and are frequently out of gamut for CMYK printing. When I look at your picture of the backlit green leaves, when I proof it in CMYK there is a significant shift due to gamut limitations of CMYK I believe. The rendering intent of the printer will then attempt to remap the color values to fit within the gamut of the printer inks and paper being used.

I looked at your gallery and the images are beautiful. Many of your landscapes have great skies with white, billowing clouds, and deep blues, but the forgrounds have low contrast as the available contrast range has been used entirely in the sky. Your macros are glowing.

As Andy said, images edited in sRGB should look in print like they look on screen either in Photoshop, or in a Smugmug gallery if you are using an ICC aware browser like Safari.

Prints of course are reflected media, not transmitted like an LCD, and will appear slightly darker.

I use an 18watt Ott desklamp for my print viewing at my computer.

Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to look so closely, Pathfinder!

I don't know what happened to the exif data.

The CMYK gamut piece is something I hadn't thought to consider. I thought sRGB would fit inside almost anything! I do like my saturated colors though.

I tried soft-proofing with the EZPrint profile (under View>Proof Setup in CS), and it made the photos look so much lighter (opposite of the prints)that I discounted it's usefulness (as I thought my monitor was too bright already). I'm new to soft-proofing, and don't really know how to interpret what I'm seeing, or what I should be seeing.

Another choice in the Proof Setup menu is Working CMYK. When I select this, and view the 3 files which produced blah prints (with EZPrints Auto and True), they looked very washed out - expecially this one:
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/127566996-M.jpg

Is this what you were referring to when you spoke of Proofing in CMYK? I think you were looking at the Frozen Water Drop shot (green grass blades) - this looks pitiful when proofing CYMK. I haven't tried to print that one yet. aRGB, sRGB, ProPhoto RGB etc all look OK on these files with no significant shifts.

Thankfully, the prints look much better than either EZPrints ICC or CMYK proofing! On the other hand, that suggests that the proofing is way off, too.

Regarding the low-contrast foregrounds, a lot of those shots are backlit with the foregrounds in shadow. On these, I usually do one Curves adj for the whole pic, then separate Curves on selected areas to try to bring it all into balance. I can only go so far with the shaded foregrounds without generating lots of noise. Do you know any better ways to go about it?

Sounds like your print is about 12-18 inches from the light source. Does a print that looks good in that arrangement also look good in more subdued home lighting, or does it require some supplemental lighting? I'm asking this in general as I realize there are many variables and a lot of subjectivity.

To summarize this long-winded post, there are two main issues: Loss of color saturation in certain images, and prints that are too dark, mostly when using the True print option.
Maybe in a week or two I'll feel like this

, but right now it's more like

or :cry . I don't know what to do next. I wasn't wanting to start a study of color management, but perhaps it's time to join the group working with Marguiles' book in this forum. I don't know if this would help with the print darkness, but it might be useful in dealing with out of gamut issues. I'm open to suggestions, especially those that don't cost hundreds of dollars:D !

Thanks for your help!

drdane · February 16, 2007

Andy wrote:

Dane- for giggles, try Firefox and let us know.

I am viewing your files via SmugMug and CS2 side by side and they look identical to me.

Sorry Andy (really!), no giggles - viewing via Firefox is still contrastier, though the curves correction in CS required to approximate the browser SM version is focused a little lower on the scale: dropping the "24" point by 6 and raising the "76" point by 4. Not exact, but close.

I'm thinking the discrepancy (which reqires some close inspection to see) might be a browser issue, be it Firefox or IE, and may be completely unrelated to my issue of dark prints. Though I'd still like to hear from someone who gets good print exposure with EZ Prints True, and who will try comparing their own Photoshop sRGB source files to those in their galleries via whatever browser.

When I get a couple of questions answered on Image Editor, I'll work up a couple of files with that and order tests prints to see if that results in better print density.

For the sake of clarity, it might be best to start a thread on Prints too Dark and another on Loss of Color Sat in Prints - what do you think?

pathfinder · February 16, 2007

drdane wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to look so closely, Pathfinder!

I don't know what happened to the exif data.

The CMYK gamut piece is something I hadn't thought to consider. I thought sRGB would fit inside almost anything! I do like my saturated colors though.

The gamut of CMYK is significantly different than sRGB, particularly in the blues. The CMYK gamut of inkjet printers is larger than that of offset printers. EZPrints is a photographic image process though in my understanding, so it has a larger gamut than CMYK, but that should be apparent in the EZPrints ICC profile

I tried soft-proofing with the EZPrint profile (under View>Proof Setup in CS), and it made the photos look so much lighter (opposite of the prints)that I discounted it's usefulness (as I thought my monitor was too bright already). I'm new to soft-proofing, and don't really know how to interpret what I'm seeing, or what I should be seeing.

The EZPrint ICC is to help you view in soft proof in Photoshop how your prints will look from Ezprint. There are test print files available from Smugmug that you can download to compare to the actual prints from EZPrints here

Smugmug has a help page about print matching to displays

Another choice in the Proof Setup menu is Working CMYK. When I select this, and view the 3 files which produced blah prints (with EZPrints Auto and True), they looked very washed out - expecially this one:
http://DrDane.smugmug.com/photos/127566996-M.jpg

Is this what you were referring to when you spoke of Proofing in CMYK? I think you were looking at the Frozen Water Drop shot (green grass blades) - this looks pitiful when proofing CYMK. I haven't tried to print that one yet. aRGB, sRGB, ProPhoto RGB etc all look OK on these files with no significant shifts.

Thankfully, the prints look much better than either EZPrints ICC or CMYK proofing! On the other hand, that suggests that the proofing is way off, too.

The image files MUST be in sRGB for proper display and proper printing via smugmug. aRGB and ProPhoto RGB files will not work with Smugmug - I use ProPhoto as a color space for 16bit image editing in PSCS2 also, but I convert them to sRGB before uploading to smugmug.

The greens in your ice egg image are all completely out of gamut when I look at them in Working CMYK in Photoshop, which is set for offset printing with CMYK.

Regarding the low-contrast foregrounds, a lot of those shots are backlit with the foregrounds in shadow. On these, I usually do one Curves adj for the whole pic, then separate Curves on selected areas to try to bring it all into balance. I can only go so far with the shaded foregrounds without generating lots of noise. Do you know any better ways to go about it?

Some of your images obviously have been edited with different curves for the forground and the sky - that is a great technique, but it should not be noticeable to the viewer and it is to my eye - Maybe that is because I am more familiar with the technique than most naive viewers though. It is that you use so much of the contrast range from 0-255 in the skies that not much range is left for the ground.

Is it possible that some of the noise you are seeing in the forground is due to underexposure - shooting 2 frames and then blending them would decrease this problem to degree. Or even blending a light and a dark jpg from a single RAW frame might help, but not as much as two seperate RAW frames.

Sounds like your print is about 12-18 inches from the light source. Does a print that looks good in that arrangement also look good in more subdued home lighting, or does it require some supplemental lighting? I'm asking this in general as I realize there are many variables and a lot of subjectivity.

Prints displayed in homes frequently are underlighted unless they owner has made aspecial effort to have a specific light for the print hung on the wall. Most walls are nowhere near the luminance levels I see under my Ott lamp on my desktop. Display lighting will vary throughout the day from daylight to shade to sungsten lighting.

ImagePrint actually posts different ICC profiles for paper based on whether the print is to be displayed under daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent lighting. So, they feel it makes a real difference to fine art printers using the ImagePrint RIP.

To summarize this long-winded post, there are two main issues: Loss of color saturation in certain images, and prints that are too dark, mostly when using the True print option.
Maybe in a week or two I'll feel like this , but right now it's more like or :cry . I don't know what to do next. I wasn't wanting to start a study of color management, but perhaps it's time to join the group working with Marguiles' book in this forum. I don't know if this would help with the print darkness, but it might be useful in dealing with out of gamut issues. I'm open to suggestions, especially those that don't cost hundreds of dollars:D !

Thanks for your help!

Try downloading one of the test print files I linked above, look at the image on your compuer screen without editing it, and then order a test print from Smugmugy, and compare it to what you see on your screen. This should give a you a very accurate idea of what an image shouldlook like compared to what you see on your computer screen. Cheap too:D

Baldy · February 16, 2007

Hey Dr Dane,

Sorry you've run into this problem that frustrates tons of people.

The answer's actually simple: Photoshop is altering your colors based on your monitor profile and your browser isn't. Set your monitor profile to sRGB and you're done. One less thing.

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

Thanks,
Chris

pathfinder · February 16, 2007

Chris, I have been through your link and the blogs related to color spaces on the MAC and Safari 2.0.4 several times and I am still not convinced...

When I try to set my MAC to sRGB profile my 23 in Cinema DIsplay has a VERY pink color even though the pixel reader says it reads 141,141,141 - a neutral gray. This is not my eyes opinion, this is compared to a Kodak grey card viewed under the same light as my monitor - the light I use is an OTT light. So I think the pink cast is real

I vastly prefer the profile I get with my Spyder2 calibration with a gamma of 2.2 and a white point of 6500K - it looks neutral to my eye and when I view my Galleries on SMUGMUG on a Windows machine they look fine. It also matches the gray scale cards from Kodak, and prints from Smugmug and my Epson 4000 are very similar to inspection.

Am I all wet here and should switch to sRGB for my profile for my display? How will this then display Adobe RGB and Pro Photo RGB in PhotoShop?

drdane · February 16, 2007

Baldy wrote:

Hey Dr Dane,

Sorry you've run into this problem that frustrates tons of people.

The answer's actually simple: Photoshop is altering your colors based on your monitor profile and your browser isn't. Set your monitor profile to sRGB and you're done. One less thing.

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

Thanks,
Chris

Thanks, Chris

When I look at the monitor profiles, I see Adobe RGB, but not SRGB. But in any case, I'm not willing to dump my calibration profile for sRGB at this point. Like Pathfinder, I also prefer to work in RGB.

I can easily live with a little browser incongruity as long as I know it's nothihg "personal!":D

I'm much more concerned about getting my pirnts to come close to my monitor! I very much appreciate your input, however!

Dane

Andy · February 16, 2007

drdane wrote:

Thanks, Chris

When I look at the monitor profiles, I see Adobe RGB, but not SRGB. But in any case, I'm not willing to dump my calibration profile for sRGB at this point.
.
.
.
I'm much more concerned about getting my pirnts to come close to my monitor!

You'll be printing at EZP via SmugMug. I don't understand why you wouldn't put everything in the same space

drdane · February 16, 2007

Andy wrote:

You'll be printing at EZP via SmugMug. I don't understand why you wouldn't put everything in the same space

Andy

What do I know? My head is probably full of crap I've heard the "gurus" say. I haven't run any test prints to see if I can even tell the difference - but that is coming as soon as I can get my monitor-print variance under control. I do know that I can't tell the difference when I convert from RGB to sRGB - but then (given my recent experience), maybe I'm not looking closely enough!

Have you given up a calibrated monitor to have an sRGB color space? That is what it would mean, isn't it?

Thanks!
Dane

drdane · February 17, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

The gamut of CMYK is significantly different than sRGB, particularly in the blues. The CMYK gamut of inkjet printers is larger than that of offset printers. EZPrints is a photographic image process though in my understanding, so it has a larger gamut than CMYK, but that should be apparent in the EZPrints ICC profile

Wow, Jim, you've written a book! Say, how do you get the quotes in separate boxes? I'll try something, maybe it will work. (Nah, I thought copying the quote things might do it.

I haven't seen a "picture" of the CYMK space compared to sRGB - do you know where I can find one?

The EZPrint ICC is to help you view in soft proof in Photoshop how your prints will look from Ezprint. There are test print files available from Smugmug that you can download to compare to the actual prints from EZPrints here

Smugmug has a help page about print matching to displays

I've read this help page a few times, and haven't found it very "helpful" for my current predicament.

I've downloaded the calibration print (and loaded it back up into my gallery). Do I just put it in the shopping cart? I'm wondering if it will automatically be priced. I think things are still pretty far off, but at least it would serve as a benchmark to move forward with.

The image files MUST be in sRGB for proper display and proper printing via smugmug. aRGB and ProPhoto RGB files will not work with Smugmug - I use ProPhoto as a color space for 16bit image editing in PSCS2 also, but I convert them to sRGB before uploading to smugmug.

I do convert everything to sRGB that I'm uploading.

The greens in your ice egg image are all completely out of gamut when I look at them in Working CMYK in Photoshop, which is set for offset printing with CMYK.

The True print i received of those eggs had some decent green in it, but it was too dark for normal viewing (looked pretty good in direct sunlight, though!

Some of your images obviously have been edited with different curves for the forground and the sky - that is a great technique, but it should not be noticeable to the viewer and it is to my eye - Maybe that is because I am more familiar with the technique than most naive viewers though. It is that you use so much of the contrast range from 0-255 in the skies that not much range is left for the ground.

Egads! You've just revealed "What DrDane doesn't want you to know about his photos!" Are you seeing selection artifacts, or looking at the contrast difference? I guess I'm not following you about using up the range in the sky. Could you explain it a different way?

Is it possible that some of the noise you are seeing in the forground is due to underexposure - shooting 2 frames and then blending them would decrease this problem to degree. Or even blending a light and a dark jpg from a single RAW frame might help, but not as much as two seperate RAW frames.

Yes, I do often see noise in the shadows, due, I assume, to underexposure. I could respond better if I knew which images are you referring to. Most of those came from two (and some three) exposures 2 stops apart, though some were contrast masks (from the same file).

ImagePrint actually posts different ICC profiles for paper based on whether the print is to be displayed under daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent lighting. So, they feel it makes a real difference to fine art printers using the ImagePrint RIP.

I don't know about this - could you give me a link?

Thanks again for your time & knowledge!
Dane

Baldy · February 17, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

Chris, I have been through your link and the blogs related to color spaces on the MAC and Safari 2.0.4 several times and I am still not convinced...

When I try to set my MAC to sRGB profile my 23 in Cinema DIsplay has a VERY pink color even though the pixel reader says it reads 141,141,141 - a neutral gray. This is not my eyes opinion, this is compared to a Kodak grey card viewed under the same light as my monitor - the light I use is an OTT light. So I think the pink cast is real

I vastly prefer the profile I get with my Spyder2 calibration with a gamma of 2.2 and a white point of 6500K - it looks neutral to my eye and when I view my Galleries on SMUGMUG on a Windows machine they look fine. It also matches the gray scale cards from Kodak, and prints from Smugmug and my Epson 4000 are very similar to inspection.

Am I all wet here and should switch to sRGB for my profile for my display? How will this then display Adobe RGB and Pro Photo RGB in PhotoShop?

Hey Pathfinder,

It sounds like you're very well set up. The Mac and PC are different beasts so let me see if I can explain the Mac simply.

It starts with the media's source profile to tell your Mac about the characteristics of your file. Is it sRGB? Adobe RGB?

It ends with the monitor profile. When I tell it to display gray, do I get gray or pink? If I get pink, as measured by a Sypder, when I ask for gray, I'll make a note of it in the monitor profile so I can intercept the gray command and adjust it so the Spyder really does measure gray when I tell it to.

The problem with Safari is, instead of telling your Mac that the Internet has a source profile of sRGB and therefore has a gamma of 2.2 and white point of 6500, it says, "Duh. I'll tell my Mac that this media has my monitor profile." What the heck? If an ICC profile is attached to your photo, it correctly tells your Mac that it's sRGB, a good thing, but it doesn't do that for other items on the page.

The other problems with the Mac are (a) the monitor profiles ship with gamma set to 1.8, and (b) most Mac monitors are not designed or calibrated for sRGB. If you use the sRGB profile that comes with your Mac the color will look different from the sRGB profile Adobe installs with Photoshop.

The bottom line is calibration combined with a white point of 6500 and gamma of 2.2 are the right thing to do on the Mac if you want the Internet to mostly behave.

But. You can check how well it's behaving with this page and Safari:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/safari/safari.html

It's probably not perfect, no? Apple says they're working on it. Your mileage may vary, but it sure is better after setting your gamma to 2.2 than it was before.

pathfinder · February 17, 2007

Wow, Jim, you've written a book! Say, how do you get the quotes in separate boxes? I'll try something, maybe it will work. (Nah, I thought copying the quote things might do it.

I haven't seen a "picture" of the CYMK space compared to sRGB - do you know where I can find one?

I have seen several images of the color spaces of sRGB, aRGB abnd CMYK over the years, but it is hard to just pull the right one out of the web.

Here are two articles by Andrew Rodney who writes about color space management quite a bit - I know Baldy communicates with A Rodney. I do not completely agree with everything in these two links but they do display comparisons of the size of standard CMYK vs sRGB. One thing to remember is that standard CMYK refers to offset printing and fine art inkjet printers can have significantly larger gamuts than offset printing, but still much less than an LCD display.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200502_rodneycm.pdf

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200509_rodneycm.pdf

I've downloaded the calibration print (and loaded it back up into my gallery). Do I just put it in the shopping cart? I'm wondering if it will automatically be priced. I think things are still pretty far off, but at least it would serve as a benchmark to move forward with.

I think the calibration prints are free, but do not quote me on this as I have nothing to do with pricing - talk to Baldy about that.

I do convert everything to sRGB that I'm uploading.

Yes, I saw that your images that you linked were ICC profiled as sRGB. That is important for images that are destined to be printed over the web by EZPrints.

The True print i received of those eggs had some decent green in it, but it was too dark for normal viewing (looked pretty good in direct sunlight, though!

So, maybe it ws not that dark if it looked right in sunlight. I find all prints need to be evaluated in a good Ott Light or daylight. Have you tried using Auto Color for your prints too?

Egads! You've just revealed "What DrDane doesn't want you to know about his photos!" Are you seeing selection artifacts, or looking at the contrast difference? I guess I'm not following you about using up the range in the sky. Could you explain it a different way?

Yes, I can see evidence of editing in some of your landscapes. I cannot right click them because you have them protected and that is fine. But, "5602 Setting sun and Trees" seems flat and compressed to me. It is very hard to find a real white 245,245,245 anywhere in the sky The sun itself reaches only 251,239,251. I know this is an attempt to keep the sun from being blown out, but it limits the range of contrast in the rest of the image. The shadowed area in the trees have no detail. I can read the individual pixel data with the Digital Color Meter on my MAC.
I know that spot, since this is a shot of mine shot several years ago with a 10D on a flat, overcast day. You had a much nicer sky than I did.

[*quote] ImagePrint actually posts different ICC profiles for paper based on whether the print is to be displayed under daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent lighting. So, they feel it makes a real difference to fine art printers using the ImagePrint RIP.[*/quote]

If you use the above brackets and the word quote or /quote within the brackets without the apostrophe I added so you could see them, you will be able to show previous posters statements inside a box like I have been doing.

I don't know about this - could you give me a link?
Thanks again for your time & knowledge!
Dane

ColorByte is the software vendor for ImagePrint which is a RIP used for fine art printing. There is no need for it when printing through EZPrints via Smugmug.

I found a good discussion of soft proofing here - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/soft-proofing.shtml

pathfinder · February 17, 2007

Baldy wrote:

Hey Pathfinder,

It sounds like you're very well set up. The Mac and PC are different beasts so let me see if I can explain the Mac simply.

It starts with the media's source profile to tell your Mac about the characteristics of your file. Is it sRGB? Adobe RGB?

It ends with the monitor profile. When I tell it to display gray, do I get gray or pink? If I get pink, as measured by a Sypder, when I ask for gray, I'll make a note of it in the monitor profile so I can intercept the gray command and adjust it so the Spyder really does measure gray when I tell it to.

The problem with Safari is, instead of telling your Mac that the Internet has a source profile of sRGB and therefore has a gamma of 2.2 and white point of 6500, it says, "Duh. I'll tell my Mac that this media has my monitor profile." What the heck? If an ICC profile is attached to your photo, it correctly tells your Mac that it's sRGB, a good thing, but it doesn't do that for other items on the page.

The other problems with the Mac are (a) the monitor profiles ship with gamma set to 1.8, and (b) most Mac monitors are not designed or calibrated for sRGB. If you use the sRGB profile that comes with your Mac the color will look different from the sRGB profile Adobe installs with Photoshop.

The bottom line is calibration combined with a white point of 6500 and gamma of 2.2 are the right thing to do on the Mac if you want the Internet to mostly behave.

But. You can check how well it's behaving with this page and Safari:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/safari/safari.html

It's probably not perfect, no? Apple says they're working on it. Your mileage may vary, but it sure is better after setting your gamma to 2.2 than it was before.

Baldy, I think I will leave my system as it is, calibrated, and gamma's 2.2, at 6500 Kelvin

Thank you for answering my question, I know this whole issue of web browsers color management or lack of color management has been a thorn in everyone's side.

drdane · February 17, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

So, maybe it ws not that dark if it looked right in sunlight. I find all prints need to be evaluated in a good Ott Light or daylight. Have you tried using Auto Color for your prints too?

Right now I'm looking at the Ice Eggs prints - one Auto and one True - 3 ft under a 33" soft box with a 55W CFL bulb at 5000K. The Auto is about 1/3 to `1/2 "stop" too light, IMO, as it's losing highlights. (looks pretty good in dimmer light, however). The True is looking like a "dark and stormy night" - about 2/3 to 1 stop UE, with dull highlights.

I ran about 11 Auto prints and 3 were OK, 5 were !/3 - 1/2 too light, and 3 were too dark, including the canyonlands 5602 shot (which i've lightened up a lot since then. One was washed out - the yellow water lily - which you discovered was probably out of cymk gamut.

What should I do about that, anyway? I just read somewhere that using the Lab space helps prevent such things for some reason - does either of Marguiles' books deal with that issue?

Yes, I can see evidence of editing in some of your landscapes. I cannot right click them because you have them protected and that is fine. But, "5602 Setting sun and Trees" seems flat and compressed to me. It is very hard to find a real white 245,245,245 anywhere in the sky The sun itself reaches only 251,239,251. I know this is an attempt to keep the sun from being blown out, but it limits the range of contrast in the rest of the image. The shadowed area in the trees have no detail. I can read the individual pixel data with the Digital Color Meter on my MAC.
I know that spot, since this is a shot of mine shot several years ago with a 10D on a flat, overcast day. You had a much nicer sky than I did.

That was a 2 exposure shot - 2 stops apart, and I might have even used a 2 stop GND in addition (hard to take notes when I'm shooting like a fool and the sun's nearly gone and I can't see for crap)

Rebel 300D with canon 10-22 lens at 10mm, 1/13th @f11 (100 ISO) on the base shot.

You must have been referring to another shot regarding noise - I don't see much here at 67% in PS. I did a lot of work on this, especially trying to get rid of the halo around the left tree and the ridgeline - residue from blurring the mask image and sharpening. I also added a lot of contrast & brightening to the shadow areas, which was most everything - the only things with direct sun on them were the trees, and that was all but gone. Do you think it would still look natural if I added more to the shadows?

I still read 255/255/255 on the sun, and 255/224/100 in the cloud above it (in PSCS). I try to keep the non-spectral highlights around 245 for printing.

As a side note, we were on our way to Ft Wayne to visit my wife's family - (I notice you're from IN).

ImagePrint actually posts different ICC profiles for paper based on whether the print is to be displayed under daylight, tungsten, or fluorescent lighting. So, they feel it makes a real difference to fine art printers using the ImagePrint RIP.

What's a "RIP?"

Hey, the boxes worked! The only difference from what I tried before was the addition of the "/" in the closing quote at the end of each section. Cool!

Once again, thanks for your help! I will be giving you many more opportunities in the days & weeks ahead.

Baldy · February 17, 2007

My fav explanation of sRGB versus Adobe RBG is here. Crisp and clean with no caffeine.

Here's a basic gamut chart:

I think SmugMug has shipped 3 million prints now using chemical-process prints on printers like Fuji Frontiers whose gamuts are narrower for the most part than sRGB. No print has been returned or disliked for that reason. The returns are always skin tone, contrast, exposure, sharpness, color casts, etc.

drdane, your choice of going with your calibrated monitor profile is fine and makes sense but you'll notice with Photoshop when you select "Save for web..." you'll see the color shift. If you have Photoshop's color management settings set correctly, it's Photoshop that should match the prints.

But honestly, you can't calibrate your eyes. I can get perfect prints every time on any monitor, including gray scale. You can do great adjustments to skin tone on gray scale monitors when you get your stinkin' lying, cheating eyes and partially accurate monitor profile out of the way.

Just use the Photoshop eyedropper tool. It's ground truth. No place to run. No place to hide. No colors looking vibrant when you just ate sugar. No colors looking flat when you're tired. No color casts that your eyes can't discern because they are only good at relative colors, not absolute, just because God designed us that way.

Are your uploaded files darker than the originals?

Comments