I'm really really sure I don't have the problem of the image being in adobeRGB.
I imagine there are other reasons but the most common reason image can appear unnaturally flat and desaturated on the web and appear fine in ps is if you uploaded that image it in a space other than sRGB.
I would say around 20 or so percent of my images I convert from the ezprints profile to the sRGB gain a little unwanted pop on the web. I imagine this is the same thing that causes the sometimes nuked fleshtones effect Baldy was talking about correcting earlier.
I just do not see many images flatten out and desaturate if they are properly converted from the native colorspace to sRGB.
When you start using the proper proofing profiles you will see what you have before you upload to the web so you can see any changes to the image during the conversion process and exactly where they take place. Without knowing for sure what color space, proofing profiles, icc profiles, gamma settings and conversion steps and images you have used, it's a bit difficult to diagnose what went wrong on cases like this.
If you load those profiles you can take one of those problem images you talk about, rework it, and you then will be able to see exactly where, when and what technically has gone wrong, if anything, from space to space and you won't have to do anymore guesswork on this at all.
I always use sRGB just out of laziness. This image started of sRGB, made a trip to LAB, and back to sRGB. Actually it isn't very far out of gamut. It is easy to get very far out of any gamut in LAB, as you probably know. For example, LAB can specify a color that is pure blue and as light as any color. I think that is actually an imaginary color.
The problem I had with this image happens very rarely to me, maybe once in several hundred images or less. But it does happen. So I've been waiting (for almost 6 months!) for a good example so I could really try to understand what was happening.
Oh Boy, almost too much information to grok! /grok/, var. /grohk/ vt. [from the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally `to drink' and metaphorically `to be one with']
The emphatic form is `grok in fullness'. 1. To understand, usually
in a global sense. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge.
Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced
as a single brief flash. See also glark. 2. Used of programs,
may connote merely sufficient understanding. "Almost all C
compilers grok the `void' type these days."
I'm going to have to try to absorb this information slowly.
I am very happy to read I'm not alone, on my Mac, at seeing colors shift from Photoshop to Save to Web! I've wondered about this quite often, but usually the colors I see in Photoshop are richer and darker and warmer than what I see when I save for web.
In "save for web" the colors lose contrast, become lighter and lose a lot of warmth (red).
I have to work in CYMK professionally (for 4 color offset printing) so this throws an added dimension to my workflow. I've been having a lot of trouble getting what I see on my screen to print on my Elpson Stylus Photo 925 lately, so I'm suspecting I'm not setting something right in Photoshop CS.
The more I learn, it seems the more I still have to learn!
I always use sRGB just out of laziness. This image started of sRGB, made a trip to LAB, and back to sRGB. Actually it isn't very far out of gamut. It is easy to get very far out of any gamut in LAB, as you probably know. For example, LAB can specify a color that is pure blue and as light as any color. I think that is actually an imaginary color.
The problem I had with this image happens very rarely to me, maybe once in several hundred images or less. But it does happen. So I've been waiting (for almost 6 months!) for a good example so I could really try to understand what was happening.
Good thing it is rare! I think maybe you just made a gamma, profile, or some other messup somewhere and didn't realize it, if it happens to you that rarely. I'm just guessing here and certainly could be wrong though.
When you run into an image that does that weird stuff again please let me know, I would love to see it. I have seen photoshop do some very crazy things to some seemingly regular images at times. Way crazier than what you describe here and simply unbelievable and unexplainable for most folks. I just hope I don't run into those odd digital nightmares very often myself.
When you run into an image that does that weird stuff again please let me know, I would love to see it. I have seen photoshop do some very crazy things to some seemingly regular images at times. Way crazier than what you describe here and simply unbelievable and unexplainable for most folks. I just hope I don't run into those odd digital nightmares very often myself.
Have a great day.
-don
Look in my first post on this thread. That's what set me off. The first image is the one that looks completely different viewed with different Proof Setups. The second image was derived from the first by a trip through CMYK. It looks almost the same with each Proof Setup setting. As I said, I've been waiting a long time for an example this good (or bad, depending.)
I've been having a lot of trouble getting what I see on my screen to print on my Elpson Stylus Photo 925 lately, so I'm suspecting I'm not setting something right in Photoshop CS.
The more I learn, it seems the more I still have to learn!
It's a tough subject to get one's arms around, no doubt. You probably do just need to get your settings correct in pscs. Injet printers like the one you have add even more color matching jazz and profiles into the mix. The bottom line is that if your monitor is calibrated close to correctly and the gamma set at reasonable level. And in ps if you then use the proper settings and printer profiles to softproof and print with, you should get a nicely color matched print when printing.
At times though, it does seem easier said than done. I gotta get to work now...
Look in my first post on this thread. That's what set me off. The first image is the one that looks completely different viewed with different Proof Setups. The second image was derived from the first by a trip through CMYK. It looks almost the same with each Proof Setup setting. As I said, I've been waiting a long time for an example this good (or bad, depending.)
Ooops, no work yet. I will download those and tell you what I see. Give me a couple minutes though, I am completely starved.:D This color stuff makes me real hungry.
What colorspace, if any, was originally tagged off of the camera, Rutt? Do you have the actual original available? If you do have it, I would like to work with it instead of those posted pix. I don't see how we can arrive at an accurate conclusion on this without seeing the original pic. Just upload it somewhere long enough for me to grab it, then you can quickly take it back down.
What colorspace, if any, was originally tagged off of the camera, Rutt? Do you have the actual original available? If you do have it, I would like to work with it instead of those posted pix. I don't see how we can arrive at an accurate conclusion on this without seeing the original pic. Just upload it somewhere long enough for me to grab it, then you can quickly take it back down.
My camera is set for sRGB and so is everything I can find in PS. This image also seems to be tagged that way. But I suppose it would make sense that Ginger is in some other colorspace.
My camera is set for sRGB and so is everything I can find in PS. This image also seems to be tagged that way. But I suppose it would make sense that Ginger is in some other colorspace.
I tried a few things on that image and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I opened the sRGB tagged image you reffered me to above in ps in two different working spaces, adobeRGB and sRGB, played around a bit, soft proofed with ezprints profile etc. Then made sure the image was converted back to or still in sRGB and then uploaded both images to the web where they viewed perfectly. Everything looks normal on this image on the web and in ps, you must have blown a setting or conversion somewhere in ps when working with this image.
I tried a few things on that image and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I opened the image in ps in two different working spaces, adobeRGB and sRGB, played around a bit, soft proofed with ezprints profile etc. Then made sure the image was converted back to or still in sRGB and then uploaded both images to the web where they viewed perfectly. Everything looks normal on this image on the web and in ps, you must have blown a setting somewhere when working with this image.
-don
You seem to still want to play. Tell me when you get bored. I think I'm learning, so I'm not bored yet.
Load into PS. Now look at it with Proof Setup->CMYK and Proof Setup->Macintosh and Proof Setup->Windows. For me there is a very dramatic difference and the image looks best by far with Proof Setup->CMYK.
Can you repeat that much?
I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.
Load into PS. Now look at it with Proof Setup->CMYK and Proof Setup->Macintosh and Proof Setup->Windows. For me there is a very dramatic difference and the image looks best by far with Proof Setup->CMYK.
Can you repeat that much?
I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.
This is because macs are brighter. This where gamma levels and gamma correction and stuff comes into play. Read through the following links to get a better understanding and some tips on gamma correction and the relationship between macs and pcs. Viewing images with macs and pcs are two completely different animals and this is not just your problem, it is a mac-pc thing.
I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.
I've taken to setting all my macs to 2.2 PC gamma. I'm really sold on it, I think that I end up seeing things as the rest of the world does. I prefer it, too.
So I can't decide if we really have gotten to the bottom of this, but I have learned some lessons:
Apple gamma is a relic. Ditch it.
The trip through CMYK is an extreme way to get images in gamut.
Images that have made the trip through CMYK are a little more immune to the difference in gamma between Apple and Windows. We speculate that they are using a very narrow gamut which is a true lowest common denominator.
But I still have some questions:
What is the better way to get an image withing gamma? "Convert to Profile"?
Why exactly does this particular image look so different viewed in PS with Proof Setup = CMYK vs Proof Setup = Mac?
You have questions, I have questions
I'm pretty well versed in CYMK, use it all the time for offset press work.
It's the RGB that is puzzling me!
There's a lot to read, but there's a group who say leave Mac at 1.8 and another group that says change it to 2.2.
I'm not sure how that would affect my press work, things might print lighter than I want, any pre-press people here?
After reading this great thread, I'm going to try a few things, including the help section here for smugmug prints.
I haven't heard anyone complain that my images are too dark (and I've saved a few as jpg, rather than "save for web" which definitely changes my rgbs, just as described.
I've had PC clients complain, we tell them to view things on a different monitor and that helps -- but with the advent of PDFs that problem seems to have disappeared.
Great reading and thanks to everyone who's contributed!
So I can't decide if we really have gotten to the bottom of this, but I have learned some lessons:
Apple gamma is a relic. Ditch it.
>>ok by me
The trip through CMYK is an extreme way to get images in gamut.
>>>sounds pretty correct
Images that have made the trip through CMYK are a little more immune to the difference in gamma between Apple and Windows. We speculate that they are using a very narrow gamut which is a true lowest common denominator.
>>>you could say it like this, I suppose
But I still have some questions:
What is the better way to get an image withing gamma? "Convert to Profile"?
>>>>No don't convert, just use the ezprints softproofing profile on everything except stuff with a lot of fleshtones. Just proof with it, and then convert to sRGB to upload to smugmug. On stuff that has alot of predominant fleshtones Baldy says do CMYK softproofing instead of ezprints to get a better fleshtone result. From what I can see with the ezprints profile, I would not say this is bad technique for fleshtones. Landscapes, wildlife, fineart and other, stick the ezprints profile when softproofing.
Why exactly does this particular image look so different viewed in PS with Proof Setup = CMYK vs Proof Setup = Mac?
>> You are viewing the image with mac level gamma when popping to mac proofing profile. Different images carry different levels of brightness so-to-speak, and some just appear differently than others under different profiles. It's probably just the nature of the image.
Hi Dee, my brain is almost fried for the night but what part is most puzzling about RGB for you?
-don
Well, I got CYMK pretty much under control, and what I see on the screen is pretty close to the printed piece. We use Pantone colors often, and I use the swatch book to design by, not what I see on the screen. Even with the swatch book sometimes colors vary a little -- even one press run to another 6 months later can vary. Blues are the most difficult to keep consistent. We even went so far as to have a special blue ink made up for the printer and we still got variations.
So I've learned to chill a bit... :
When it comes to RGB lately I've been having a lot of trouble getting my Epson prints to match the screen and I've tried just about every setting allowable.
So I'm ready to go back to square one, go thru the the monitor set up all over again.
Adobe and Epson don't play nice when it comes to custom page sizes, so I have to go through all kinds of contortions to get things to print where I want them to on custom size stock (like photo cards for example).
But either something has changed since we first got the Epson 925 new and photoshop -- inks, paper? Who knows, but what I see is not what I get! While adobe products are great, there are differences between Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat that drive me nuts!
I'm using Epson photo paper (glossy) and Epson inks...so there's not supposed to be a problem there.
So besides this "what does the PC user see, the CRT user see, and the LCD user see, there's what does my Mac see.
Then there's all the options for RGB, what's good for the monitor, what's best to use for printing on my inkjet and what's best for sending prints off for "real" prints.
Well, I got CYMK pretty much under control, and what I see on the screen is pretty close to the printed piece. We use Pantone colors often, and I use the swatch book to design by, not what I see on the screen. Even with the swatch book sometimes colors vary a little -- even one press run to another 6 months later can vary. Blues are the most difficult to keep consistent. We even went so far as to have a special blue ink made up for the printer and we still got variations.
So I've learned to chill a bit... :
>>>>I hear this!
When it comes to RGB lately I've been having a lot of trouble getting my Epson prints to match the screen and I've tried just about every setting allowable.
>>>>Do you have an epson profile loaded to ps? If so what is it called? Do you have the ezprints profile loaded?
So I'm ready to go back to square one, go thru the the monitor set up all over again.
>>>>If you are getting monitor and prints close in CMYK your monitor may be pretty close already, but I could be wrong.
Adobe and Epson don't play nice when it comes to custom page sizes, so I have to go through all kinds of contortions to get things to print where I want them to on custom size stock (like photo cards for example).
>>>I hear this.
But either something has changed since we first got the Epson 925 new and photoshop -- inks, paper? Who knows, but what I see is not what I get! While adobe products are great, there are differences between Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat that drive me nuts!
>>>Yes, the ps profiles have probably changed or are different.
I'm using Epson photo paper (glossy) and Epson inks...so there's not supposed to be a problem there.
>>>Should be correct.
So besides this "what does the PC user see, the CRT user see, and the LCD user see, there's what does my Mac see.
>>>yes the gamma question, I use a pc and shoot for pc users and have never done any prepress work
Then there's all the options for RGB, what's good for the monitor, what's best to use for printing on my inkjet and what's best for sending prints off for "real" prints.
>>>This part I may be able to help with as I have a fair understanding of things in this area. You forgot what is best for the camera colorspace and what is the best ps working space as well!
That's all, that's all my confusion at the moment
Ok, so for starters do you want to try to get things working for smugmug prints first, or the epson? Once you understand profiling and proofing for the one device, you will get it on the other as well. If you can tell me your normal workflow to upload to smugmug and what your workflow to print with the epson is, that would be helpful.
Thanks
-don
0
Options
BaldyRegistered Users, Super ModeratorsPosts: 2,853moderator
Comments
I would say around 20 or so percent of my images I convert from the ezprints profile to the sRGB gain a little unwanted pop on the web. I imagine this is the same thing that causes the sometimes nuked fleshtones effect Baldy was talking about correcting earlier.
I just do not see many images flatten out and desaturate if they are properly converted from the native colorspace to sRGB.
When you start using the proper proofing profiles you will see what you have before you upload to the web so you can see any changes to the image during the conversion process and exactly where they take place. Without knowing for sure what color space, proofing profiles, icc profiles, gamma settings and conversion steps and images you have used, it's a bit difficult to diagnose what went wrong on cases like this.
If you load those profiles you can take one of those problem images you talk about, rework it, and you then will be able to see exactly where, when and what technically has gone wrong, if anything, from space to space and you won't have to do anymore guesswork on this at all.
Cheers
-don
The problem I had with this image happens very rarely to me, maybe once in several hundred images or less. But it does happen. So I've been waiting (for almost 6 months!) for a good example so I could really try to understand what was happening.
/grok/, var. /grohk/ vt. [from the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally `to drink' and metaphorically `to be one with']
The emphatic form is `grok in fullness'. 1. To understand, usually
in a global sense. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge.
Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced
as a single brief flash. See also glark. 2. Used of programs,
may connote merely sufficient understanding. "Almost all C
compilers grok the `void' type these days."
I'm going to have to try to absorb this information slowly.
I am very happy to read I'm not alone, on my Mac, at seeing colors shift from Photoshop to Save to Web! I've wondered about this quite often, but usually the colors I see in Photoshop are richer and darker and warmer than what I see when I save for web.
In "save for web" the colors lose contrast, become lighter and lose a lot of warmth (red).
I have to work in CYMK professionally (for 4 color offset printing) so this throws an added dimension to my workflow. I've been having a lot of trouble getting what I see on my screen to print on my Elpson Stylus Photo 925 lately, so I'm suspecting I'm not setting something right in Photoshop CS.
The more I learn, it seems the more I still have to learn!
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
When you run into an image that does that weird stuff again please let me know, I would love to see it. I have seen photoshop do some very crazy things to some seemingly regular images at times. Way crazier than what you describe here and simply unbelievable and unexplainable for most folks. I just hope I don't run into those odd digital nightmares very often myself.
Have a great day.
-don
Look in my first post on this thread. That's what set me off. The first image is the one that looks completely different viewed with different Proof Setups. The second image was derived from the first by a trip through CMYK. It looks almost the same with each Proof Setup setting. As I said, I've been waiting a long time for an example this good (or bad, depending.)
At times though, it does seem easier said than done. I gotta get to work now...
Cheers
-don
-don
What colorspace, if any, was originally tagged off of the camera, Rutt? Do you have the actual original available? If you do have it, I would like to work with it instead of those posted pix. I don't see how we can arrive at an accurate conclusion on this without seeing the original pic. Just upload it somewhere long enough for me to grab it, then you can quickly take it back down.
Thanks
-don
The original came from Ginger. I'll alert her. I grabbed it from her here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=89815&postcount=13
My camera is set for sRGB and so is everything I can find in PS. This image also seems to be tagged that way. But I suppose it would make sense that Ginger is in some other colorspace.
-don
You seem to still want to play. Tell me when you get bored. I think I'm learning, so I'm not bored yet.
Download the first image I posted:
http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/19536246-O.jpg
Load into PS. Now look at it with Proof Setup->CMYK and Proof Setup->Macintosh and Proof Setup->Windows. For me there is a very dramatic difference and the image looks best by far with Proof Setup->CMYK.
Can you repeat that much?
I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/gamma_mac_pc.html
http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma.web.html
http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/cb/gamma.html
http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20020429/111244.html
http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma_intro.html
Does that help?
-don
but I just have to comment now - didn't anyone else notice the light sabers!!!! (bottom right corner)
Baldy, where on earth did you get those and then have the genius to put them next to a beef skewer!!! I love it!
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I spotted 'em! Not until you first mentioned them though. Very cool indeed...
Cheers
-don
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
But I still have some questions:
I'm pretty well versed in CYMK, use it all the time for offset press work.
It's the RGB that is puzzling me!
There's a lot to read, but there's a group who say leave Mac at 1.8 and another group that says change it to 2.2.
I'm not sure how that would affect my press work, things might print lighter than I want, any pre-press people here?
After reading this great thread, I'm going to try a few things, including the help section here for smugmug prints.
I haven't heard anyone complain that my images are too dark (and I've saved a few as jpg, rather than "save for web" which definitely changes my rgbs, just as described.
I've had PC clients complain, we tell them to view things on a different monitor and that helps -- but with the advent of PDFs that problem seems to have disappeared.
Great reading and thanks to everyone who's contributed!
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
-don
Well, I got CYMK pretty much under control, and what I see on the screen is pretty close to the printed piece. We use Pantone colors often, and I use the swatch book to design by, not what I see on the screen. Even with the swatch book sometimes colors vary a little -- even one press run to another 6 months later can vary. Blues are the most difficult to keep consistent. We even went so far as to have a special blue ink made up for the printer and we still got variations.
So I've learned to chill a bit...
When it comes to RGB lately I've been having a lot of trouble getting my Epson prints to match the screen and I've tried just about every setting allowable.
So I'm ready to go back to square one, go thru the the monitor set up all over again.
Adobe and Epson don't play nice when it comes to custom page sizes, so I have to go through all kinds of contortions to get things to print where I want them to on custom size stock (like photo cards for example).
But either something has changed since we first got the Epson 925 new and photoshop -- inks, paper? Who knows, but what I see is not what I get! While adobe products are great, there are differences between Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat that drive me nuts!
I'm using Epson photo paper (glossy) and Epson inks...so there's not supposed to be a problem there.
So besides this "what does the PC user see, the CRT user see, and the LCD user see, there's what does my Mac see.
Then there's all the options for RGB, what's good for the monitor, what's best to use for printing on my inkjet and what's best for sending prints off for "real" prints.
That's all, that's all my confusion at the moment
http://www.twitter.com/deegolden
Thanks
-don