Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Glencoe, Scotland  (Read 30660 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #100 on: November 02, 2014, 07:03:02 am »

It looks as if you are going to pursue Kevin regardless of what not only myself and others have said? :(

Look, no-one is "pursuing" Kevin. Only in your imagination, so stop trying to create an argument.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #101 on: November 02, 2014, 07:16:01 am »

Thanks for this explanation, John. It seems incredible that in 2014 it is even an issue at all, and even more incredible that it is an issue in a relatively knowledgeable population !!

I'm less surprised, Jeremy. We can't generally see our pictures appearance on a stranger's screen and maybe we just don't think about the underlying problems as much as when we make a print. As browser colour management has spread, it's also been a moving target! What's worse is when you have added the profile (or just left it to Lightroom) and a web service strips it out - and dumps other metadata. Lots of them do so.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #102 on: November 02, 2014, 08:10:36 am »

Probably easiest if I post the relevant area of the Save for Web dialog. There's the generic sRGB and your monitor profile which will then be applied by the viewer's browser if it is colour managed.



The generic sRGB profile is what I assigned to Kevins picture and which is the default in the Safari (and Firefox) web browser. The monitor profile is not included. The monitor profile is only relevant on your particular machine and monitor. Are you intending to say that the monitor profile is included in the saved profile? If you are, this is wrong. Like in Lightroom when exporting you specify the color space for the exported file and the relevant ICC profile is embedded in the exported file. If sRGB is chosen the profile is the generic (standard) sRGB profile and nothing else. When another person is displaying the picture on his calibrated system using a color managed browser like Safari the file will be displayed using the monitor profile on that system. Are you in disagreement on this as it seems you are?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 08:25:37 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #103 on: November 02, 2014, 08:51:25 am »

Sorry, I wasn't thinking there. Isn't the identical appearance because you're just adding the profile, the sRGB conversion having already been done?
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #104 on: November 02, 2014, 08:56:51 am »

Sorry, I wasn't thinking there. Isn't the identical appearance because you're just adding the profile, the sRGB conversion having already been done?

My assumption is that Kevin did save as JPG in sRGB. If I assign a different profile like Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB then the picture becomes much more saturated so therefore my assumption is that it is correctly converted to sRGB as the even more saturated colors does not make sense. But that is an assumption  ;D

But in general I think it is bad practice to strip the profile even though web browsers do assume sRGB, so if the file is in sRGB it will work just fine.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 09:27:46 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #105 on: November 02, 2014, 10:56:22 am »

And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari)...

John,

How do you then explain the difference? If we are both seeing them in color-managed browsers (Safari and Firefox), how come there is a difference between what you see and what I see?

Note to others reading this thread: please report how you see it in your browsers.

The only way I can see such de-saturated oranges (as in your screenshot of my bottom image) is if I DO NOT convert to sRGB and DO NOT embed a profile (my workspace is ProPhoto).

Even in NON-color managed browser, like IE 7, I do not see a significant difference. The pair on the left is IE 7, on the right Safari:

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #106 on: November 02, 2014, 11:23:44 am »

This is amazing.... we have been saving images this way for LuLa and other web pages with no issues.  We have never embedded a color profile.  It is not even recommended from several experts.  Maybe they will decide to chime in here at some point but it really doesn't matter.  The image is converted to sRGB and sized for the web using save for web dialog.  You can even go to http://tv.adobe.com/watch/understanding-adobe-photoshop-cs6/save-for-web/ and watch a tutorial and they don't touch the embed color profile.  Why is it needed.  It is being converted to an sRGB optimized for web image.  No embedding of profile is needed. 

So, once again, wait until we have time to do the whole image as I already posted.  In the meantime we will talk to our Adobe friends and make sure we have been doing it correctly but we have been told we are.  And, I think Hans and Slobodan have illustrated such. 

Kevin
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #107 on: November 02, 2014, 11:33:11 am »

Also, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL0DwX7dnto  This person explains the embed color profile box and pretty much says it is useless. 

Any questions....


Kevin
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #108 on: November 02, 2014, 11:49:14 am »

Also, refer to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL0DwX7dnto  This person explains the embed color profile box and pretty much says it is useless. 


Well, that's not at all what he says. He says its useless if the browser doesn't understand profiles, and if peoples' screens aren't calibrated.
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #109 on: November 02, 2014, 11:55:44 am »

John,

How do you then explain the difference? If we are both seeing them in color-managed browsers (Safari and Firefox), how come there is a difference between what you see and what I see?

Note to others reading this thread: please report how you see it in your browsers.

The only way I can see such de-saturated oranges (as in your screenshot of my bottom image) is if I DO NOT convert to sRGB and DO NOT embed a profile (my workspace is ProPhoto).

Even in NON-color managed browser, like IE 7, I do not see a significant difference. The pair on the left is IE 7, on the right Safari:



I see the four images with the same saturation. I am using the latest version of Firefox.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 11:57:15 am by stamper »
Logged

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #110 on: November 02, 2014, 12:12:43 pm »

The four images look the same to me in color managed firefox
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #111 on: November 02, 2014, 12:24:33 pm »

Thanks, Stamper and Les.

I think I shall note that if by the "four images" you have in mind the four Yellowstone (predominantly orange) shots I posted in the reply #106, it is fair to say that they should look identical to you, simply because they are a single png screenshot, converted to jpeg (to reduce file size), and as such can not possibly show the difference. As a single shot, you therefore can not differentiate between embedded and non-ebedded versions.

If, however, by the "four shots" you have in mind the two of the red sky photos (post #92), plus the two of the Yellowstone ones (post #93), than you would be in the position to compare them, as each pair contains one embedded and one non-embedded jpegs, directly coming from PS Save for Web.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #112 on: November 02, 2014, 12:31:18 pm »

This is amazing.... we have been saving images this way for LuLa and other web pages with no issues. 

That's not so. A few months ago (see link earlier in thread) there was the same issue with another of your pictures which contained similar colours.

We have never embedded a color profile.  

You haven't, Kevin, but check out Alan's article here. All his images seem to include the profile.

Before most browsers were colour managed, there was less point embedding the profile, and people seemed to worry about the small increase in file size. Nowadays the file size doesn't matter nearly so much, so you may as well embed - especially when the viewers are more likely to have colour managed systems. It gives the viewer the best chance of seeing colours that approximate to those on one's own screen. Is not that worthwhile?
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #113 on: November 02, 2014, 12:44:26 pm »

Thanks, Stamper and Les.

I think I shall note that if by the "four images" you have in mind the four Yellowstone (predominantly orange) shots I posted in the reply #106, it is fair to say that they should look identical to you, simply because they are a single png screenshot, converted to jpeg (to reduce file size), and as such can not possibly show the difference. As a single shot, you therefore can not differentiate between embedded and non-ebedded versions.

If, however, by the "four shots" you have in mind the two of the red sky photos (post #92), plus the two of the Yellowstone ones (post #93), than you would be in the position to compare them, as each pair contains one embedded and one non-embedded jpegs, directly coming from PS Save for Web.


I am referring to Reply #106

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #114 on: November 02, 2014, 12:50:17 pm »

That's not so. A few months ago (see link earlier in thread) there was the same issue with another of your pictures which contained similar colours.

You haven't, Kevin, but check out Alan's article here. All his images seem to include the profile.

Before most browsers were colour managed, there was less point embedding the profile, and people seemed to worry about the small increase in file size. Nowadays the file size doesn't matter nearly so much, so you may as well embed - especially when the viewers are more likely to have colour managed systems. It gives the viewer the best chance of seeing colours that approximate to those on one's own screen. Is not that worthwhile?

John,

Kevin might have forgotten to click the convert to sRGB on occasion, but this is not the case this time. As long as he posts sRGB there is no issue at all and a color managed browser will display the image according to the calibrated monitor profile. There is only an issue if an image is posted which is in another color space and it has no embedded profile.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2014, 01:04:57 pm »

I am referring to Reply #106

The four images in reply #106 serve to show that it does not really matter if the browser is color managed or not, or if the profile is embedded or not, as long as the files are in sRGB space. That is why all four look practically identical. And that is what Hans and I are trying to say.

I am still waiting for John to explain how he got one of my files (the bottom one from post #93) so de-saturated. Could it be that he has an AdobeRGB monitor (I am just speculating here)?

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2014, 01:08:36 pm »

And compare them in my colour-managed browser (it happens to be Firefox, but I get the same in Safari).



John

The problem here is another one. The screen shots from Slobodan has embedded his monitor profile since that's the way a Mac does screen shots. Otherwise you would not see the screen shots correctly on your system. When you strip the profile you will see the picture without the profile correction and this is a quite different situation that what we are discussing. You can check the profile and it shows a profile from an iMac.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2106
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2014, 01:09:49 pm »

The four images in reply #106 serve to show that it does not really matter if the browser is color managed or not, or if the profile is embedded or not, as long as the files are in sRGB space. That is why all four look practically identical. And that is what Hans and I are trying to say.

I am still waiting for John to explain how he got one of my files (the bottom one from post #93) so de-saturated. Could it be that he has an AdobeRGB monitor (I am just speculating here)?

You just got the explanation  ;D

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #118 on: November 02, 2014, 01:21:02 pm »

Kevin might have forgotten to click the convert to sRGB on occasion, but this is not the case this time. As long as he posts sRGB there is no issue at all and a color managed browser will display the image according to the calibrated monitor profile. There is only an issue if an image is posted which is in another color space and it has no embedded profile.

Hans, I assume Kevin consistently converts the images to sRGB and has done so this time. So "as long as he posts sRGB there is no issue". Not quite - you missed out "tagged". He's posting untagged images (review this in Bridge), which leads browsers to make their best guesses. Usually it's not obvious, but we're dealing with a scene that was already highly red-saturated.
 
Talk of other colour spaces isn't relevant here.
Logged

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 305
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: Glencoe, Scotland
« Reply #119 on: November 02, 2014, 01:26:47 pm »

I'm looking at your images in posts 92 and 93
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Up