Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Adobe vs sRGB and browsers

rtcaryrtcary Member
edited August 2011 in post-processing
I have been using the Adobe color space with a Nikon 700. Since my color lab uses sRGB and browser use the same, I set Photoshop to convert the RAW images to sRGB. Here is my question/observation:

I do my usual RAW processing that usually increases the saturation by 5-8, clarity ~30 and vibrancy ~15 (of course, these change with different images, but are to help with the following observation). My monitor is calibrated, however when I display the images via a browser, the saturation increases - actually, in a pleasant way - yet the prints are very close to the Photoshop images.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Does anyone use Adobe?

Todd

Comments

  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited June 2011
    Todd,

    99% of browsers display slightly 'richer' all images you see on web, including those of Neils. If you have a calibrated monitor [and you do], that's the key to getting better results from 'view' to 'print'..

    Now, just because the monitor is fully calibrated, does not mean you get fully accurate displays when viewing images in other things besides Photoshop.

    Windows Photo Viewer or other general viewing clients, browers, etc, may still display slightly different to what you see in Photoshop.

    Download [right click save] any image you see in a browser, then open that up in Photoshop and generally you will see it slightly desaturated, but correct as far as skin tones, etc., and if you were to print them they would look like you see in PS.
    Generally though you will find no color profile embedded in most images on the web, and if your preferences are set up to 'ask' in Photoshop when opening, I simply say 'Use Working'.

    Here is an excellent explanation of color display in browsers, especially when you do a 'mouse-over' on some images and see how they change color with different profiles, etc. It IS a long read, but great info. You may need to read couple times to follow it, but definitely worth the read for sure.

    Make sure you especially read the 'whacked out' section, you will be amazed how your eyes can be deceived especially with color, very interesting. Colors in the color swatch of CMY/RGB switching is amazing. Have fun.

    http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

    More links for interesting testing/reading for Firefox Browers.

    http://www.gballard.net/firefox/
    http://www.gballard.net/firefox/#config

    Another thing, get a fully 'correct color test' image and print it at your lab, NO corrections, bring home the print, and compare it against how you see the image in Photoshop. I have attached a couple for starters for you, but there are heaps around.

    Cheers,
    Trev

  • rtcaryrtcary Member
    Trev -

    Thank you so much for your detailed response. It provides an explanation for my observations and ways to contend with the differences.

    This question might be better under another topic, though it is related for me to the AdobeRGB, sRGB and JPEG arena.

    When I take two pictures, one as RAW and the other as maximum JPEG, the JPEG on the D700 has a very pleasing depth to the colors. Since the D700 in the JPEG mode, is applying the algorithms created by the Nikon engineers, this change is to be expected. My question is what features of Lightroom or the ACR process in Photoshop/Bridge can be set to approximate the JPEG processing so a Preset can be made?

    Todd

    P.S. I use the attached image to verify that the image processing firm and I are in sync.
    It appears to parallel the ones you generously shared.
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited June 2011
    Todd,

    No problems, I found that page a long time back when I was searching for color correction for my browser, Firefox, which at that stage you had to go into 'about:config' to get it to read color profiles, now it's automatic and pretty close.

    You are right in the jpeg v RAW dilemma since RAW gives you a flat, lifeless image first up, and it's up to you to get it to the stage you want. My advice, take RAW+jpeg for a few test shots, play around in Lightroom with the RAW and try to get it looking like the jpeg which should open up next to RAW file, then save that as a preset which you can have applied automatically each time you open a RAW, that way you can have something to start with and fine tweak as you go.

    Actually the only thing I do in RAW, using ACR, personally is check exposure and WB, and once done with no other changes at all, even taking off any sharpening, curves, everything except the default brightness and contrast [50-25] as I want a completely lifeless, flat image which contains all the details.

    I then use a droplet, dropping the folder of RAWs which in turn opens them all up applying a super action script which gives me everything I need. Range, highlights, shadows, colour, sharpening, etc. all in 1 action/subsets, and I can literally finish any image in under 20-30 seconds, once the droplet has finished as they are saved as PSDs, then after any tweaks I simply just save/close, and drop the folder of PSDs onto another droplet and they are flattened and saved as jpegs. So I have RAWS, PSDs and jpegs at end, but I only keep the PSDs for a few weeks until I am satisfied I don't need to edit them again.

    Cheers,
    Trev
  • Hi Trev
    I posted a thread about Raw Work Flow, but then I saw your post:
    I'm curious about your work flow , you mentioned that you :

    " even taking off any sharpening, curves, everything except the default brightness and contrast [50-25] as I want a completely lifeless, flat image which contains all the details."

    Then you bring in to Photoshop and add
    " Range, highlights, shadows, colour, sharpening, etc. "

    Can I ask the " Why " you do it this way.
    I was taught that you do as much in ACR then tweak in PS.

    I prefer to start ACR at Zero Settings then build the image up until its look good.
    Then bring the image into photoshop for further tweaking.

    I'm interested in your perspective.

    Lou Recine


  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited June 2011
    Hi Lou,

    Over the years I've used every program out there, and I've always had to end up going into PS anyway as you have already stated for tweaking, so I thought I would delve deeper into a way to get my images better looking without sliding sliders all over the darn place, with no methodical way of doing things.

    Fortunately on my part, I was for years in a main job of photo manipulation in the printing/design industry so for past 17 years I had a solid grounding in PS.

    Now I only apply the barest minimum in RAW, saying 'Done' then put folder onto droplet to run my action set.

    Even applying contrast to an image I do is in an entirely different way, the most popular way is the 'S' shape in Curves, but that way is extremely detrimental to an image, it will change colors if you want a big shift with highlights/shadows.

    Yep, I still use Curves, but in a different way. For starters I've always gone into the Options section and immediately went from 'Light' to 'Pigment/Ink' [that will swap your blacks and whites around btw] why? Well in Light mode you get a series of numbers in the Input/Output display which are actually 'measurements of Levels' but they really mean nothing, now by swapping, the Output/Input are percentage based so if I say to you I want Input to be 102 and output 94 in 'Light' mode the numbers mean nothing.

    But if I am in Pigment/Ink, I can then express those numbers as a percentage, so if I wanted Contrast at say 10%, and I have an subset action built into my main action which will immediately give me 10% but in an editable layer which I can alter later on to say 5% or 15% etc. after, I can do so by ONE click without having to drag a whites then a black slider or opening up Curves again.

    The other big thing, Layers and MASKS. They are the be all, end all in my opinion and simply enhance images beyond belief without it being destructive.

    How? Well I use the MIDTONES to control contrast NOT the blacks and whites. If you add white or black you change the 'endpoints' and can cause clipping, the human eye sees most things in the Midtones, so, in my action I have a Curves Layer with the Midtones moved down with a Mask on it [remembering the swatches are swapped] in lightness by 5% [Input 50% Output 45% = 5% light with a Mask and vice-versa for blacks.

    Then I add another Adjustment Layer/Curves for the Blacks.
    This time it's a little easier, simply duplicate the Highlights layer, double click on Curves to open the dialogue box, and this time Input is still 50%, but change output to 55%, 5% darker, then click on the mask, and Ctrl/Cmd I [eye] to invert that mask so it creates a great attribute.

    In my action set, I have Highlights & Shadows layers but I have individual controls to change the amount built in, anywhere from 0% to 100% if I wanted, but also I am not constrained by the separate action method above whereby BOTH highlights and shadows are changed by the same amount, I can say, put in a 15% increase in highlights but only a 5 or 10% in shadows, by having the 2 independent layers with separate action buttons for each. Brilliant. Lots more I have also.

    Sharpening, that is an entirely different way again, if portrait orientated, I have action which gives great sharpening but does NOT sharpen the reds, once again via selecting the Red channel, applying a mask and inverting it so everything else is sharpened but not the skin. Same with skies [blue] or even greens I change swap any time I want so nothing is sharpened that I don't want it to be.

    95% of my images can be done in less than 20-30 seconds, tops.

    Sorry so long. Anyone wanting more info, message me, I've sent one to you Lou.

    Cheers,
    Trev.
  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    Treve .. thank you very much for the solid replies! Much appreciated.
  • rtcaryrtcary Member
    Trev -

    Firefox and Safari: 1
    Chrome: 0

    Thank you for the link(s)!

    Todd
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    Neil/Todd,

    Thanks and no worries, I am a voracious reader of information, when researching for things. :)

    Cheers,
    Trev
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    Pertaining to the discussion on how I do it, here is a recent sample.

    I have attached 3 images of my brother-in-law who is a motorbike riding instructor with his new 'Ducatti superbike' and he wanted an image for promo, he liked the sugar mill in the background.

    1st 'As Shot', deliberately overexposed to bring up shadow details near bottom of image, as sunlight in sky background but foreground in shade. Flat and lifeless since I don't have any default curves/sharpening applied as well as overexposed.

    2nd 'From RAW' shows how I simply dropped exposure down in ACR [-2.00] to bring back sky details, but nothing else done, knowing I could get all image details back in PS. Now flat and dark, but massive sky detail retained so I can work with it.

    3rd 'Adjusted' is the finished file done in Photoshop.

    Shot in RAW, sunlight off to right on sky, at time of shooting we had cloud cover so were in shade, 19" Octabox/Qantum TD5-R off to my camera right, just a blip of flash to open shadows in face, part of bike, in keeping with overall exposure.

    Cheers,
    Trev.
Sign In or Register to comment.