Reading mode: Light Dark

ohh guys...why?

Go to last post
A

Alex2003

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
498
Reaction score
0
Location
milan, IT
I uploaded some images to pbase because I wanted to put some of them to this forum's attention and have suggestions, comments and everything else useful to improve my tecnique, but when I saw them uploaded on pbase it happened nearly the same think it happened when I sent some of them for printing (now solved keeping my color profile): colors are faded, little less contrast, so images doesn't respect what I see with PS.

Before I post some of them here I'd like to find the issue that cause this, otherwise nobody could see them as they are in reality.

Waht could be the problem? Maybe is due to the fact that thay come out with Nikon Adobe RGB profile? Is there any way I can save copies of these images with a different profile just to display them correctly also outside PS?

I shoot NEF with Nikon Adobe RGB, then work with NC and PS always keeping Adobe RGB profile. But when I see them with other programs then PS (ACDSee for example or Image viewer or...PBase on the net) colors fade away and are not brilliant as they are on PS.....

I think many of you use Adobe RGB profile and so it would be interesting to know how you save jpegs for internet or other uses keeping color accuracy.
Suggestion, tips, HELP, are welcome

Alex
 
Most display software, web browser and printers use sRGB if you are not a pro sending your files for printing why don't you use sRGB all the way. It is a lot simpler and it makes everything compatible.

JC
STG said:
Alex2003,

Try converting your files to sRGB before posting. Everytime I
forget, the colors look flat and lifeless.

Stan
Click to expand...
--



France: http://www.pbase.com/jcmonier/ pbase supporter
 
jean-Claude Monier said:
Forgot to add that very few people will see any difference in
quality between the to color spaces.
Click to expand...
Just a clarification on the above point. I think JCM is saying that people will not see much difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB, provided that each is rendered with the correct ICC profile? For, an image saved in Adobe RGB but rendered in sRGB really does look flat and lifeless, as Alex has found.

JB

--
http://www.pbase.com/jbviajero
 
Most displays are sRGB like and a lot of software is not colour managed so it doesn't convert Adobe RGB properly for display. But Adobe RGB is better suited to printing (wider gamut) and supposedly the D100 is more accurate in this colour space.

Colour is a notoriusly trick and personal thing though so perhaps sRGB would be best for simplicity...
jean-Claude Monier said:
jean-Claude Monier said:
JC
STG said:
Alex2003,

Try converting your files to sRGB before posting. Everytime I
forget, the colors look flat and lifeless.

Stan
Click to expand...
--



France: http://www.pbase.com/jcmonier/ pbase supporter
Click to expand...
--



France: http://www.pbase.com/jcmonier/ pbase supporter
Click to expand...
 
I fully agree with you and the main adnvantage of sRGB is that it is the default profile for most of the software and hardware.

JC
jbviajero said:
jean-Claude Monier said:
Forgot to add that very few people will see any difference in
quality between the to color spaces.
Click to expand...
Just a clarification on the above point. I think JCM is saying that
people will not see much difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB,
provided that each is rendered with the correct ICC profile? For,
an image saved in Adobe RGB but rendered in sRGB really does look
flat and lifeless, as Alex has found.

JB

--
http://www.pbase.com/jbviajero
Click to expand...
--



France: http://www.pbase.com/jcmonier/ pbase supporter
 
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
 
Thank you guys for your follows up.

I've always thinked that Adobe RGB was the best for printing, but also many of labs have problems to manage this profile, don't ask me why.

I only found one that was able (or spent a little time) to print exactly with my color profile but it costed more than twice the other labs.....

Now I would like to try sending my images for printing with SRGB conversion and see how much is the difference in results.

I already printed files with 16 bit and 8 bit but no difference was visible trust me.....Lab told also that lambda printers cannot manage 16 bit so it's completely unuseful to use this method.

Anyway now I re-uploaded images with the right colors on my Pbase....these are my first shots with my D100, I always used analogoc cameras before...this is my first attempt with digital, so tips, suggestions and comments are welcome from anybody.
Here I post a couple of examples:




Greg Zillgitt said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
 
Beautiful shots - and great color!
Alex2003 said:



Alex2003 said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
 
Thank you guys!

The proble still is that printing output doesn't match screen colors, every image is shifted to reddisch tint and less contrasted.

Now I tested an other lab that managed to use my Adobe RGB profile and things went a little better than before but greens for example are...dead...and overall contrast is lost somewhere...

Do you think I should try to convert also images for printing to SRGB and see what happens?

Alex
Greg Zillgitt said:
Alex2003 said:



Greg Zillgitt said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
 
There is a website with color profiles for Fujiu Frontier and Noritsu printers from all over the US. They also will do custom profiles. There are good directions and information. Your photos are wonderful and deserve the best printing possible! The site is http://www.drycreekphoto.com I have also read of people using Qimage to do final processing before printing. I have used the demo of the software for printing at home on my Epson with wonderful results. Other folks are using Qimage to apply a color profile before burning a CD to send to a lab. The site for Qimage is http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

Good luck and keep posting!

Dave
Alex2003 said:
Alex
Greg Zillgitt said:
Alex2003 said:



Alex2003 said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Imagination Rules The World!
 
Hi all (all print services are UK, not USA)

Having submitted pairs of prints in Adobe RGB and plain RGB to a number of labs, some of which purport to provide for pros (which my wife is), none, but none, seem to support Adobe RGB properly. The usual grey-green, flat look. This includes the European Kodak pro service.

One local supplier/printer has a new Agfa D3 lab and were very upset, they are a serious photographic shop and know what Adobe RGB is, yet there is apparently nothing about it in their Agfa technical support. They gave me a printer profile for their lab, but, as I understand it, it doesn't stop there - simply profiling doesn't deal with conversion of black points ect, and differently hued shots react differently - get it profiled right for one shot and it's out for anther. skin tones are the first casualty

After this pairs-of-prints trialling, we are now using RGB conversions as the last stage in processing (keeping the Adobe RGB original), and using the Jessops print@net service - the results are good - a little variable from batch to batch, but good, and reasonably priced.

Oddly enough, one chuckaway image viewer that does seem to handle Adobe RGB is the WinXP image viewer. Scrolling back and forth between Adobe RGB and RGB versions of the same image produces no discernible difference. Where we can use a proper profiler, we will stick with shooting in Adobe (Nikon Mode II), as for inkjet prints, the results from Adobe RGB are noticably more vibrant, accurate and alive, but it is a pain having to translate whole batches.

Regards to all here.

Ewen Cameron
Kent, UK
 
Veeeeeeeeery useful, thank you.

I think this is exactly what I need, the only thing unfortunately is that I'm from Italy, I must check if this service is available also for foreign people, and evaluate the cost of double shipping...

Meanwhile I'll read the 20 pages of instructions and see how it works, than I have to ask my lab what kind of Lambda machine he's using and what kind of paper with different size prints.
Anyway thank you again, this is the way.

Alex
dave newton said:
Good luck and keep posting!

Dave
Alex2003 said:
Alex
Greg Zillgitt said:
Alex2003 said:



dave newton said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Imagination Rules The World!
Click to expand...
 
So I see I'm not the only one out there to have problem with lab printing.....

I already spent a couple of hundreds euros in print tests........it's getting expensive!

Alex
ewencameron said:
Hi all (all print services are UK, not USA)

Having submitted pairs of prints in Adobe RGB and plain RGB to a
number of labs, some of which purport to provide for pros (which my
wife is), none, but none, seem to support Adobe RGB properly. The
usual grey-green, flat look. This includes the European Kodak pro
service.

One local supplier/printer has a new Agfa D3 lab and were very
upset, they are a serious photographic shop and know what Adobe RGB
is, yet there is apparently nothing about it in their Agfa
technical support. They gave me a printer profile for their lab,
but, as I understand it, it doesn't stop there - simply profiling
doesn't deal with conversion of black points ect, and differently
hued shots react differently - get it profiled right for one shot
and it's out for anther. skin tones are the first casualty

After this pairs-of-prints trialling, we are now using RGB
conversions as the last stage in processing (keeping the Adobe RGB
original), and using the Jessops print@net service - the results
are good - a little variable from batch to batch, but good, and
reasonably priced.

Oddly enough, one chuckaway image viewer that does seem to handle
Adobe RGB is the WinXP image viewer. Scrolling back and forth
between Adobe RGB and RGB versions of the same image produces no
discernible difference. Where we can use a proper profiler, we will
stick with shooting in Adobe (Nikon Mode II), as for inkjet prints,
the results from Adobe RGB are noticably more vibrant, accurate and
alive, but it is a pain having to translate whole batches.

Regards to all here.

Ewen Cameron
Kent, UK
Click to expand...
 
Tell me about it, Alex.....we wasted a similar amount in old fashioned Pounds on death-hued prints. At one stage I thought my sanity was going, and my meticulously calibrated PC and printer were off the edge with me.

I should have added - we are currently shooting for a charity calendar, one of the corporate donors is an international print, ink and graphics corporation

(sounds very high powered - we are just modest locals. My wife is a freelance photojournalist, me just an unskilled and largely incompetent amateur).

That aside, they are dealing with the graphics layup and print output to the (CMYK) final prints on art quality paper. I mentioned the green-grey shift problems we had had with Adobe RGB to their graphics manager to make sure what we would submit would be OK - his reply, more or less, was as follows;

"Yep, you will get that problem - not with us, but almost anywhere else - it's a colour format for publishing professionals only"

That, apart from the test prints, decided us to stick to conversion to RGB submissions for lab printing, at least until the science settles a bit.

The local newspaper, for whom my wife often works, seems to do a good job on the Adobe RGB's we submit. I understand that Quark, which they use for page payup, does understand Adobe RGB, and translates as it renders the final page into a four-colour process. The difference (as explained by the techy chap there) is whether the rendering software can read a colour profile and recognise it - Quark is quite able to read both basic RGB and Adobe, and will convert both to the same accurate result.

I hope this helps, and regards to La Bella Italia

Ewen Cameron
Alex2003 said:
So I see I'm not the only one out there to have problem with lab
printing.....
I already spent a couple of hundreds euros in print
tests........it's getting expensive!

Alex
Click to expand...
 
I would highly recommend the book Real World Color Management for information about all of the vagaries of taking color from capture through processing to final output. It's got more information than you'll need, but also does have all of the information that you do need, and very well presented. You can find a link to it from Thom Hogan's book recommendations page here:

http://bythom.com/Bookrecs.htm

Good luck!

Rollie
Alex2003 said:
Alex
dave newton said:
Good luck and keep posting!

Dave
Alex2003 said:
Alex
Greg Zillgitt said:
Alex2003 said:



Alex2003 said:
I like to do as much as possible in 16-bit mode using the Adobe RGB
color space. This gives you maximum flexibility and minimum
degradation as you manipulate the image.

IMHO conversion to sRGB should be the last thing (along with
sharpening) and then only for images which are uploaded to the web
or emailed.

Very few non-imaging applications (such as web browsers) respect
imbedded profiles, therefore the color values in the bytes of the
image file are misinterpreted. Hence the flat, washed-out colors.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Imagination Rules The World!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Alex

Do not use sRGB stick with Adobe RGB. The Adobe RGb 1998 colour space has nothing to do with flat images regardless of its greater gamut.

I am a full time professional sports photographer who has studied colour management in depth. Believe me it is not the Adobe space causing the problem but the professional labratories inability to deal with the Adobe profile and or the supply of flatt digital files.

To give you an example some of my work recently apperaed in a high quality coffee table publication (images suppiled in Adobe RGB 1998 space) D1X Neff converted to 16 bit Tiffs, they were indestinguishable from Velvia and Provia images also supplied by me, except the digital files are of course grain free.

It is imporant to massage the Tiff files without clipping any shadows or highlights to resemble punchy negative film stock or Provia F equivalent without throwing away toanl range gains that digital provides

Two of the biggest sports agencies, who instruct their photographers to set up their cameras to the sRGB space, have pictures published in the same magazine and their results are flat lifless typical digital looking images which are inferior to the film images they have supplied. I know which are their film images because we were both at the same eveent prior to digital. The reason they are dealing with thousnads of images and do not correctly adjust the images in Photoshop its a simple as that!

An alternative to purchasing Bruce Frasers colour management book, which I would strongly recommend, is to join http://www.imagingrevue.com where all of the pixel genius staff, Bruce Fraser, Martin Evenning, Greg Gorman, Katrin Eismann, John Paul Capanigro, Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney will answers your questions directly. These folk are some of the best in the industry. Yoe can join for a fee of $60 for 6 months. It is worth every penny and is not all aimed at geek level.

A very important question how accuarately do you calibrate your monitor ?

Regards

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top