Faded Images When Uploaded
So my Adobe Lightroom stopped work today, so I only had Photoshop CS4 to use to do my post processing from a shoot today. But for some reason, even though they are set to 8-bit before saving, they keep saving at 24-bit and the images become a bit faded color/contrast wise. It never did this when using Lightroom.
Again, I AM changing them to 8-bit before saving, but when saved they are 24-bit.
Here's what I'm talking about;
http://www.cubeupload.com/files/c4ca00untitled1.jpg
*Right Click and view it full size*
The image of the left is what it is supposed to look like, then on the right is what it looks like when I upload it to the web. Please help me as my sister wants these photos soon.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Do a search on color spaces, color management and color managed workflow.
That is basically your problem. It was discusses earlier by a lot of people in various context like help my file looks different on the web or help my print doesnt match my screen or help my program A displays different colors than my program B.
Good luck. There should be enough info on it.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
As far as the 8-bit versus 24-bit issue, the 8-bit you're talking about is a per-channel measurement. With RGB being three channels you get the 24-bit PNG specification as far as I understand it. The color space issue is likely where your problem is. You may need to assign the sRGB color space before saving.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett-Grimsley
the images become a bit faded color/contrast wise. It never did this when using Lightroom.
To solve this problem, save the image in sRGB space instead of AdobeRGB. If you use "File" -> "Save For Web", it will do this automatically. Another option is to use the "Edit" -> "Convert To Profile" dialog box. To get the best quality, it should be converted to sRGB while in 16-bit, not after conversion to 8-bit.
The reason for the problem is that many computers (including yours) do not have color managed browsers, so they think the image is the default (sRGB) even though it's actually AdobeRGB. This results in faded colors.
I copied the URL to your image (http://www.cubeupload.com/img/b14400img4101.png) and when I view it in my color managed browser, it shows the color correctly. I examined the file to determine for sure that it was AdobeRGB.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Your problem is most likely with Firefox 3.5+
I assume so, as its' the same problem I had, but mine was much worse.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.mode
I set mine to 0 and all my images looked fine in firefox after that, before that they looked HOORRRRRIBLE :)
Hope that's your problem, it's a known issue.
You just have to edit your about:config and set it to 0, it's probably at 1 or 2
Hope that helps, if not, not too sure.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
It's strange, they will only come out correctly if I do it through the "save to web" way. Even if I change to the settings the web save does it, they still come out wrong online.
Thanks for the tip on the "Save to Web", I never thought of using that. [:P] It's just I always do my post processing in Lightroom, then export to CS4 to resize and/or add borders or something, and it never gave me this problem.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Mr. Grimsley,
Another way to avoid this problem is to use sRGB through your entire workflow.
Here is an interesting point of view: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
Chuck
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I'll second that article.
While somewhat biased (somewhat? Ha! The article may as well readDon't Use Adobe RGB!) the points are justified and I personally agree with the point of view.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
No, no. We have already succeeded. I mean, what are the three terrors of photography? One, the critical focus - no problem. There's an autofocus sound preceding each shot; we can avoid blur. Two, the wrong color space, which Garrett-Grimsley was clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too. But what about the R.O.U.S.'s? Rockwell Of Unusual Sillyness?
I don't think he exists.
[;)] Seriously, although I agree that sRGB is best for novices, Ken's article is full of misleading statements and misinformation.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
But what about the R.O.U.S.'s? Rockwell Of Unusual Sillyness?
Beautiful, isn't it? Took me half a lifetime to invent it. I'm sure you've discovered my deep and abiding interest in sRGB. At present, I'm writing the definitive work on the subject, so I want you to be totally honest with me on how Photoshop makes you feel. This being our first try, I'll use thesRGB setting.
[;)] Seriously, I disagree that Ken's article is full of misleading statements and misinformation. You did read it?
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]1) "<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"]sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. "...... this is misleading?
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]2) " If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it."...... opinionated yes, misinformation, no.
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]3) "Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller." ....Isn't that what the poster is having trouble with? Painstaking's a little strong but you do need to have special software like Photoshop CS_ with Firefox as your web browser. PS Elements won't cut it and there aren't many if any Windows based editors that support Adobe 1998. So, why in the world do I or the OP really need to use it? There are plenty of people, I'm sure, that somehow leverage all the extra power that's hidden away in Abobe RGB. And that is absolutely grand.
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Why is it that in order to feel like "pro" shooters we have to follow some technical guideline? I think your statement :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I agree that sRGB is best for novices
" is a bit condescending. There are photographers that make their living shooting sRGB jpegs that would never think of using raw much less adobe color. Does that make them novices? Come on Daniel, is everything in your corner of the world so cut and dry?
<span style="font-family: Arial;"]As you Wish.<span>
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
I'm going to respond to the last part first, since it was an important mistake on my part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Why is it that in order to feel like "pro" shooters we have to follow some technical guideline? I think your statement:"I agree that sRGB is best for novices" is a bit condescending.
What I said was misleading. (Hmm... glass houses and stones come to mind for some reason [;)].) I did not mean that sRGB is only for novices, or that everyone who uses sRGB is a novice. I use sRGB, and I don't consider myself a novice. I only meant that out of all the color spaces available for a novice to use, sRGB is the best one. That is, one should not consider using other color spaces until one is no longer a novice. And even then, one may decide to continue using sRGB, just as I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Seriously, I disagree that Ken's article is full of misleading statements and misinformation. You did read it?
Yes. I totally agree with the three statements you pulled out of his article. My "I agree that sRGB is best for novices" statement was a poor attempt to restate #2 ("If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.").
Ken got those ones right. But there are other parts of his article that I have a problem with. I'll cover some of the inaccuracies below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
So, why in the world do I or the OP really need to use it?
There are several good reasons to use AdobeRGB, including accurate color on the display (irrespective of printing), to take advantage of more of the color range that the printer is capable of, and more accuracy in print proofing.
The selection of quality sRGB displays is dwindling rapidly. In fact, as of right now I cannot find even one high quality IPS sRGB display. (I'm sure it's out there somewhere, like a needle in the haystack of wide gamut monitors.) Most displays are being built as "wide gamut", i.e. AdobeRGB. Such monitors are not physically capable of accurate portrayal of sRGB. No matter how well the conversion is completed in the software, nor how many bits the LUT in the monitor has, they all have the same bottlenck: 8-bit data from the video card to the display. That is not nearly enough resolution to accurately map to the appropriate color.
If we had 10-bit video cards, cables, displays, and operating systems, it would be possible to send a 10-bit value, which *does* have enough resolution to be mapped to the appropriate color. Then it would not matter that all the quality monitors are AdobeRGB, because they would then be able to portray sRGB accurately. Unfortunately right now we are stuck in Purgatory: one foot is in the Heaven of accurate wide gamut displays and the other foot is stuck in 8-bit display path. Until we step out of 8-bit, AdobeRGB will be useful for anyone who has a wide gamut display.
Another good reason for AdobeRGB is to take better advantage of the color range possible in printers. sRGB just doesn't contain the full saturation that's possible with a quality printer. If you have any photographs with such colors in them (sunsets, flowers, etc.), it would be nice if they could be printed instead of clipped or mapped to a different color. The thread that you and I participated in just last week had a photograph with just such colors:
http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/1667.aspx?PageIndex=1
The true colors in the scene can't be seen on sRGB, so raw converters have to map them to the most similar color in sRGB (or let them clip). AdobeRGB is a little better, but there are other color spaces such as ProPhotoRGB and BetaRGB that contain any color.
Those two issues combine into higher accuracy in print proofing. If the print is made from AdobeRGB to take advantage of the wider gamut, and the monitor is AdobeRGB, then it becomes possible to attain a much higher level of print proofing accuracy.
That is not to say that you should switch to another color space in your workflow, or that I am going to. I'm sticking to sRGB for now, especially since I bought a very nice high end sRGB display (NEC 2490Wuxi) before they replaced it with an AdobeRGB model.
Getting back to the inaccuracy of Ken's article. Here are some of Ken's mistakes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
The same old-wives-tale about Adobe RGB having a broader range of colors has been circulating on the internet since the 1990s.
It does in theory, but not in practice.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
I know this stuff.
That is clearly false from all the factual errors in the article, but I guess he's entitled to his own puffed up opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip...?
Vain conceit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
I discovered that default sRGB was plenty for everything I did, and eliminated the chance for grave errors.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography.
False.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors.
False. That only occurs when "grave errors" are made as he stated above, such as using the color space for the wrong purpose (e.g. posting photos on the web).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.
If you're one of the few a full-time career professional photographers left standing and shoot for print, by all means shoot Adobe RGB, but if you're a very serious amateur, beware.
Not false, just a little too extreme. I would just leave it at "if you know what you're doing".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Adobe RGB theoretically can represent a wider range (gamut) of colors;
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
however:
1.) Adobe RGB requires special software
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
and painstaking workflow not to screw it up.
Doubtful. I can't imagine how that would be. I wont contest it in detail, but I will say that some software makes it so easy that it's automatic. Look at Lightroom (what the OP uses). Newbies who print from Lightroom are using an even *more* advanced color space than AdobeRGB, and they'll get all the extra colors in their print, without ever even knowing about it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse.
True, but borders on fear mongering, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
or conventional photo lab printing.
False. I've never found a photo lab that doesn't support AdobeRGB. It's *hard* to not support AdobeRGB, because all the software reads the profile embedded in the image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
2.) I've made Lightjet, Fuji Supergloss and inkjet prints of 100% saturated ramps in both color spaces. I saw the same color range in print with each colorspace. I saw no real gain of any wider gamut in practice, even with these special tests.
I'll let him have his own opinion, but in my tests, the difference is clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
I didn't see any of these printers have the ability display any of the extra gamut potentially represented by Adobe RGB.
Anyone can download the profile for a bunch of printers/inks/papers and see that almost all of them contain colors outside of sRGB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file.
False. He's trying to refer to something that happens *only* in 8-bit images, but he has it backwards. AdobeRGB colors are *spaced out more* to cover a wider range. This results in lower precision compared to sRGB over the same range. This does not make them duller, it just means they have a higher potential for slightly less accuracy. sRGB, on the other hand, is "squeezed" into a smaller range, giving it the advantage of higher accuracy. But in 16-bit mode, this difference goes away. Keep in mind that Ken does not shoot raw, just JPEG.
At this point I am tired and will not debunk the rest of his article.
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
I guess you are tired!! Your rebutal was very impressive. There are some things of question but I agree with your points and thatMr. Rockwellis shall we say passionately opinionated. There is absolutely no constructive reason to go any further with this.
This is part of what I've been talking about. We have a tendency to get lost in this exercise as I did for 2 years.
You'll also notice that I prefixed my link to St. Rockwell with "here's an interesting point of view" There's always an opinion. I apologize to anyone who was mislead to believe that everything stated there is the gospel truth. Daniel's right. We need to be careful when sighting others opinions.
Garrett, I would simply point out what a complex mess all of this has become. The post that Daniel refered to concluded in the unfortunate news that the poster did not have a monitor good enough to view the red in the flowers of the photo he took. So what would Adobe RGB or even accuratesRGB do for him? The equipment as Danieleluded to,must be capable first.
If you like to work in Adobe RGB and find it useful to you that's great. Just remember that you will have to convert your web images before e-mailing and posting to the web. You will also need to convert to view/use with Windows Apps. If you share your images with family and friends those will also need to be converted. It is IMHO an exercise in futility.
Like Daniel and K. Rockwell I'll stick with sRGB. [:D]
Re: Faded Images When Uploaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
The post that Daniel refered to concluded in the unfortunate news that the poster did not have a monitor good enough to view the red in the flowers of the photo he took. So what would Adobe RGB or even accuratesRGB do for him? The equipment as Danieleluded to,must be capable first.
Excellent way to put it, Chuck.
