Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Please explain what I do wrong

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member jaapv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    250

    Please explain what I do wrong

    Whenever I upload an image to the gallery, the colour shifts to blue and it loses contrast. It happens when I use sRGB, so it is not that I use some wide-gamut profile. I tried uploading without profile, but that made it worse. What am I doing wrong? I must confess I prefer putting it in Photobucket, where I can save my Jpegs at max quality without change and linking to them. Please, can't we have 900Kb per image max here? I would even pay for it. The nicest would be if we could upload full-res and have thumbnails, but I suppose that would need elaborate safeguards against copyright theft.
    JAAP
    http://www.jaapvphotography.eu
    The colours of my generation are black and white.

  2. #2
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Hi Jaap:

    You can upload full res files to the GALLERY no problem. Also, there is no pixel dimension OR size limit on what gets uploaded to your gallery. The only limit in the gallery is TOTAL storage space, which is 20 megs for the free account. The only size limit for anything here is on ATTACHMENTS, which can include images. Here we limit on total file size and resize to 900 pixels in the initial display. Full size display on an attached image remains available via a click.

    As for color accuracy, we've checked this out thoroughly from our end and are gtting near-perfect matches to what we upload, so I'm not sure I understand what you are seeing? I will reiterate they DO need to be converted to sRGB before uploading though.

    Using your images in the gallery as an example, they all look well saturated on my monitor. But beans looks a tad blue like it was taken in shade, while busco looks yellow like it was taken in evening light. They both very clearly are not blue though... I just assumed this was how you processed them.

    Send those (or any others) to me directly in an email --- jack-at-getdpi-dot-com. I will open them in CS to compare them directly on my color-managed system.

    Jack
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  3. #3
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Also, best for attached images to make them 900 pixels wide at the longest dimension. Any bigger we want to remind you to be concerned about image theft.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member jaapv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    250

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I think the problem is I was compressing them down to 250 Kb, I'll try full-quality 900 pixel ones later.
    JAAP
    http://www.jaapvphotography.eu
    The colours of my generation are black and white.

  5. #5
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Jaap:

    It may be how you are converting to sRGB. What program do you use to make the jpegs? What steps do you use for saving them.

    In regards to file quality, I just use 75% jpeg in Lightroom or 8 in Photoshop. You shouldn't need files 900k large.

    For example, the image below is about 150k and is 900x600 in dimensions.

  6. #6
    Subscriber Member jaapv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    250

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I work my files as 16-bits tiff , reduce to 900 pixels wide and then convert to 8-bit and sRGB (if I remember) and use "save as" in PS or PSE (mostly PSE, I find it offers enough for a good file) and choose jpeg. The quality screen comes up and I choose the quality to match the size.
    JAAP
    http://www.jaapvphotography.eu
    The colours of my generation are black and white.

  7. #7
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Jaap:

    If you are doing that, I can't see where you are running into the 900k limit. When I use your workflow, I choose 8 for jpeg quality.

  8. #8
    Subscriber Member jaapv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    250

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I didn't, I thought the limit was lower...
    JAAP
    http://www.jaapvphotography.eu
    The colours of my generation are black and white.

  9. #9
    Subscriber robsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,202
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    496

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Doesn't seem to be any limit. Here is another shot, 2,000 pixels high, and 75% quality jpeg. It was under 500K.


  10. #10
    wbrandsma
    Guest

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Does this blue shift to your images already happen in PSE or PS after you converted to sRGB? If so, make some final adjustments to your image before saving the lowres file for webviewing.

    Wouter

  11. #11
    Subscriber Member jaapv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    250

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    No, it was on uploading, it looked like uploading the wrong colourspace (which I didn't); think I've got it licked now though.
    JAAP
    http://www.jaapvphotography.eu
    The colours of my generation are black and white.

  12. #12
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Jaap:

    I think I've discovered the issue some folks are having with color viewing. Bottom line is Safari does NOT render reds and magentas accurately at all, and it gets worse as saturation increases. Try using Firefox and see if you get better results:

    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Jaap:

    I think I've discovered the issue some folks are having with color viewing. Bottom line is Safari does NOT render reds and magentas accurately at all, and it gets worse as saturation increases. Try using Firefox and see if you get better results:

    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

    Cheers,
    I've found that Safari is much better than Firefox, myself.



    So, I'm not sure that getting Firefox is really going to help, I'm afraid.

  14. #14
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Wow, your system is showing a HUGE difference -- ar eyou using the latest versions of each browser? On our machines, the most current version of both browsers are very close, except in the reds and magentas where Safari appears to oversaturate and bumps contrast.

    In my case, better means that the browser replicates the look of the image exactly the same as Photoshop does when they are opened side-by-side. But your point about Safari being color-managed is of course correct, but now I can't explain why my image below looks "wrong" in Safari but correct in Firefox; the image is tagged sRGB and my monitor is profiled.

    Here's some more data: It looks the same "wrong" as Safari if I open it in my Mac's Quick-look viewer, but looks correct if I then drop that same file into CS.

    Any ideas?

    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I am not sure if this will help at all but i had a very similar problem to Jaap when i posted into photo.net. My image could look right--- like it did in CS3 on every site i tried to upload except photo.net. It had that unsaturated and pale blue washed out sky look. There was no difference when using firefox or safari. This was a long term problem. However, I noticed that I might have had something mis-checked on the software choices when i calibrated my monitor... and I think this was somehow related. Nonetheless, I switched calibration programs and I noticed the difference is gone. I am not sure if I got an auto update safari fix sometime during my autoprogram updates or if the re-calibration fixed my problem.. All i know is that it is gone now. I am curious if you figure out what the issue is.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Well, it might be that CS isn't calibrated for your display, but I'd (or better yet, my friend amy, the pro color profile and calibration guru) have to see a bunch of settings on your computer.

    Safari seems to more accurately match the display of CS3 on my machine, so there's definitely some sort of YMMV thing going between different systems. I do know that since I discovered the difference, that I've been outputting directly to 8-bit JPEG for the web (right out of C1, CS3 or iPhoto) and checking files in both browsers and that seems to have fixed the display problems in Firefox.

    FWIW, my SO has been part of the Mozilla dev team since almost the beginning and he says that Mozilla's biggest weakness its handling of graphics, especially color, especially compared to Safari, which has access to all of OS X's internal color management goodies.

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Hummm, on my MacBook Pro, the JPG looks the same in CS3 and Safari:


  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Serial posting here...

    Jack, you just migrated your CS from Windows, yes? Maybe some settings are still Win-centric?

  19. #19
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    Serial posting here...

    Jack, you just migrated your CS from Windows, yes? Maybe some settings are still Win-centric?

    Decent thought Maggie, but I took the opportunity to do a fresh set-up and re-organization from ground zero in CS3... Moreover, I know how to profile and keep things color managed. It appears as though the sRGB tag is getting applied twice, and again, looks like it is happening in both Safari and Finder, which is making me believe it is an issue with Leopard...

    Just for grins, are you running Leopard?
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    No way. I hear it won't run CS3 worth a damn.

    I'm on Tiger still.

  21. #21
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Well FTR it runs CS3 just fine on my machine, and even color-manages properly LOLOL!

    I suspect that the issue lies within Safari under Leopard. I just noticed something even more weird. On the screenshots you posted of my image

    1) they look wrong in BOTH Safari and Firefox

    2) in Safari, your screenshot looks exactly like the image in my post above it, and both are wrong

    3) BUT! In Firefox, my posted image looks right and your screenshot still looks wrong!

    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  22. #22
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Just for giggles, here's the screenshot of the difference on my system.

    Where it gets weirder, is now when viewing the screenshot in Firefox, the Safari side (LEFT) looks correct while the Firefox side (RIGHT) is washed. In Safari, the Firefox side looks correct and the Safari side looks gross, like when I view it directly form Safari.

    As I suspected, viewing the LEFT image in Firefox matches the RIGHT image view in Safari, But now both match CS3 --- ???

    The final thing is I only really notice the difference between browsers in the reds. Got to be a Leopard/Safari bug and something in the Safari/Leopard combo is stacking the profile...

    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    That is some weird, wild, wacky stuff!

    </Johnny Carson>

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    760
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I wonder if the problems i had observed previously were related to the OS system upgrade. I am not to leopard but OS 10.4.10.

  25. #25
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I have checked with a few other users, and all who are on Leopard can see what I'm talking about...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Hummm. The Safari vs. Firefox thing is going on again, this time in B&W. I was puzzled when you said that this photo was "flat" and needed more contrast, as it looked nicely contrast-y in Safari and in iPhoto and in CS3. But, when I looked at it in Firefox, sure enough, it was flat and washed-out.



    (hopefully, the differences between the two browsers will be visible in the screenshot, if only in degrees of contrast)

    I'm at wit's end. If I tune photos to look good in Friefox, they look crappy in everything else!

  27. #27
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    I think there is more going on here...
    Firstly, Safari 3.0 is the only commonly available browsers that is color profile aware. That means if a profile is embedded, then Safari will attempt to use it. If no profile is embedded, then it will use the monitor color space.
    IE and firefox, on the other hand, always throw out the color space tagged in the image and display it in the monitor color space.
    Firefox folks are working to change this, so that their browser will also honor embedded color spaces. This might be out in the next major release i hear.
    So, look again at those misbehaving images and see if there is an embedded profile. If there is, then there is a clue I think.
    Most of the time, and especially for small images, it makes no sense to embed the 4k bytes or so of profile. Just convert to sRBG and BE SURE that there is no embedded profile. If there is an embedded profile, then I suspect that Safari expecting something like a calibrated monitor at D65 6500K around 120 lumens and 2.2 gamma in order for a match to occur between an embedded sRGB profile and no profile at all. If a radically different profile, such as ProPhoto, one of Joe Holmes specials, or Apple RGB, is embedded, then the image has no chance of matching between current firefox and Safari.

    -bob

  28. #28
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Please explain what I do wrong

    Bob:

    In my case, ALL of my web jpegs are converted to sRGB so they have the tag embedded... There is definitely a saturation/gamut issue of some type.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •