Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · Image quality on FM posted images

  
 
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Image quality on FM posted images


Hi FM Forum Members,

I need a littler bit of help with image quality of images that I post here on FM. All my images end up looking less saturated and less crisp when I post them here. The same images looks great on my computer. I use Apple Powerbook and process images in LR. Is there some specific color profile needed to use for images that I post here? I tried all the regular color profiles from LR (AdobeRBG, sRGB, ProPhotoRGB) and it did not work. The same image that on FM looks "flat", it looks great on my computer.

Cheers,

Dan



Nov 26, 2017 at 03:51 PM
rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Image quality on FM posted images


Lightroom is using Melissa, a colour space that is a version of ProPhoto -- so huge. FM is using sRGB. Are you exporting your images from Lightroom and tagging them with sRGB?

The other thing to remember is that often these problems are related to the software that is displaying the images, i.e., the web browser in this case. Is the web browser you're using colour managed? Firefox is, and if the file is tagged with sRGB it will respect that.



Nov 26, 2017 at 05:17 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Image quality on FM posted images


Which browser?



Nov 26, 2017 at 05:17 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Image quality on FM posted images


I use Safari as my web browser. I will look into the browser color profile.


Nov 26, 2017 at 09:08 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Image quality on FM posted images


Let see these 2 images exported under 2 different color profiles. The first is AdobeRGB and second is sRGB. I can't see any option for changing color profile of Safari web browser.












Nov 26, 2017 at 09:16 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Image quality on FM posted images


To my eye they look identical


Nov 26, 2017 at 09:17 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Image quality on FM posted images


Let's see if this works.







Nov 26, 2017 at 09:23 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Image quality on FM posted images


"I can't see any option for changing color profile of Safari web browser"

That's because that's not how color management works. In apps that are color managed, and Safari is one, they simply recognize that the file has an embedded profile and use that in conjunction with your monitor profile to display the image. If both files have embedded profiles they should look almost identical in Safari, but if, for some reason, the file did not have an embedded profile - sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc., then that's where you might have an issue. Is it possible that you had been viewing files with no embedded profile?



Nov 26, 2017 at 09:28 PM
Mr Mouse
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Image quality on FM posted images


Two things to consider Adobe RGB covers all of the sRGB color space and an image may have colors that all lie in the sRGB color space. In a Color-managed application color management uses your image color profile and you Displays color profile to render you image with the closest colors your display can do to the images actual colors. Your desktop color space may be different than your image's color space. In a color managed application both images should look the same. I can open both in Photoshop and drag one image on top of the other and Photoshop can convert the image being dragged in into the other image's color space. When I set the blend mode to the difference if there are any differences those areas will not be black. I did your image both ways sRGB into the AdobeRGB and the AdobeRGB into the sRGB when I set the top layers to differences I could see your watermark in both documents in one a little better than the other in both documents your watermark while visible it was close to black.




Nov 27, 2017 at 01:20 AM
John Wheeler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Image quality on FM posted images


HI Dan
There could be several issues going on yet first, you mention you are using an Apple Powerbook whose last versoin was built over 11 years ago. Which model computer are you using, which Apple OS, which version of LR and are you viewing on the built in screen or on an external monitor. Much has changed over the last decade and debugging you particular situation may depend on the hardware/softare you are using. E.G, The most recent version of LR allow softproofing which I would recommend as some colors in your Adobe RGB image cannot be represented in sRGB. Yet, it is also possible there are color mangement issues related to old hardware/software as well.



Nov 27, 2017 at 11:26 AM
travelair
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Image quality on FM posted images


Both images, from post #4, look identical on my monitor, in the Chrome browser, on a PC, which does understand ICC profiles. Note, not all versions of the Chrome browser do understand ICC profiles.

What I see on my profiled monitor, may or may not be close to what you see on your monitor. If your monitor was profiled, and set to the same white point, they may be rather close. Of course, monitor profiling is an entirely independent issue than that of ICC profiles for your images.

An image in one of the larger color spaces, such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, will look flat in a browser that does not understand color spaces, hence the suggestion that web targeted images be converted to sRGB. Hopefully, as more devices and browsers understand ICC profiles, this will cease to be an issue. BTW, you want to "Convert to Profile" and NOT "Assign to Profile" in PS. Also, under rendering intent, you should pick between Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric. The former squeezes all colors in the larger color space, such that they fit into the new, smaller color space, while the latter clips the out of gamut colors to the closest in gamut color, without altering the colors that already lay within the bounds of the smaller space. Neither intent is "right", just choose the one that yields the most pleasing image.

See also: https://www.color-management-guide.com/web-browser-color-management.html and/or delve deep into Andrew Rodney's (digitaldog) videos.



Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Image quality on FM posted images


Sorry, actually I am using 6 months old MacBook with Sierra operating system. I am at work right now and don't have my computer, but will check later this evening what is the version of LR that I am using. It should be one of the latest version.
Is it possible that the issue I am noticing is due to resolution and image size? All my images on FM look like they were digitally enlarged. Now that I saved my images as sRGB color profile, colors look fine.



Nov 27, 2017 at 11:55 AM
travelair
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Image quality on FM posted images


The fact that you are using a mac, and I am using a PC, should, theoretically, make little difference, as long as we are both looking at the images in and ICC aware browser. From what I understand, Safari is aware.

Take a gander here and go about 1/3 of the way down the page to the image of the various color space gamuts overlayed on a L*a*b color patch. Note that the area of greatest difference between both Adobe and ProPhoto versus sRGB is in the blue/cyan/green region. Perhaps the tones in your sky could not adequately fit into the sRGB color space.

You can use soft proofing in Lightroom to provide a visual indication of out of gamut colors when converting from a larger space to a smaller space. The following video from Andrew Rodney covers this quite well:

http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4



Nov 27, 2017 at 02:12 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Image quality on FM posted images


Thanks travelair. I will take a look at this video later this evening when I get back home from work.


Nov 27, 2017 at 03:33 PM
ddjchemist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Image quality on FM posted images


I now see what the problem is, but don't know how to solve it. For same reason, FM shows my images digitally enlarged at about 150% of the original image. Does anyone have the same problem?


Nov 27, 2017 at 08:57 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Image quality on FM posted images


I'm pretty certain that Safari is color managed, so you probably won't see a difference if you use different color settings.

You can't count on that for all other browsers. For best results convert to sRGB.



Nov 27, 2017 at 09:46 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Image quality on FM posted images


" FM shows my images digitally enlarged at about 150%"

Are you sure you don't have the browser itself zoomed as well. That will zoom the images too. Cmd + or Cmd - to zoom in and out while you're in the browser.



Nov 28, 2017 at 12:26 AM
travelair
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Image quality on FM posted images


CMD 0 should reset your browser to 100% view


Nov 28, 2017 at 09:23 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Image quality on FM posted images


I think safari on a Mac assumes that untagged assumes the current monitor profile for the image data, rather than sRGB. These days, that's hardly surprising from Apple. Different browsers work differently, but the best thing you can do is store the image profile within the files to the give the browsers belonging to the clever users the best chance of sorting it out. Probably also advise them which rendering intent it has been optimised for (perceptual, relative colorimetric, etc.) because the wrong choice by them can make the images look very different if the image colorspace is very different from their monitor colorspace. The difference is smaller if their monitor has wide colour gamut and it, the image file and their web browser are all using it.

You can't help the vast majority of internet users because they don't understand the what or why of colour management, and many don't seem to notice crappy colours anyway. They don't even calibrate their monitor, let alone profile it, and so your images will look wrong. I'd like to think that FMers are generally much better informed - collectively, if not individually.

Make your way to this site and read about what different browsers do. The info is fairly current and useful too.
https://imagescience.com.au/knowledge/web-browsers-and-colour-management

There may be a further problem caused by you or your viewers not using the correct monitor management program with monitors that have built-in LUTs. e.g. for a clever NEC monitor you should be using SpectraView II for best results, and so should your viewers, but it is possible to not use it.



Nov 29, 2017 at 10:44 AM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Image quality on FM posted images


travelair wrote:
CMD 0 should reset your browser to 100% view


This is a trap. CMD 0 does not necessarily give you 1 screen pixel for each image pixel in Safari or any other browser.

Most browsers have a built-in scaling factor to make images look the right physical size (inches, not pixels) on a 72 or 100 or 110 ppi monitor (I forget the exact target ppi, but it varies between browsers). In firefox, 100ppi is assumed for the CMD 0 / CTRL 0 command, but there is another hidden value within FF that tells it how many pixels there are per inch - and it is not necessarily a match for the Operating System ppi settings or even the actual monitor.

On top of that, another variable is what the operating system does to anything displayed by its routines - I think for example that Windows assumes a native 96ppi screen, and any scaling within Windows is based on that value combined with a percentage scale that you can set in Windows Display Settings. OSX probably assumes 110ppi or 220ppi, but not 132ppi that was the non-retina high-resolution ppi on some MacBook Pros.

What happens when all of these are applied simultaneously ? I really don't know. Can one be enlarging the image while the other tries to reduce it, resulting in two lots of processing ?
At least with Lr and Ps, those programs write directly to screen rather than through the OS, and 100% means you get one image pixel per screen pixel no matter what is happening with the rest of the user interface that does use the OS. The physical size of the displayed image may be wrong but you will at least be shown the correct pixels for that size without external processing potentially messing it up for you.

I've yet to find an definitive reference of exactly what really happens to our images between being read from storage and appearing on screen. The more you try to understand it, the more it seems to be something from the X-Files tv show; there's a chain-smoking guy doing his best to ensure that the general population (including us) won't ever get confused or scared by the truth.



Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.