MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: cdwheatley on April 02, 2008, 17:40
-
I know Istock converts Adobe rgb to srgb for thumbnails, but how many of the other sites are doing that now?
-
All, If there smart.
-
All, If there smart.
and thats why I do it myself before uploading :)
-
Me three.
-
So I should (shoot and) work in adobe RGB color space, and then convert after post-processing, just before saving to jpeg? Another question.. which settings are best to use when converting to sRGB ( i.e. perceptual, relative colorimetric, black point compensation, etc)?
This color space issue has had me a bit confused for the past several weeks (especially after noticing how drab some of my food photography thumbnails looked upon being accepted at some sites) and I'd love to get a definitive answer!
Thanks! :)
-
Is it just a waste of time to upload Adobe RGB? Starting to get that impression :-\
-
So I should (shoot and) work in adobe RGB color space, and then convert after post-processing, just before saving to jpeg? Another question.. which settings are best to use when converting to sRGB ( i.e. perceptual, relative colorimetric, black point compensation, etc)?
This color space issue has had me a bit confused for the past several weeks (especially after noticing how drab some of my food photography thumbnails looked upon being accepted at some sites) and I'd love to get a definitive answer!
Thanks! :)
just shoot SRGB. relative colormetric and blk point compensation.Unless your doing a lot of printing, then I would use Prophoto profile.For general use Just use Srgb and forget it. Your monitor is Srgb.
-
Is it just a waste of time to upload Adobe RGB? Starting to get that impression :-\
Yes, it's a big waste of time.
I just shoot JPEG sRGB and I'm done with it.
-
I always shoot raw and convert my files to adobe rgb tiff then to adobe rgb jpg as we know SRGB looks better on computer screen but for printing purposes RGB is preferred.and you know converting your colour profile from RGB to SRGB is an easy task but if you convert an SRGB file to RGB you wouldn't get the same quality of an original RGB file thus I stick with my work flow and as mentioned above all sites should convert thumbs to SRGB for better looking colours.
may be all the sites should explain that in their photo requirement sections to end the confusion that many contributers have.
-
Do you see the difference... Here's 123RF that I fin d more natural
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/vonkara/vonkara0804/vonkara080400004/2801324.jpg)
Here's Istock
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5702678/2/istockphoto_5702678_beach_girl.jpg)
All two shot in adobe RGB no conversion at all?? (from Jpeg)
-
Here's Stockxpert. It's clear that Istock have change something...
(http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/v/vo/vonkara/11576181_93456717.jpg)
-
Vonkara,
your examples prove that they are not using standard parameters.
I agree with you the image on the top looks more natural however I believe more buyers would notice IS's thumb as its colors more vivid thus would attract more attention(imo)
-
Another example whit an other picture... This one was rejected for overfiltred first and finally accepted via scout (Istock)
(http://69.90.174.251/photos/display_pic_with_logo/103636/103636,1204597488,3.jpg)
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5522840/2/istockphoto_5522840_drill.jpg)
This time whit Shutterstock and again Istock is the most away from the natural colors. Maybe this explain some overfiltred rejection?