MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: rjmiz on April 26, 2008, 21:15
-
Do you have any idea what color profile your uploading your images to?
Truth be heard, here's what some newbies might not be aware of:
There are many color profiles you can assign to an image. The two most common are
1. Adobe 1998
and
2. sRGB
Adobe 1998 has a much larger color gamut and therefore prints better on ink jet printers using more colors than sRGB.
sRGB displays better on screens and therefore is better suited for internet use.
Here is a sise by side comparison using one of my recent stock images I just created.
Notice the color of the bat graphs, and the yellow slice in the pie chart. I have a red/grren color deficiency so I am less likely to see that.
(http://microstockpix.com/test.jpg)
If your camera is taking Adobe 1998 you might want to consider changing to sRGB.
Or it's just as easily done using software such as Photoshop etc.
The clients DL'ing your images can easily convert the image back to Adobe 1998 for printing if need be.
My advice: Take advantage of the vibrant colors sRGB has to offer for displaying your images.
One final note: I'm not sure but I believe some stock sites automatically do the conversion.
I'm not sure if in fact they do, or as to what sites do and do not.
The "Cranky" MIZ
-
Yes look at this poor beach volleyball girl she's burned at Istock (http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5702678/2/istockphoto_5702678_beach_girl.jpg)
And look well at Stockxpert (http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/v/vo/vonkara/11576181_93456717.jpg)
One final note: I'm not sure but I believe some stock sites automatically do the conversion.
I'm not sure if in fact they do, or as to what sites do and do not.
The "Cranky" MIZ
-
this is like mac vs. pc or canon vs. nikon discussions.
I prefer to keep it as AobeRGB even if SS converts all files to sRGB others do that only for preview thumbnails(and I'm not saving different bversions for each site). And I do want the maybe only few times my images are printed to look right and with rich blues. Once AdobeRGB is converted to sRGB the blues and reds and other colors are chopped to limited range and cant be restored when doing backward conversion. Just like noise, the details just aren't there.
-
Yes look at this poor beach volleyball girl she's burned at Istock ([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5702678/2/istockphoto_5702678_beach_girl.jpg[/url])
And look well at Stockxpert ([url]http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/v/vo/vonkara/11576181_93456717.jpg[/url])
Burned u say :)
One final note: I'm not sure but I believe some stock sites automatically do the conversion.
I'm not sure if in fact they do, or as to what sites do and do not.
The "Cranky" MIZ
-
The reason sRGB images can look more saturated than Adobe RGB images when viewed with applications that are ICC profile-unaware (like most web browsers in use) is that these applications assume all images are in sRGB, so if they open an image that is in fact Adobe RGB they display them as if they were sRGB, which makes them look less vibrant.
It all comes down to numbers. You can replicate this in Photoshop:
- open an Adobe RGB image
- go to Edit > Assign Profile
- choose sRGB
The colors will change to a washed out appearance. The actual RGB numbers map to different colors in each space. Since they both contain the same total number of colors the highest values in Adobe RGB are reserved for the most saturated colors while all of the other reproducible colors will have relatively (when compared to sRGB) lower numerical values. So if these lower numbers are assumed to be sRGB they will map to less saturated colors in the sRGB space.
The bikini image downloaded from iStock and opened in Photoshop (while honoring the embedded Adobe RGB profile) looks the same as it does in that iStock thumbnail. On iStock the thumbs are converted from the source space to sRGB to maintain visual appearance (XS images are also converted to sRGB) in various browsers, so the thumb matches what you would see if you downloaded the image and opened it in Photoshop. The stockexpert thumb (assuming the same original) shows what happens when you take an Adobe RGB image and simply assign (not convert) an SRGB profile ... it looks desaturated.
So, converting all images to sRGB before uploading is a safer course of action in regards to ensuring display consistency if you are providing images to places that don't convert thumbs. The price is that you can lose some of the more saturated colors available in Adobe RGB in the conversion (but only if your photo contained those colors originally), which while they may not be reproducible by your monitor they may be reproducible by some printers. There is always a trade-off.
Here is a great article on the difference in those spaces (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-debate.html).
-
Good explanation Rob, thanks for that.
I have been taking my images in RAW and converting tweaking the TIFs in Adobe RGB in photoshop, but the last step in my workflow before saving them as jpgs is to convert to sRGB. I find it gives me a more consistent thumbnail display across all sites.