pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why images in Lightroom do not display as punchy on MS sites ?  (Read 5506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« on: January 08, 2014, 03:19 »
0
When I edit images in LR I see crisper, more vibrant colours. When I upload to SS or IS the displayed file seems flatter and lacking the punch in LR. How do I get the best conversion from RAW to JPEG looking exactly like the LR  image ? I have tried different types of JPEG conversion and currently use Adobe RBG for all my JPEGS for all sites.


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2014, 03:20 »
0
have you tried sRGB?

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2014, 03:52 »
0
Yes but I don't think that made any difference either.

Ron

« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2014, 04:01 »
0
Sites display thumbs and previews in sRGB, so you image can look really bad if you submit in another color scheme.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2014, 04:19 »
0
So ALL my port at SS and likewise will have to be re-submitted ?  :-\

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2014, 05:44 »
0
Different browsers show the same images in different ways according to their color profile management.
Some browsers like Safari support color profiles, some others don't support or support only partially.

Try to open your portfolio in different browsers and compare

Different sites use different ways to generate the thumbnails and the previews in sRGB, and the same image can appear in a different way on different sites too.
So if you add this to that you can get very huge differences.
(and after they come to bore us with white balance issues)

As wrote Ron the best way to minimize the differences is to generate your hi-res images in sRGB when you use them for microstocks.
Personally I work my images in ProPhoto RGB because it is the "wider" profile, and then, for the microstocks, I export in sRGB (the "wilder" profile  ;D)

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:49 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2014, 06:07 »
0
How do I get the best conversion from RAW to JPEG looking exactly like the LR  image ? I have tried different types of JPEG conversion and currently use Adobe RBG for all my JPEGS for all sites.

Lightroom uses a color space called Melissa - which has a much wider gamut than either Adobe RGB or sRGB. It is similar to ProPhoto. You can use the soft proofing tools in Lightroom to preview the image in sRGB or Adobe RGB - that will also show where you have colors which are out of gamut. Personally I find the proofing tools difficult and clunky to use and tend to finish in Photoshop. Personally I think that it would be better if Lightroom could be setup to work in Adobe RGB.

iStock makes sRGB thumbs and comps - but the larger sizes are sold as Adobe RGB. If you upload Adobe RGB images the system creates sRGB thumbs. If you upload sRGB images the system creates Adobe RGB larger versions - because that is what buyers are used to. If you are an indie then it is probably easiest and best to work in sRGB.

There is no point re-submitting all of the pictures in your portfolio. Because anyone with an eye that critical is going to be using a browser which can correctly display either sRGB or Adobe RGB. And if they are not then there is no way of knowing how messed up their screen is anyhow. Most people using Macs and iPads - also many modern Windows users, will not notice any significant difference because they will see the thing how it is supposed to be. Roughly. IMO.


Ron

« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2014, 06:12 »
0
http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/imprint_downloads/peachpit/peachpit/lightroom4/pdf_files/LightroomRGB_Space.pdf


Quote
Although it isnt officially named as such, I tend to call the Lightroom edit space Lightroom RGB. Mark Hamburg had suggested it might be more appropriate to call it bastardized RGB since the space is using ProPhoto RGB chromaticities, but with a gamma of 1.0 instead of 1.8. Meanwhile, the Lightroom viewing space uses the same ProPhoto RGB chromaticities but with an sRGB tone response curve. Melissa Gaul, who was the QE manager for Lightroom, suggested this space should be called Melissa RGB since all RGB spaces to date have been named after men
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 06:15 by Ron »

« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2014, 06:15 »
0
Personally I work my images in ProPhoto RGB because it is the "wider" profile, and then, for the microstocks, I export in sRGB

When you do a straight export  - don't you inevitably then get clipped or blown out colors - where they are out of gamut ? i.e. the reds are blown for example. Don't you have to work on the image first - before the export ?

Or do the microstocks not worry about clipping etc ?

^ this is something I have long wondered. Personally I have always tried to produce final versions which do not have blown or clipped colors .... but I have never been sure that this is the best way of doing things.

« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2014, 06:35 »
0
Are you viewing on a retina display? I got a retina MBP and suddenly all photos on the sites looked bad. If so try changing display to scaled "more space", then everything looks nice and crisp sharp again.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2014, 06:42 »
0
So ALL my port at SS and likewise will have to be re-submitted ?  :-\
My system is set up to be AdobeRGB and that's how my pics are submitted.
Unless a particular agency requires sRGB, you don't need to resubmit.
iS for one shows sRGB on site, sells sRGB in the smallest sizes and AdobeRGB for larger sizes.
I thought it was required to submit to iS in AdobeRGB, but that seems not to be the case, and it's been discussed oftgen on the forums with no definitive conclusion.

Presumably the info is available on the other sites, if any ha ve a particular requirement.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2014, 07:12 »
0
LOL now I am even more confused  :o

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2014, 07:26 »
0
LOL now I am even more confused  :o
I think it's like most microstock, and camera, questions: ask ten people, get twenty answers.  ::)
Now I'm wondering why I decided to postively make my system AdobeRGB if it wasn't for iS.  ??? (It's not required for Alamy either ... )

« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2014, 07:44 »
0
LOL now I am even more confused  :o

Now I'm wondering why I decided to postively make my system AdobeRGB if it wasn't for iS.  ??? (It's not required for Alamy either ... )


Not definitely required perhaps but Alamy recommend Adobe RGB.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/improve-image-quality.asp

Quote
Unless you have reason to do otherwise, we recommend you use Adobe RGB (1998). This is the industry standard for most imaging professionals.


The issue Herg is seeing, the difference between how things look in Lightroom vs the upload (and uploaded) versions is to do with Lightroom using its own color space. The simple answer to his question is that exported versions are not going to look like the internal Lightroom versions ever - because you cannot export an image using Lightroom's internal color space. Therefore you have to soft proof.

There is also a wider and connected issue about whether his browser is set up to be profile aware. And that leads on to the debate about whether to upload sRGB or Adobe RGB.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2014, 10:30 »
0
I use LR and export in the aRGB color space.  I rarely see much of a difference between what I'm seeing in LR and what the images look like on a variety of sites.  Using an iMac calibrated with Spyder 3 if that matters.
I think it has more to do with how the different agencies display the images than how we export the images.

« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2014, 10:53 »
0
I use LR and export in the aRGB color space.  I rarely see much of a difference between what I'm seeing in LR and what the images look like on a variety of sites.  Using an iMac calibrated with Spyder 3 if that matters.
I think it has more to do with how the different agencies display the images than how we export the images.

Safari on the Mac is profile aware. Therefore you are unlikely to see so much difference between between how the images look to you and how they look online. If you upload an Adobe RGB image to SS your browser is going to know how to interpret it. People with browers which are not profile smart would potentially see a greater difference. Eg - an Adobe RGB image would potentially look dull on some browsers. Try looking at your online images in a store somewhere where they are selling Windows laptops or cheap Android tablets.

You cannot really predict how the user is going to have their screen set up therefore perhaps it is not worth worrying about too much. Most people have their screens way too bright and over saturated. So perhaps a slightly dull preview version is not going to matter anyhow.

« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2014, 11:14 »
0
I won't repeat bunhill's clear explanation of the issues of color profiles and how the agencies handle uploaded images, but here are a couple of useful tools to check what a given web browser is capable of.

Read the instructions about rolling over or clicking on the two sets of images and what it means for the capabilities of that browser given tagged or untagged images in various color spaces.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#

This tool will let you see whether the browser handles v2 or v4 ICC profiles (Safari handles both; Chrome and Firefox on the Mac only handle v2)

http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter

The only other comment is on whether you'll notice the differences if the agencies strip the profile from your images when they create thumbnails and your images were uploaded in sRGB (which is the color space all the browsers assume for untagged files). It in part depends on the image content as well as on which color space you used. For some fairly muted images, especially those without people, you may not see a striking mismatch. But if you have images of people tagged as Adobe RBG and an agency creates an untagged thumbnail of that, the people will look rather sickly and washed out.

Cambridge in Colour has some good diagrams and explanations of color spaces and color management for those who want to get a clearer picture of the subject

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm

If you want to avoid surprises with images - when printing, delivering to others or uploading to an agency - you need to work in a color managed environment, embed profiles in everything you produce and be aware of those environments that aren't color managed and aware so you deliver to them only what they can display accurately.

If you don't, you  may get lucky - or you may not :)


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2014, 11:27 »
0
@Jo Ann:

Hi - do you have any thoughts on the issue which I asked Beppe Grillo above ...

Do you think it is necessary to process an image for stock such that all of the colors are brought into gamut - in particular at the highlight end. i.e. no blown channels ? In order to process an sRGB version, for example, that often means going with considerably duller reds.

This is something I have never been sure about. Often I like the blown versions much better.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2014, 11:30 »
0
Personally I work my images in ProPhoto RGB because it is the "wider" profile, and then, for the microstocks, I export in sRGB


When you do a straight export  - don't you inevitably then get clipped or blown out colors - where they are out of gamut ? i.e. the reds are blown for example. Don't you have to work on the image first - before the export ?

[]


Well, I am used to work with different sectors of the print/web industry.
So one image can be used on different supports and printed in different ways, using different printing techniques.
For this the color profile is converted in another color profile corresponding to the destination support.
If, for example, you work with offset printing you have a lot of different cmyk profiles, they can change according to the region of the world, the used inks, the printing machine model, etc. (and some typographies has their own) and these profiles can be very different from one to other and give very different results if not used correctly.
For this reason it is always better to always start from the best image possible, containing the more information possible > ProPhoto RGB (and always keep safe this original), and then re-correct the image considering the final utilization/support/printing technique and so the destination profile (generally containing less information that the ProPhoto RGB).

This is a work that I always do in Photoshop, because it cannot be done correctly in Lightroom.

If the destination of your images is only microstocks it is probably more simple to do all the process in sRGB.
But doing this you will not give to the customers needing images for various utilization the best image possible.


Read the instructions about rolling over or clicking on the two sets of images and what it means for the capabilities of that browser given tagged or untagged images in various color spaces.

http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html#



See some my post before ;)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 11:33 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2014, 11:39 »
0
@Beppe Grillo

Hi - cheers.

You said previously, in the context of microstock, that you work in ProPhoto then export to sRGB. So far so good and understood.

What I am specifically asking is whether the sRGB versions which you export will sometimes have blown or clipped colors or whether you process a version where the colors all fit within the smaller gamut.

« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2014, 11:41 »
0
@Jo Ann:

Hi - do you have any thoughts on the issue which I asked Beppe Grillo above ...

Do you think it is necessary to process an image for stock such that all of the colors are brought into gamut - in particular at the highlight end. i.e. no blown channels ? In order to process an sRGB version, for example, that often means going with considerably duller reds.

This is something I have never been sure about. Often I like the blown versions much better.

For the most part, I decide things based on how the image looks to me - I'm much more inclined to go with the visual versus the numbers approach. I think that if the image looks bad to people considering buying it, you can explain until you're blue in the face that the histogram looks "right" but it won't make them buy it :)

Once or twice I have had to go back and fiddle with the processing of an image because I hated how it looked when I converted from Adobe RGB (in photoshop) to sRGB, but that has almost always been because of vivid turquoise water in Caribbean images. I watch as I convert and if there's something unpleasant that catches my eye I try to fix it - again in Photoshop. I do use Lightroom, but always (for stock) process the images further in Photoshop and do the conversion and JPEG creation there.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2014, 12:18 »
0
@Beppe Grillo

Hi - cheers.

You said previously, in the context of microstock, that you work in ProPhoto then export to sRGB. So far so good and understood.

What I am specifically asking is whether the sRGB versions which you export will sometimes have blown or clipped colors or whether you process a version where the colors all fit within the smaller gamut.

When I process an image in ProPhoto RGB I always consider only the result for this (largest) profile.

Then the risk of clipped colors because they don't fit in the smaller gamut is not always predictable.
So, in a context of microstock, I edit my original ProPhoto RGB image (from LR) in Photoshop with the sRGB preview (View > Proof Setup > sRGB), and once finished the necessary corrections I will re-save the image (with another name) with the sRGB profile (I don't make the correction on an image already converted to the destination, it will have no sense).
Then I can export, from LR, the new image as "Original" in a folder where I put the images to be uploaded on the various sites, and once uploaded I just trash the files copies or the folder.

Frankly, if I have some experience with image, printing, etc. I am new to microstocks and I am not sure that my workflow is the best possible in this context.  :)
I tend to keep a workflow allowing me to get different results for different utilizations from a single well corrected original, and if it is probably not the shortest way, I think it is the most secure, considering that "who can more, can less" but not the contrary.

« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2014, 12:34 »
0
Thanks for your answers Beppe Grillo and Jo Ann.

I am typically effectively doing roughly the same as Beppe Grillo though via slightly different steps.

I am unclear whether or not a stock inspector would treat a single blown channel in the same way as they would treat a blown highlight (which would presumably normally be a lighting rejection unless it was quite obviously deliberate). I have often wondered.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2626 Views
Last post November 28, 2006, 16:45
by a.k.a.-tom
4 Replies
2626 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 09:06
by designalldone
2 Replies
2415 Views
Last post October 26, 2010, 20:06
by RacePhoto
14 Replies
2617 Views
Last post August 01, 2013, 23:47
by marthamarks
12 Replies
5256 Views
Last post February 27, 2016, 18:13
by Copidosoma

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle