On 11-09-22 3:05 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
Our old barn got a renovation, and lucky me (!), I got a studio space
out of the deal. It's only very recently been finished, and I'm just
starting to get a little time to play out there. The other day, i
asked my daughter to sit for some portraits -- I had to capture that
summer tan before it faded...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23028562@N04/sets/72157627605002633/with/6172516761/
Questions, comments, concerns are welcome...
That looks like a terrific studio space -- very lucky you! -- and your
portraits are great. I especially like Maddie04 for its wonderfully
relaxed feel.
Now here's my question... I'm often frustrated when I see how my
photos are rendered online. My monitor is calibrated, and in the
editing process, everything seems to go just fine. I make sure I
export in srgb. Once my photos are loaded onto different websites
(blogger, picasa, flickr, facebook, etc), it's another story. I know
that different monitors might render images differently, but even on
the same, calibrated monitor that i use for editing, it seems that
different browsers (I have firefox, safari& chrome, chrome being the
worst offender)& different websites treat my images differently.
Even on flickr, just now, my images have a funky red cast in slideshow
format that doesn't show up in thumbnail/set views, and certainly
isn't the way I edited them.
So... what to do? Anything? Maybe it's me... Or is this just the way
it goes??? Any thoughts are appreciated...
Thanks all,
-c
As many others have suggested, the web is a messed-up place and ya post
yer shots and takes yer chances. By converting to sRGB you are already
maximizing your chances as that's the default for non-colour-managed
systems. But then you have to deal with how much compression and
processing the various storage sites apply. In my experience Facebook
is hands-down the worst for image destruction due to over-zealous
compression and resizing. Flickr and 500px are both very good for
minimal touching of the images. I have no experience with photo.net or
Smugmug but I expect them to be good about it.
For me the jury's out on the various Google properties. I've distrusted
Picasa in the past as the images looked suspiciously munched to me. I
know that Google+ is just reusing the Picasa facilities and photogs seem
happy with that, so maybe Picasa is ok now. I'm not sure what Blogger
does with their images.
I think that Posterous and Tumblr treat images with respect. My
experiments so far are good.
Here's something to consider. If you are editing your images starting
from RAW (12-14 bits) and in the AdobeRGB or ProPhoto colour space, on a
calibrated monitor, then when you convert-for-web (ie compress and
reduce colours to sRGB JPEGs), they are subject to the possibility of
changes due to out-of-gamut colours in your original. You are causing
some pretty serious dithering to occur by reducing down to sRGB 8-bit
JPEG and depending on your source image, something visible might have to
give.
The same thing happens when you prepare for print as printers can't
generally reproduce the same large gamut as is in the image.
Another thing to think about is your editing on-screen environment
versus your web viewing environment. For instance, when you edit do you
position your image on a neutral gray background? When I open images in
Photoshop I always do so on a separate monitor, full-screen with a grey
surround fill.
But then when you view images in photo sites like photo.net, Flickr or
500px, the images are usually presented on a white background. Your
eyes are going to see a different overall colour-cast to the images
depending on how they are situated on the screen. They'll look different
when viewed with a completely black background, for instance.
It's a jungle out there ... :-)
-bmw
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
