On the last set of Mom hands I showed (where most liked them, not her hand
and mine, the one where I asked if the thumb was too light), someone sent me a
variation that I liked.
He said he used 16 bit to get more subtle variation in tones.
I notice when one imports a RAW into PS one can impor
I never work in any other mode than 16 bit, it preserves data and
prevents 'hstogram jaggies' that cause posterization. I convert to 8 bit
as the last step before saving the final jpeg.
-Adam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the last set of Mom hands I showed (where most liked them, not her hand
Ditto. But I rarely save as jpeg. I save full-size files as tiffs.
Paul
On Dec 18, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
I never work in any other mode than 16 bit, it preserves data and
prevents 'hstogram jaggies' that cause posterization. I convert to 8
bit as the last step before saving the fin
In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:39:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ditto. But I rarely save as jpeg. I save full-size files as tiffs.
Paul
On Dec 18, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> I never work in any other mode than 16 bit, it preserves data and
> prevents 'hstogra
I actually do both, save as 16bit PSD in ProPhotoRGB for archive and
JPEG in sRGB for display and printing. I've got an action that does all
this for me when I'm done editing.
-Adam
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Ditto. But I rarely save as jpeg. I save full-size files as tiffs.
Paul
On Dec 18, 2005
Hi aka Doe ...
All my work, including B&W, is done in in 16-bit until the final flattened
save for the web or for printing. Originals are ~never~ touched, there's a
WIP (work in progress folder) for each photo in which the image in its
various iterations are saved (along with layers and saved pro
In a message dated 12/18/2005 1:22:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe you can get better resultant tonality when working in 16-bit
because you're starting with more information and are often loosing less of
it. So the 8-bit conversion has more info than if you worked
frames of the Man With Cane -
in those instances I'll add a number corresponding with the frame number on
the film or the image number from the Digi.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Date: 12/18/2005 1:31:49 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop
If you use "save for web" your don't have to do a separate conversion,
it will save your 16 bit .psd as an 8 bit jpeg. I just do a "bicubic
sharper" downsize, and "save for web", then delete the downsized .psd
image without saving.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.
I keep the rawfile as sort of a negative, eventually burning them to
DVD. I save a 16 bit .psd as a working file usually a 256ppi at
10x7.5in. Then as a last step to print or web I resize and save as
appropriate mostly a 10x7.5 330ppi for printing or a 800x600 jpeg for
the web. Pease note that
In a message dated 12/18/2005 3:46:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you use "save for web" your don't have to do a separate conversion,
it will save your 16 bit .psd as an 8 bit jpeg. I just do a "bicubic
sharper" downsize, and "save for web", then delete the downsized .
Well there are always different ways to do things. Manually I tend to
oversharpen. Bicubic sharper has been a god send for me. The smaller
your image the more USM it needs, bicubic sharper does it pretty well
and I don't have to fiddle with it. Unless there is a pressing reason
for doing it oth
On 18 Dec 2005 at 18:44, graywolf wrote:
> If you use "save for web" your don't have to do a separate conversion,
> it will save your 16 bit .psd as an 8 bit jpeg. I just do a "bicubic
> sharper" downsize, and "save for web", then delete the downsized .psd
> image without saving.
I still run a
I do the same, although I do it manually. Save for Web causes a color
shift if the file isn't first converted to sRGB.
Paul
On Dec 18, 2005, at 9:43 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 18 Dec 2005 at 18:44, graywolf wrote:
If you use "save for web" your don't have to do a separate conversion,
it will
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop B&W Converson Tones
I still run an action before saving jpeg which converts to 8bits and sRGB,
this
way I don't forget to execute a colour space conversion and I have a
choice of
savin
In a message dated 12/18/2005 5:45:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still run an action before saving jpeg which converts to 8bits and sRGB,
this
way I don't forget to execute a colour space conversion and I have a choice
of
saving as a regular jpeg (including EXIF dat
Hi!
I still run an action before saving jpeg which converts to 8bits and
sRGB, this
way I don't forget to execute a colour space conversion and I have a
choice of
saving as a regular jpeg (including EXIF data) or using "save for web".
I'd like to stress the importance of colour space conver
Bicubic sharper is not always a good option. As noted, you have no control
over the result. The high pass filter is a good choice, but only one
option for sharpening, and not always the best. Since images differ in so
many respects, it might be a good idea to become familiar with several
sharpen
Another issue with SFW is that it can convert a B&W image to the sRGB color
space.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist
> I do the same, although I do it manually. Save for Web causes a color
> shift if the file isn't first converted to sRGB.
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop B&W Converson Tones
Another issue with SFW is that it can convert a B&W image to the sRGB
color
space.
Web images need to be in a colour space. Same for images being printed at a
photo
On 19 Dec 2005 at 6:39, William Robb wrote:
> Web images need to be in a colour space. Same for images being printed at a
> photo lab, the equipment needs colour information.
Unfortunately most browsers (and non for the Windows platform that I'm aware of
) are not colour space aware, however the
That doesn't make sense since SFW strips out the color profiles. I post
all my B&W as greyscakle, not sRGB haven't had any complaints yet.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb
> Web images need to be in a colour space. Same for images being printed at
a
> photo lab, the eq
Paul,
You must be saving as a JPEG if you're posting pics to the web. Do you
delete the final JPEGs after posting and only save the final TIFF files?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist
> Ditto. But I rarely save as jpeg. I save full-size files as tiffs.
I meant that I never save a printing file as jpeg. I sometimes save the web
image files, but not always. It's simple enough to replicate them. I don't
spend any time perfecting web versions. I merely resize my large printing files
with bicubic sharper (which doesn't seem to apply any significant
In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:09:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are you working with PDF files? Do you mean PSD?
Shel
Yeah, slip of the tongue, er finger.
Okey, dokey, I'll look into different sharpening methods.
Marnie
I save full-rez as I also use the JPEG for printing. Save for Web won't
handle that.
-Adam
graywolf wrote:
If you use "save for web" your don't have to do a separate conversion,
it will save your 16 bit .psd as an 8 bit jpeg. I just do a "bicubic
sharper" downsize, and "save for web", then
In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:09:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I save full-rez as I also use the JPEG for printing. Save for Web won't
handle that.
-Adam
Hmmm, good pt. I sometimes print from JPEG. So what does Save for Web do
exactly? As constrasted to just
On Dec 19, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Web images need to be in a colour space. Same for images being
printed at a
photo lab, the equipment needs colour information.
Unfortunately most browsers (and non for the Windows platform that
I'm aware of
) are not colour space aware, how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:09:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I save full-rez as I also use the JPEG for printing. Save for Web won't
handle that.
-Adam
Hmmm, good pt. I sometimes print from JPEG. So what does Save for Web do
exac
On 19 Dec 2005 at 12:27, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I have to disagree on that last point. I did extensive testing with
> several other folks participating on the Picture A Week mailing list
> last year ... Testing with several browsers on both Windows XP and
> Mac OS X, color rendering of an
The reason I don't save the downsized .psd is because I do not want it
overwriting the fullsize image. If I need another small image I go
through the whole 2 minute process again. I always keep the full res 16
bit .psd file. I usually delete the web image from my local computer,
sometimes I lea
I believe that most of them assume sRGB.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Rob Studdert wrote:
I have to disagree on that last point. I did extensive testing with
several other fol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/19/2005 12:09:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I save full-rez as I also use the JPEG for printing. Save for Web won't
handle that.
-Adam
Hmmm, good pt. I sometimes print from JPEG. So what does Save for Web do
exa
If I was going to send jpegs out to be printed I would save them
specifically for that printer. On my printer I use 16 bit .psd files to
print from. The printer driver converts to 8 bit and the printers color
space. To me a jpeg is a final image, just like a print, I do nothing
more with it, pe
On 19 Dec 2005 at 17:12, graywolf wrote:
> I believe that most of them assume sRGB.
I think you'll find that most of them simply don't care, web authors assume
that the average desk-top calibration is a reasonable approximation of sRGB, I
don't believe that any Windows browsers actually re-map
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 at 12:27, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I have to disagree on that last point. I did extensive testing with
several other folks participating on the Picture A Week mailing list
last year ... Testing with several browsers on both Window
On 19 Dec 2005 at 17:24, graywolf wrote:
> If I was going to send jpegs out to be printed I would save them
> specifically for that printer. On my printer I use 16 bit .psd files to
> print from. The printer driver converts to 8 bit and the printers color
> space. To me a jpeg is a final image,
At 06:27 PM 12/19/2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
I still have a CS test page up on the web that I posted whe we were
discussing
this very same issue last April:
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/ICC_test.html
Interesting. How do we interpret the results of viewing that page. Should
all
On 19 Dec 2005 at 18:07, Glen wrote:
> At 06:27 PM 12/19/2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> >I still have a CS test page up on the web that I posted whe we were
> >discussing
> >this very same issue last April:
> >
> >http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/ICC_test.html
>
>
> Interesting. How d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So what does Save for Web do exactly? As constrasted to just saving as a JPEG?
>
>I know someone mentioned one thing, but what are the other things?
"Save for Web" does a number of things:
* It gives you multiple format options (JPG, GIF, PNG)
* Provides easy fine-tuni
On Dec 19, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/ICC_test.html
Interesting. How do we interpret the results of viewing that page.
Should
all 4 images look the same, ideally?
For me, the top two images have lower contrast and saturation.
If your
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop B&W Converson Tones
That doesn't make sense since SFW strips out the color profiles. I post
all my B&W as greyscakle, not sRGB haven't had any complaints yet.
I think yo
16bit is doable, the lower resolution is the kicker for save for web.
Why should I make more work for myself when my current workflow handles
all my output needs (I use Flickr, which handles creating the smaller
rez images on display on flickr). This way I simply trigger the action
when I'm don
On 19 Dec 2005 at 9:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> That doesn't make sense since SFW strips out the color profiles. I post
> all my B&W as greyscakle, not sRGB haven't had any complaints yet.
Have a look at the details of a grayscale image saved using SFW, you'll find
it's a 24 bit jpeg. As
On 19 Dec 2005 at 15:45, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> Using Safari in Mac OS X, the two images with profiles look
> identical. The righthand sRGB image without profile is close but not
> the same as the sRGB image with profile (somewhat flat and lacking in
> brilliance by comparison), and the P
At 07:23 PM 12/19/2005, Rob Studdert wrote:
If your Browser were CS aware then the images with embedded CS data would
render identically, and if your screen CS was similar to the sRGB CS then the
sRGB image without an embedded CS would render close to the two images with
embedded profiles.
The
On 19 Dec 2005 at 19:34, Glen wrote:
> Is it possible that I just don't have the ProPhoto color profile installed on
> my
> system? Don't you have to have something like that installed somewhere deep in
> the bowels of your windows directory? :)
No, an embedded profile contains the information
My concern is that I've seen a number of sRGB "greyscale" images with
severe color tints. I don't believe all of them were intended to be
tinted. It's not so much a matter of saving space as it is of getting, and
showing, the intended result..
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert
On 19 Dec 2005 at 18:23, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> My concern is that I've seen a number of sRGB "greyscale" images with
> severe color tints. I don't believe all of them were intended to be
> tinted. It's not so much a matter of saving space as it is of getting, and
> showing, the intended resul
In a message dated 12/19/2005 2:23:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or, you could spend Christmas somewhere that they do have it, but your
neighbours aren't there, so you don't need to make them cookies.
=
LOL.
Good pt. Best laugh I've had this week.
Marnie aka Doe
Well, an interesting discussion. I've learned things.
One of the things I've learned is I ought to start making my own actions.
Marnie aka Doe :-)
Didn't say anything about remapping colors, Rob, I said "assumes". What
I meant by that is the browsers display photos as if they were sRGB no
matter what you saved them as. If you did not save them as sRGB they
will be misdisplayed. sRGB images look pretty much the same in my
browsers as they
On my monitor the two sRGB images are identical. The profiled profoto
image is darker. The unprofiled profoto image is washed out and
yellowish. Of course I am running color management on my system rather
than just in photoshop, and profoto is probably newer than my drivers.
Want to put up a cou
On Dec 20, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
(On Mac OS X, both the Safari and Internet Explorer browsers honor
profiles. Safari in particular does a very high quality job of
rendering JPEG images accurately.)
Mac IE will only do it so you tell it to... the relevant option is
off
On 19 Dec 2005 at 23:36, graywolf wrote:
> Didn't say anything about remapping colors, Rob, I said "assumes". What
> I meant by that is the browsers display photos as if they were sRGB no
> matter what you saved them as. If you did not save them as sRGB they
> will be misdisplayed. sRGB images
On Dec 20, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 at 17:12, graywolf wrote:
I believe that most of them assume sRGB.
I think you'll find that most of them simply don't care, web
authors assume
that the average desk-top calibration is a reasonable approximation
of sRGB, I
d
Shel,
Nearly all of the JPEGs I post have an embedded sRGB profile,
regardless of whether they are grayscale or RGB. Are any of them
tinted? They're not on my screen, but I don't know how they render on
your screen. I'd say that if they have a tint, something is likely
off in your monitor
On Dec 19, 2005, at 9:25 PM, David Mann wrote:
(On Mac OS X, both the Safari and Internet Explorer browsers honor
profiles. Safari in particular does a very high quality job of
rendering JPEG images accurately.)
Mac IE will only do it so you tell it to... the relevant option is
off by de
On 20 Dec 2005 at 16:39, Rob Studdert wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 at 23:36, graywolf wrote:
>
> > Didn't say anything about remapping colors, Rob, I said "assumes". What
> > I meant by that is the browsers display photos as if they were sRGB no
> > matter what you saved them as. If you did not save
On 19 Dec 2005 at 23:46, graywolf wrote:
> On my monitor the two sRGB images are identical. The profiled profoto
> image is darker. The unprofiled profoto image is washed out and
> yellowish. Of course I am running color management on my system rather
> than just in photoshop, and profoto is pr
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop B&W Converson Tones
I just made a screen dump to illustrate the above, I opened the two sRGB
files
in PS, the one with the embedded sRGB I let open using the embedded CS,
the one
without I appl
Yours don't, mine don't, Rob Studdert's don't, Juan Buhler's don't, many
others don't, but quite a few have. Sometimes the color cast is very
subtle, but it's noticeable.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Shel,
>
> Nearly all of the JPEGs I post have an embedded sRGB profi
In a message dated 12/19/2005 8:47:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On my monitor the two sRGB images are identical. The profiled profoto
image is darker. The unprofiled profoto image is washed out and
yellowish. Of course I am running color management on my system rather
In a message dated 12/19/2005 3:09:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Are you
familiar with the sharpening brush? Sharpening on layers? Both offer very
fine control. Experimenting with different approaches on a variety of
images will allow you to learn and know which method
In CS use the "R" or "Shift-R" (depending on how you have your preferences
set) key to toggle the Blur, Smudge, and Sharpen brushes.
Unlike unsharp mask, you can sharpen on a layer with the Sharpen Brush, and
you can fine tune the degree of sharpening in several ways. It offers far
more control t
I thought Windows shipped with Kodak's color management system, but I do
not find it on my current XP Pro system. It was certainly there in Win
98, but turned off by default. There is a color management option in my
video driver however and it is set to my calibrated monitor profile.
However t
On Dec 20, 2005, at 10:44 AM, graywolf wrote:
I thought Windows shipped with Kodak's color management system, but
I do not find it on my current XP Pro system. It was certainly
there in Win 98, but turned off by default. There is a color
management option in my video driver however and it
I don't even have to test that to know it is true. We seem to be talking
on different wave lengths.
All I said in response to your original post was that browsers do not
have to be color management savy because they assume all web images are
sRGB.
I also said that Photoshops "Save For Web" c
Addendum to my previous post, Photoshop sould be smart enough to assume
that an image without a profile is sRGB.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 19 Dec 200
The 's' in sRGB stands for 'small', not 'standard', referring to the small
gamut colorspace.
G
On 20 Dec 2005 at 13:44, graywolf wrote:
> I thought Windows shipped with Kodak's color management system, but I do
> not find it on my current XP Pro system. It was certainly there in Win
> 98, but turned off by default. There is a color management option in my
> video driver however and it is
On 20 Dec 2005 at 14:10, graywolf wrote:
> I don't even have to test that to know it is true. We seem to be talking
> on different wave lengths.
>
> All I said in response to your original post was that browsers do not
> have to be color management savy because they assume all web images are
>
On 20 Dec 2005 at 14:12, graywolf wrote:
> Addendum to my previous post, Photoshop sould be smart enough to assume
> that an image without a profile is sRGB.
It can be programmed to assume that an untagged image is assumed to be any CS
that is available on the local system. Lets say that you we
I'm actually learning quite a lot at a hell of a price!
Tom C.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB
I'm not out to appear adversarial, I just think that photographers will all
benefit given a better general understanding of how colour management
actually
works. I'm happy to be proven wrong
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshop B&W Converson Tones
Addendum to my previous post, Photoshop sould be smart enough to assume
that an image without a profile is sRGB.
An image with no profile is an un-colour managed image, and Photosh
On 20 Dec 2005 at 15:05, Tom C wrote:
> I'm actually learning quite a lot at a hell of a price!
Truthfully it's a bitch of a subject, there is so much misinformation to be
found on the web and in other publications that nutting it out from a practical
perspective is likely the best way to reall
In a message dated 12/20/2005 2:05:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS I have set the system to prompt me for a CS selection if no CS is embedded.
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
=
How is that done?
Marnie aka Doe
On Dec 21, 2005, at 8:12 AM, graywolf wrote:
Addendum to my previous post, Photoshop sould be smart enough to
assume that an image without a profile is sRGB.
There's a setting that tells Photoshop what to do in that situation.
Mine is set to ask me which profile to assign. This is handy bec
On Dec 21, 2005, at 9:10 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The 's' in sRGB stands for 'small', not 'standard', referring to
the small gamut colorspace.
I've also seen it referred to as "screen". The gamut of sRGB was
deliberately specified to match the phosphors used in th
standard RGB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space
>> The 's' in sRGB stands for 'small', not 'standard', referring to
>> the small gamut colorspace.
>
>I've also seen it referred to as "screen". The gamut of sRGB was
>deliberately specified to match the phosphors used in the majori
sRGB was an collaborative effort between HP and Microsoft from the
mid1990s. One of my friends was on that effort, and was in charge of
the naming work, and HE named it for "small gamut RGB". No matter
what wikipedia has to say about it, or even the official documents,
that is what it was n
On 20 Dec 2005 at 23:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 12/20/2005 2:05:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> PS I have set the system to prompt me for a CS selection if no CS is embedded.
> =
> How is that done?
In PS CS
Edit > Colour settings (or C
Very interesting.
I guess HP and MS sanitised the name to "standard" as there are several
references to that use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=sRGB&i=51922,00.asp
http://www.techterms.org/definition/srgb
Should we start a campaign
Of course. They wanted sRGB to be perceived as "the standard" so they
arranged the language to support that notion. A "standard" really
didn't exist until the IEC establishment of IEC 61966 in 1999-2000.
Creating the notion of a standard has been a strategy to promote
business interests for
On Dec 21, 2005, at 6:56 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote:
standard RGB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space
FWIW I don't trust Wikipedia to be authoritative... :)
- Dave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB_color_space
FWIW I don't trust Wikipedia to be authoritative... :)
- Dave
I don't either... for information I already believe I'm well informed on, I
find it to be pretty good. Putting trust in it though is another matter...
I don't even necessarially tru
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB (1996)
Well this document seems to support the notion that the "s" in sRGB is
for "standard".
>http://www.srgb.com/srgbcolorspacepaper.pdf (1999)
This one doesn't seem to lean either way.
--
Mark Roberts
Pho
See the rest of the comments on this topic in this thread.
Godfrey
On Dec 22, 2005, at 4:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB (1996)
Well this document seems to support the notion that the "s" in sRGB is
for "standard"
88 matches
Mail list logo
