If only........

In the same vein as George's original post, I'm going to stick my head over the parapet. I've put a few of the photos that I am reasonably happy with here:

http://www.ammonyte.plus.com/galleries/showcase/index.html

Just remember that I am an insecure 600 pound gorilla who bears grudges!

Luckily I'm 700 pounds, and not a gorilla.

It seems to me that the quality of conception/composition, etc., rather outweighs the technical quality. The pics are PNG rather than JPEG, and for PNG they are quite small. It would be nice to see some larger JPEGs where the quality had not been compromised.

For display on the web, PNG is not usually a very good choice. It's a format that doesn't compress well, and for that reason is seldom seen. Why did you use it?

Sorry if this sounds a bit negative, but I don't think you are doing yourself justice with your choice of file type.

G

Not at all George, that's the type of feedback I need!

Why PNG? well I had been given some "advice" that it was a better format to use for the web than JPG. I'll find the original RAW and TIFF files and produce some JPG's.

Phew, I'm actually a seven-stone weakling.

You should ask your adviser to explain why, when PNG has been available for many years, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% (and more) of all pictures posted on the web are in JPEG format.

If he advises you to buy some shares, sell them fast.

G

I think he said "buy shares in Enron and Delorean" and "all cars will be powered by snake-oil"

Attempt #2 http://www.ammonyte.plus.com/galleries/showcase/index.html

I'm off for a wee dram of Edradour!

Did you have your dram too soon? These still seem to be PNGs.

G

George, you may have to press the F5 key to refresh your browser - it may be cacheing the files from your previous visit.

Of course! These are better, but I wonder if your monitor and mine are calibrated differently. The pictures seem to lack punch. Perhaps somebody who is more technically adept than me can analyse the problem.

This is getting in the way of enjoying the pictures.

G

George,

You just put your finger on one of my problems. I shoot in RAW and process with Rawshooter Premium, and they do look punchy. But something goes wonko in the conversion to JPG or TIF. I usually convert to TIF first for final fettling in Photoshop Elements, then convert to JPG only those pictures for web or email. (And I try and keep JPG at "max quality" unless there is a compelling reason for a smaller file size)

Perhaps some clever members have some tips for keeping the JPG and TIF files from losing their "bite" please?

are you using srgb? I run a mac and have color calibration set-up. I present multimedia dvd's to my clientel and have a crt, lcd monitor as well as 21 inch tv and 15" lcd tv, in order to verify my discs. Png seems to be an apple happy format that is adopted standard for web and should look fine on any browser. Not as popular as jpeg, but had it's following with many web developers.

PNG is not responsible for the quality issue. It's a bad web choice because it doesn't compress nearly as well as JPEG.

G

I'm a bit hazy as to exactly what colo(u)r profiles do.

My assumption (please correct me) is that a monitor cannot display colours the way that they will appear on a print, and that the colour profiles adjust the monitors rendering of colour so that it (should) match the print out.

My monitor is a Dell M911 (a CRT) on an NVIDIA GEFORCE2 MX/MX400 video card, and in Rawshooter I have been using the Dell M991 working space and setting the camera profile to "Pentax *ist DS | ETC-V100" (one of the color engine addons).

In APSE the options are only SRGB or Adobe RGB. Most of the time I am pushed to see any differences; the main change came when I removed the profile from the Newlands corner sunset picture, which brought up the reds and oranges more.

I bet you'll telll me now that there was a whole thread devoted to this issue a while back!

You should be working in the same colour space throughout as much as possible. sRGB and Adobe RGB are the only ones you need to think about. My advice is choose one and stick with it. sRGB is the standard for monitors and web use and will give brighter colours. Adobe RGB has a wider gamut (can reproduce more colours) but will give prints with slightly less sparkle.

I use sRGB (always the simple life!) and make the best of that.

Ammonyte,
If I were you, I'd hop over to www.praxisoft.com and download the free WiziWYG. This will allow you to get your monitor near enough calibrated by eye.
(Uninstall Adobe Gamma, or remove it from the Programs/Startup group and reboot).

Hints:
* Squint hard when setting the R/G/B gamma settings
* Think you might need to pick "Generic Trinitron" (can't remember if the M911 is Trinitron/Diamondtron - it should say on the front if it is)
* Choose white point - D65
* Choose Gamma 2.2
* Name the profile and make it your system profile

That should get your monitor near enough to sRGB for most things.
PSE will then use that for display.

When you save for email/web, resize the image, sharpen and then use the menu option "File / Save for Web". This will allow you to optimize the JPG.

However, if you work in AdobeRGB, you must convert to sRGB before you save for web, otherwise the colours go washed out.
Check out: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/elements-color-management.html

There are ways around it, but PSE4 addresses the issues and allows conversion

Hope that helps!
Matt

Thanks for the tips guys, there's enough fettling there to keep me out of trouble for a few hours! I'll try Matts' tips then go back to the RAW files and do some new processing. I may just add them to the gallery for a before and after comparison.


Thinking about it afterwards, the clue was in the camera much of the time - the camera is set to use sRGB, ergo, continue to use sRGB. Doh!!