Thru the Trees
Photo Information
Ullswater, Lake District.
K-5, DA 16-45, hand-held
K-5, DA 16-45, hand-held
07/12/2012 - 22:25davidstorm
CategoryLandscape / Travel
LensN/A
ISO100
Focal Length18mm
Views/Likes166/0
Link
Posted 08/12/2012 - 10:10
A lovely restful shot - nice mist and reflection.
Link
Posted 08/12/2012 - 16:09
Nice restful composition, with a touch of red for good measure!
Was the grass really that lush green? Perhaps it was. I ask because I was getting similar a grass greens when processing through Adobe Camera Raw, until I applied a custom camera profile.
Looking again, the green seems to become lusher when the photo is viewed large, as if a different profile is being applied to the large gallery view. Anyone else see this? I can't say I notice this happen to other photos in the gallery. Did you upload as sRGB, or was it Adobe or ProPhoto RGB?
Was the grass really that lush green? Perhaps it was. I ask because I was getting similar a grass greens when processing through Adobe Camera Raw, until I applied a custom camera profile.
Looking again, the green seems to become lusher when the photo is viewed large, as if a different profile is being applied to the large gallery view. Anyone else see this? I can't say I notice this happen to other photos in the gallery. Did you upload as sRGB, or was it Adobe or ProPhoto RGB?
Last Edited by WaypointCharlie on 08/12/2012 - 16:26
Link
Posted 08/12/2012 - 18:18
WaypointCharlie wrote:
Nice restful composition, with a touch of red for good measure!
Was the grass really that lush green? Perhaps it was. I ask because I was getting similar a grass greens when processing through Adobe Camera Raw, until I applied a custom camera profile.
Looking again, the green seems to become lusher when the photo is viewed large, as if a different profile is being applied to the large gallery view. Anyone else see this? I can't say I notice this happen to other photos in the gallery. Did you upload as sRGB, or was it Adobe or ProPhoto RGB?
Nice restful composition, with a touch of red for good measure!
Was the grass really that lush green? Perhaps it was. I ask because I was getting similar a grass greens when processing through Adobe Camera Raw, until I applied a custom camera profile.
Looking again, the green seems to become lusher when the photo is viewed large, as if a different profile is being applied to the large gallery view. Anyone else see this? I can't say I notice this happen to other photos in the gallery. Did you upload as sRGB, or was it Adobe or ProPhoto RGB?
I always process my images as sRGB. I also adjust the colour saturation in the greens within all my images to be sure that the grass is as true to the colour I was seeing as I can possibly make it (this is done by reducing the yellow saturation). When this shot was taken it was very early in the morning and the light was quite dim and soft. This has the effect of enhancing saturation in colours.
I hope this makes sense, in a nutshell the grass looks like it did when I was there!
Cheers
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Last Edited by davidstorm on 08/12/2012 - 18:18
Link
Posted 08/12/2012 - 18:53
Thanks David.
What I'm finding is that your photo appears a lot more satuarated (particularly noticeable in the greens) when viewed on the Gallery large page. I don't notice such an effect with other photos in the Gallery.
For me there's a huge difference between your photo viewed normal and viewed large. Is there for you? Compare these links..
Gallery Normal
Gallery Large
I suspect it's a profiling issue somewhere, perhaps related to my wide gamut monitor profile, and therefore may not show up for everyone. I'm using Firefox as my browser with colour management enabled.
What I'm finding is that your photo appears a lot more satuarated (particularly noticeable in the greens) when viewed on the Gallery large page. I don't notice such an effect with other photos in the Gallery.
For me there's a huge difference between your photo viewed normal and viewed large. Is there for you? Compare these links..
Gallery Normal
Gallery Large
I suspect it's a profiling issue somewhere, perhaps related to my wide gamut monitor profile, and therefore may not show up for everyone. I'm using Firefox as my browser with colour management enabled.
Link
Posted 08/12/2012 - 22:05
I'm not seeing much of a difference on my monitor? The only thing I can think is that the compression applied to the normal size view is affecting the colour depth? I have noticed previously that images lose some vibrancy and contrast when uploaded to the Gallery, presumably as a result of compression.
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Link
Posted 09/12/2012 - 11:21
I've had a look at your recent gallery photos. For some reason it appears that your large Gallery photos have an Adobe RGB (1998 ) embedded colour profile attached whereas large Gallery photos uploaded by other people do not. Normal sized Gallery images do not seem to have an attached profile so presumably default to sRGB. Your photos appear how I'd expect the colours to look when I view them in the Gallery normal size.
I'm pretty sure it's the attached Adobe RGB profile that is the cause of the odd colours I see in the large view. It's as if the image data is in sRGB space but with an attached Adobe RGB profile (thus making photos appear more saturated than intended). Are you certain you're not uploading files with attached Adobe RGB profiles?
Whilst there may be some apparent loss in contrast and vibrancy when photos are uploaded to the Gallery I think that maybe the visual effect of the scaling down. Checking one of my uploads the pixel values seem to be correct, although it would be more scientific with a test pattern.
I apologise if this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion but I'm sure you'd like us all to be able to view your photos as you intended.
(P.S. I've just had a look on my wife's ancient PC which isn't colour managed and the normal and large Gallery images look the same colour. I think it may be only colour managed systems which pick up on the Adobe RGB profile in the large image and display the oversaturated colours)
I'm pretty sure it's the attached Adobe RGB profile that is the cause of the odd colours I see in the large view. It's as if the image data is in sRGB space but with an attached Adobe RGB profile (thus making photos appear more saturated than intended). Are you certain you're not uploading files with attached Adobe RGB profiles?
Whilst there may be some apparent loss in contrast and vibrancy when photos are uploaded to the Gallery I think that maybe the visual effect of the scaling down. Checking one of my uploads the pixel values seem to be correct, although it would be more scientific with a test pattern.
I apologise if this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion but I'm sure you'd like us all to be able to view your photos as you intended.
(P.S. I've just had a look on my wife's ancient PC which isn't colour managed and the normal and large Gallery images look the same colour. I think it may be only colour managed systems which pick up on the Adobe RGB profile in the large image and display the oversaturated colours)
Last Edited by WaypointCharlie on 09/12/2012 - 11:35
Link
Posted 09/12/2012 - 14:21
That's really odd. I do process the images in Photoshop, but always with the colour settings on 'sRGB'. I do not use Adobe RGB at all! The only thing I can think is that Photoshop is embedding something that I was unaware of?
Can anyone else make any suggestions?
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Can anyone else make any suggestions?
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Link
Posted 09/12/2012 - 15:14
As you say, that is odd.
Are you sure you're processing in Adobe Camera Raw in sRGB and not Adobe RGB (status line at the bottom in ACR). As you are probably aware, when moving from ACR into Photoshop the ACR colour profile can override your default Photoshop working space - you may not be prompted about this (depends on your Color Settings in PS). As you are also probably aware, you can check your current document profile - it's one of the status options in the info panel in PS.
When you save from PS in JPEG format, is the ICC Profile set to sRGB?
On the loss of colour and vibrancy you notice when viewing your photos in the Gallery, are you using a monitor profile for your display? I ask because I know colours are way out for me if I view photos through a browser that doesn't recognise monitor profiles. Internet Explorer 9 colour management doesn't support monitor profiles. Whilst Firefox does support monitor profiles the default settings don't enable colour management (or at least, they used not to), so you either have to delve into config or install the Color Management add-on. Of course, you may be using a Mac, in which case I guess things just work!
Incidentally, I downloaded your 'Thru the Trees' photo and loaded it into PS in Adobe RGB space. I then proofed in sRGB, preserving the RGB numbers. It looks correct now, confirming that the pixel numbers are right for sRGB. Therefore people without a colour managed system won't understand what all the fuss is about!
Are you sure you're processing in Adobe Camera Raw in sRGB and not Adobe RGB (status line at the bottom in ACR). As you are probably aware, when moving from ACR into Photoshop the ACR colour profile can override your default Photoshop working space - you may not be prompted about this (depends on your Color Settings in PS). As you are also probably aware, you can check your current document profile - it's one of the status options in the info panel in PS.
When you save from PS in JPEG format, is the ICC Profile set to sRGB?
On the loss of colour and vibrancy you notice when viewing your photos in the Gallery, are you using a monitor profile for your display? I ask because I know colours are way out for me if I view photos through a browser that doesn't recognise monitor profiles. Internet Explorer 9 colour management doesn't support monitor profiles. Whilst Firefox does support monitor profiles the default settings don't enable colour management (or at least, they used not to), so you either have to delve into config or install the Color Management add-on. Of course, you may be using a Mac, in which case I guess things just work!
Incidentally, I downloaded your 'Thru the Trees' photo and loaded it into PS in Adobe RGB space. I then proofed in sRGB, preserving the RGB numbers. It looks correct now, confirming that the pixel numbers are right for sRGB. Therefore people without a colour managed system won't understand what all the fuss is about!
Last Edited by WaypointCharlie on 09/12/2012 - 15:19
Link
Posted 09/12/2012 - 17:24
WaypointCharlie wrote:
Are you sure you're processing in Adobe Camera Raw in sRGB and not Adobe RGB (status line at the bottom in ACR).
Are you sure you're processing in Adobe Camera Raw in sRGB and not Adobe RGB (status line at the bottom in ACR).
Thanks for the info, it was the setting in Adobe Camera RAW that was the problem! I never even noticed it was set to Adobe RGB, so I've now amended this to sRGB and hopefully all will be well.
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Link
Posted 09/12/2012 - 18:01
Great, I'm glad that's cleared up and it wasn't just me cracking up.
It's a bit odd that the normal sized Gallery image doesn't attach the Adobe RGB profile but the large sized Gallery image does. Perhaps something for the site administrators. Perhaps the rule is to upload sRGB only.
I'm now wondering if the large image, which appears to me more saturated (particlarly in greens), is the way you intend, rather than colours in the normal size image. If your system isn't colour managed this may cause that loss of vibrancy you mention when you've uploaded an Adobe RGB profiled file (the RGB pixel values would be lower than required for viewing as sRGB). It would be interesting if you used the PS Edit> Convert to Profile to convert to sRGB and upload 'Tru the Trees' again, this time as sRGB. See how it changes the look for us. I notice that some of the greens are so saturated in Adobe RGB that they'd be out of gamut for sRGB.
Personally I now prefer to edit in Adobe or even ProPhoto RGB in the (possibly mistaken belief) that it gives me more control over how out of gamut colours are handled. I only convert to sRGB at the end. Danger of course is forgetting that final conversion!
It's a bit odd that the normal sized Gallery image doesn't attach the Adobe RGB profile but the large sized Gallery image does. Perhaps something for the site administrators. Perhaps the rule is to upload sRGB only.
I'm now wondering if the large image, which appears to me more saturated (particlarly in greens), is the way you intend, rather than colours in the normal size image. If your system isn't colour managed this may cause that loss of vibrancy you mention when you've uploaded an Adobe RGB profiled file (the RGB pixel values would be lower than required for viewing as sRGB). It would be interesting if you used the PS Edit> Convert to Profile to convert to sRGB and upload 'Tru the Trees' again, this time as sRGB. See how it changes the look for us. I notice that some of the greens are so saturated in Adobe RGB that they'd be out of gamut for sRGB.
Personally I now prefer to edit in Adobe or even ProPhoto RGB in the (possibly mistaken belief) that it gives me more control over how out of gamut colours are handled. I only convert to sRGB at the end. Danger of course is forgetting that final conversion!
Last Edited by WaypointCharlie on 09/12/2012 - 18:21
Link
Posted 11/12/2012 - 06:12
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
captainbert
10 yearsMember
'Second in command washer upper at el Button Moon Rocket'