Pictures look different when uploaded.

[Bish]

I only noticed this last night but all the images I have uploaded to Fliclr differ very slightly to when viewed in Photoshop. The difference is minimal but it's certainly noticeable particularly on blue Sky's. The original looks more vibrant and the blue on those uploaded have a slightly purple tint to them.

At first I thought it might have been an issue with Flickr but the result is the same if I use my own webspace.

Would this have anything to do with colour profiles?

[edit]
If viewed in windows explorer or IE they also look different to Photoshop.

[PaulDCocker]

Yes, are you shooting in AdobeRGB or prophoto - as when viewed on the web they will only be in sRGB (less range)

I shoot in AdobeRGB for greater gamut range and you can print in that, but the web will still will view in sRGB

[puddleduck]

Much easier to just shoot sRGB.

This topic comes up twice a month without fail, and its always due to displaying AdobeRGB images in sRGB.

Given almost the whole world uses sRGB from printers to web, there is no good reason to shoot AdobeRGB unless a) your publisher asks for it b) Your printer asks for it, or has the appropriate profiles.

If you shoot in raw, the colourspace makes no differences to the colours captured.

[jec]

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

Has a handy bookmarklet on the right hand side that you can use to check the colour space of photos on the web. It gives a warning when no colour space or something other than sRGB is found.

[Bish]

I do shoot in RAW and prior to that I did make sure the camera settings were sRGB not AdobeRGB. Is there anything to check in Photoshop itself?

Looking at the colour settings in CS3 the workspace is sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Thanks for the link jec, it is in fact giving me the wearning below. Where can I change this setting?

WARNING: Embedded color profile: “AdobeRGB”
All Windows web browsers (except Safari) and many Mac web browsers ignore an embedded color profile, meaning users of those browsers will see the wrong colors for this image.

Here's an example of the difference.

http://home.freeuk.com/paulbish/test.jpg

edit
OK I've found out how to convert a single image to sRGB from Adobe by going to Edit - Assign Profile but where would the settings be so that all images are treated as sRGB?

Reading the Photoshop help files I've found this "When working with images that have an embedded color profile other than sRGB, you should convert the image’s colors to sRGB before you save the image for use on the web." So it looks like my images are embedded as AdobeRGB, I'm shooting RAW and checking the menu on my camera it does say sRGB. So how are the images embedded as AdobeRGB. Ahhh Is it when I process the files from RAW using CS3?

[PaulDCocker]

edit
OK I've found out how to convert a single image to sRGB from Adobe by going to Edit - Assign Profile but where would the settings be so that all images are treated as sRGB?

Open Photoshop - and without opening any image go to edit/colour settings and change your working space RGB setting to sRGB

And yes you can alter the settings in camera raw too so check there: change it by clicking on the image settings hyperlink below the actual image in blue very hard to find tbh

[Bish]

Ok a fresh post as I'm starting to confuse myself:D

In "Camera RAW" when I load an image it says "Adobe RGB 8bit etc" so if I want to use sRGB I can change it then. Should I leave it as 8bit or change that to 16bit? I'm sure I read somewhere about 16bit being best.

Does "Camera RAW" load images as Adobe RGB by default?

edit
Looks like you posted while I was typing Paul. The colour settings in CS3 are already set to sRGB so I'm guessing it was because they were already embedded as AdobeRGB when I processed them in Camera Raw.

[PaulDCocker]

Ok a fresh post as I'm starting to confuse myself:D

In "Camera RAW" when I load an image it says "Adobe RGB 8bit etc" so if I want to use sRGB I can change it then. Should I leave it as 8bit or change that to 16bit? I'm sure I rad somewhere about 16bit being best.

Does "Camera RAW" load images as Adobe RGB by default?

As far as I am aware it uses the working space selected in photoshop under the heading edit>working space>RGB.

You can also tell photoshop to convert everything to sRGB automatically when it opens though I don't like that option.

I use lightroom - and that comment just reminded me to send you that tutorial! :nuts:

[puddleduck]

I do shoot in RAW and prior to that I did make sure the camera settings were sRGB not AdobeRGB. Is there anything to check in Photoshop itself?

OK, that'll be Photoshop doing its stuff. You can get ACR to import as 16-bit, thats definatelely the way to go here, although to output as JPEG you'll be outputting as 8-bit down the line. There is no point selecting Adobe in ACR, as most monitors are caliberated to the sRGB colourspace (unless you have caliberated your monitor to Adobe, stick to sRGB)

I am a JPEG shooter at heart, so I don't have this colourspace faff :nuts:

Its worth shooting a JPEG as well as a raw, you might be able to how far out of whack your Adobe based workflow is - the JPEG shot in sRGB gives a good reference baseline.

[Bish]

Thanks everyone, I'm sorted now :)

[DeadKenny]

Much easier to just shoot sRGB.

This topic comes up twice a month without fail, and its always due to displaying AdobeRGB images in sRGB.

Given almost the whole world uses sRGB from printers to web, there is no good reason to shoot AdobeRGB unless a) your publisher asks for it b) Your printer asks for it, or has the appropriate profiles.
First problem with sRGB is it is a heavily cropped colourspace. If you ever decide you want a decent print from a decent lab instead of your average holiday snapshot photo lab, you're screwed because you've shot and/or edited for a limited colourspace.

Second problem is though devices use sRGB they are not calibrated the same. Seeing an sRGB image on your monitor doesn't mean it will look the same on a printer or another person's monitor. Essentially sRGB is just as useless unless the entire world calibrates properly... and they don't.

Even if I shoot in sRGB and edit in sRGB I still find a photo on my calibrated monitor looks different to my uncalibrated laptop which looks different again to my monitor at work (which is in a bright environment). Work's monitor is the worst as all my photos look far too dark :(.


If you shoot in raw, the colourspace makes no differences to the colours captured.
True. The colourspace you edit in is important however. If you edit for sRGB and then suddenly have a requirement to print in a wider space you really need to go back to the raw and start again. If you edit in a wider space you at least can convert by perceptual intent to a smaller space which will try to approximate the wider, whilst preserving the edits for decent quality print.


The real problem is the web and lack of calibration. Biggest frustration for me is seeing my photos on another monitor and they don't look right (and that's even when they're in sRGB). At least with the old days of real photos you could have a print and know it looks how you want.

[puddleduck]

I thinks it far to say your colourspace issues are rather unique DK :)

This is a very good link:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

And Ken talks a lot of sense here:

"Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.

sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. "

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

[DeadKenny]

"Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time. "
Don't entirely agree with him there. They theoretically look the same everywhere but sRGB doesn't mean they'll look great, and still calibration is the biggest problem. Crap calibration means crap photos even if it's sRGB.

I don't believe that using the worst colourspace because it's the default is the right thing to do when the camera offers so much more, especially if you think in the future you may want a quality large print. Also I believe that monitors will start to move towards wide colourspaces. That's already happening with HD TVs. It seems daft to have an expensive DSLR with ever increasing dynamic range performance and just clip it all with sRGB.


My real issue though with digital is that I feel there's just no point putting effort into making your photos look stunning if a different monitor or PC renders those efforts dull and flat, and that's regardless of whether it's sRGB or not. I just don't feel sRGB is the magic solution to this problem because one sRGB device is not the same as another.

[puddleduck]

I don't believe that using the worst colourspace because it's the default is the right thing to do when the camera offers so much more,

Its not "worst" - sorry but you are totally of base here.

For skintones for example, sRGB is the way to go. In many cases, Adobe is flat out inappropriate.

I firmly believe unless you have a very good reason not to shoot sRGB you should do - whats the point in Pp'ing in a colourspace few monitors or printers use by defaults? Where's the gain? In fact - SHOW me the gain.. you can't cos I'm sRGB caliberated ;)

I don't buy the "futureproofing" thing at all, as you are likely to need a profile for new future models (which is why Windows allows you to use monitor specific profiles) - unless you can predict the future, its better to stick to what works well in the present, and like it or not thats sRGB.