Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

[SI] Low Light

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Beach Bum - 30 Jan 2006 04:07 GMT
This project taught me an interesting lesson in web color space.

This is the same image I submitted to the shoot-in, but this version was
converted to sRGB in Photoshop.  The one in the Low Light gallery was saved
with Adobe RGB.

http://marklauter.com/gallery/MiscColor/LowLight_001

I hadn't realized the difference would be so severe until looking at the
difference between images as they appeared in Photoshop and in IE.  Lesson
learned.

I'll comment on everyone's photos in a couple days when I have more time.

Signature

Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

MoioM - 30 Jan 2006 09:04 GMT
: I hadn't realized the difference would be so severe until looking at the
: difference between images as they appeared in Photoshop and in IE.  Lesson
: learned.
:
: I'll comment on everyone's photos in a couple days when I have more time.

The important point here Mark, is to consider all those people who told you
to use Adobe RGB really didn't know much about what they were talking about.
Television screens (Computer monitors) cannot see the entire Adobe RGB space
anyway. Web browsers won't render that colour space. In fact Fuji Frontier
photo printers won't render Adobe RGB. They default back to sRGB.

Neither will any colour laser printers - even the big poster size laser
printers. Adobe RGB is a traditional printing industry colour space and
although it has some use in Photography, sRGB is the universal language of
photography. JPG is the universal language of photography storage too. Die
hard traditionalists with roots buried deep in the print industry all refuse
to believe what every digital camera maker in world has been telling them
for over a decade. At least you now know and that gives you an advantage
next time.
Ken Chandler - 30 Jan 2006 13:01 GMT
> The important point here Mark, is to consider all those people who told you
> to use Adobe RGB really didn't know much about what they were talking about.

Adobe RGB is a perfectly suitable working space for the vast majority.

> Television screens (Computer monitors) cannot see the entire Adobe RGB space
> anyway.

True of most computer displays, but many also produce/see a lot more than
sRGB.

> Web browsers won't render that colour space.

Web browsers will not display images tagged with Adobe RGB as intended as
they are not ICC aware.  Save an Adobe RGB tagged image from a browser
window and open it in Photoshop, the colors still there as intended.

> In fact Fuji Frontier
> photo printers won't render Adobe RGB. They default back to sRGB.

There is a signiicant difference between "won't" and "default".

> Neither will any colour laser printers - even the big poster size laser
> printers.

If one is sending Adobe RGB images to a printer, laser, ink or otherwise it
is up to the application or the CMS to handle the ICC profile of the image.
A large format laser will accept an image tagged with any profile.  The
application or that is sending the file or the CMS is responsible for the
color transform, lets use Photoshop as an example ... Working space "Adobe
RGB", print space "Really Big Laser Printers CMYK ICC profile" .. presto the
laser eats Adobe RGB.

> Adobe RGB is a traditional printing industry colour space

Traditional printing industry like Heidelberg, Roland and Komori?

> and
> although it has some use in Photography, sRGB is the universal language of
> photography.

sRGB has it's place for web delivery of images for viewing inside non-ICC
aware applications like browsers.

sRGB would not be my working space of choice, the gamut is too restrictive
and you are posing limits on your photos that do not need to be there.  This
is my opinion, I'm always interested in others views.

> JPG is the universal language of photography storage too.

JPG is lossy.  Storage is relatively inexpensive.  IMO save your RAWs, keep
your edits in a TIFF.  Personally I also keep the Photoshop PSD too ...
complete with adjustment layers.  It's interesting to go back to an old edit
and see how much I've learned since.

> Die
> hard traditionalists with roots buried deep in the print industry all refuse
> to believe what every digital camera maker in world has been telling them
> for over a decade. At least you now know and that gives you an advantage
> next time.

What are digital camera makers telling the die-hard traditionalists?

KC
Beach Bum - 31 Jan 2006 01:11 GMT
> JPG is lossy.  Storage is relatively inexpensive.  IMO save your RAWs, keep
> your edits in a TIFF.  Personally I also keep the Photoshop PSD too ...
> complete with adjustment layers.  It's interesting to go back to an old edit
> and see how much I've learned since.

Agreed.  I like to be able to go back to the PSD and make adjustments.  RAW
converted to TIFF and mods changed as PSD and exported to JPG for the web.
Only now I also convert to sRGB before saving to JPG. :)

Adobe RGB is a better workspace IMO.

Signature

Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com/gallery

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.