WYSIWYG for web photos

  • Thread starter Thread starter bms44974
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bms44974

Guest
I have just started using an HP LP2475w monitor to process my photos. I have used Spyder3 to calibrat it to 65''K with gamma of 2.2. When I looked at some of the photos I'd posted on PBase in the past I noticed that they were very much over saturated. So much for doing photo editing on a laptop.

I thought that editing on the new monitor would clear everything up. I am happy to report that it made a big difference, but I am still having color issues. Here is a screen capture example:
original.jpg

The top left is Windows Previewer (not color managed), the bottom left is Paint Shop Pro X2 (color managed), and LR2.2 on the right. The images on the left are identical as far as I can tell. Both are somewhat bluer and more saturated than LR. Here is a side-by-side in LR before and after export:
original.jpg

Not quite so noticeable in this image, but certainly more saturated on the right. The image was exported with sRGB color space and full metadata. I would love to be able to export and see on the web what I saw in LR. Any suggestions?

Thanks... Brian
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
This doesn't make complete sense to me. If PSP is color-managed and if the file has an embedded profile, PSP should look like Lightroom, not like Windows Previewer.

So either PSP isn't color-managed, or the file displayed by PSP doesn't have a profile. Or there's something else I'm not understanding.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The jpg file exported from LR has embedded sRBG profile. The exported image looks the same (or at least close enough for me) in all three applications. I assume this is because my monitor is calibrated to sRGB. What it doesn't look like is the image I editted in LR before the export. Hope this is clearer.

Thanks...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, Now I'm confused... I went through the process again and now the exported image in LR looks like the pre-export version in LR. I verified, PSP is color managed and displaying what it believes is sRGB. I double checked and the file has sRBG embedded. I guess the question is how do I get LR to let me edit my RAW files as they will appear in sRGB?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK... Now I learn from another source that the feature I am trying to implement in LR is not there. Turns out the name for what I want to do is called "Soft Proofing" and it is a feature that requires export from LR to another software product, namely Photoshop. Adobe marketing evidently believes that if they don't deliver a much-requested feature in LR, that people will shell out another $7'' to get the job finished. I'll try to get it done in Paint Shop Pro X2 ($89.99 at Corel.com).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Brian, you can place a feature request for soft-proofing using the link in the nav bar above. It is much asked for and I'm sure will happen at some point.
We try to keep comments about Adobe as positive ones, I have no idea what the marketing department has as policy or even what they do, do you?
The simple fact is that there is only so much that can be done by the LR engineering team with the resources available. We each have differing priorities.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mark, The original question had to do primarily with the unexpected (yes, I'm a newbie) and sometimes drastic difference between what I saw in LR and what I (and everyone else) saw when I posted my pictures to the web. I purchased LR (and new monitor and calibration system) thinking that it would allow me to publish on the web (and in print) what I saw while editing the image. I'd educated myself on color space and calibrated my monitor. I started this thread when I still couldn't get the image as it appeared in LR to show up on the web without adjusting the color again in another program. I discovered, too late, that this is something LR apparently can not do. I have a work-around planned and have submitted an official Feature/Bug Request form and added a thread to the Features Request forum.

Geoff, I appologize for my previous post. It came off a little strong and I should have cooled down before writing it. I do take issue with your statement that we limit our remarks to positive ones. Progress is predicated on our dissatisfaction with and desire to improve on the present. LR, like all software, has room for improvement.

Kind regards...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for clarifying, Brian, but I don't think your problem is caused by Lightroom's lack of soft proofing. This isn't a problem of out-of-gamut colors, which is what soft proofing would reveal. I say that because the images shown outside of Lightroom are more saturated than Lightroom's rendition, not less, and they are universally shifted rather than simply clipped.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mark, GOOD POINT! When I export, I also reduce the size of the image. Perhaps it has something to do with pixel averaging during the reduction process. I've just tried exporting without reducing the size and it certainly looks better. This test was performed on my laptop so I can't positively say that this is solves the problem. I will have to verify on the calibrated monitor when I get to work and I will post results later today.

Thanks... Brian
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am also a newbie (I've only been using Lightroom for a few days now!) and I'm having exactly the same problem.

I shoot RAW, and edited on a 64-Vista workstation with a decent, although only visually-calibrated, monitor. Lightroom's colorspace was ProPhoto, I think, because I didn't know any better, when I edited the photos.

I published to some personal web space and viewed with Firefox 3, with color correction turned off. Suddenly it looked like my sister's new baby was born with a sunburn! Strangely, turning the browser's color correction on didn't seem to correct the problem.

Also, switching to sRGB in Lightroom and re-publishing also didn't fix it. I am very keen to hear if Brian is able to overcome the issue!

Doug
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tests are completed and a workaround has been found. I can now get a JPG file that looks like the image I editted in LR! I can't quite explain how, but it works for me. Perhaps the experts can help me understand why.

1) export the image as JPG (or TIFF) using "AdobeRGB (1998)" as the targetted color space.

2) Open Paint Shop Pro X2 and make sure that File>Color Management>Color Working Space is set to sRGB as the working space profile and that the "Ignore embedded profiles" is checked. You only need to do this once and these settings are retained until you change them. I believe PSPXI also has color management capabilities.

3) Open the exported JPG in PSPX2.

4) Save the JPG. You can do a Save As... to save it under a different name or Save to replace the version originally exported.

5) There are no more steps! YOU'RE DONE.

This process works regardless of whether or not you change the image size when you export from LR. I have added PSPX2 as my "After Export" application to simplify things.

Thanks to all who provided feedback.

Cheers...

P.S. It's interesting what the forum editor did with the 8 and the ) in the first step!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You have to open, then save, every pic you want to publish in another program one at a time? That's way too much work.

Also, how on Earth did you know to use that colorspace in step 1?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I found the color space by trial and error. There are only three available in the export dialog. Likewise with the PSPX2 Color Working Space options. I haven't tried batching, but it is certainly possible. Batch exports in LR, but don't invoke PSPX2 at the end. Then use the batch engine in PSPX2 to load and save.

Cheers...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Before is what comes from LR export.
The After is the result of opening it in PSPX2 and saving.

The greens look different in Windows Picture viewer. The Before is more vibrant/saturated than the After version. I have opened them in Internet Explorer and the colors look the same (and less vibrant as intended), but there is clipping in the Before that doesn't appear in the After.

Please let me know if you find an explanation.

Thanks...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Reread your message and noticed that you wanted the JPG from LR as sRGB. Here it is. I have attached the After again for ease of comparison. The sRBG from LR is more saturated than intended.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I figured out how to get them from the forum; the URL of the photo confused me.

I can't explain this. They both end up with proper sRGB profiles as expected, and are clearly different, and not just in the highly saturated areas. You can clearly see more red throughout in the LR version (visible in the tabletop and the gray of the engines, for example).

Time to go home now, I'll give this more thought...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
After further thought overnight, I think I understand this.

Your Adobe RGB and sRGB files out of Lightroom look nearly identical, as expected, in a color-managed environment.

Bringing the Adobe RGB file into PSP and ignoring the embedded profile, then saving as sRGB, is naturally going to change the color. In general, it will desaturate, which is what is happening here. You're basically just lying to downstream applications about the color space. The effect is similar to viewing an Adobe RGB file in an unmanaged environment, which is something we get questions about all the time.

What I'm unsure about now is whether LR looks just like the sRGB/Adobe RGB files it exports (when you view those exported files in a color-managed environment). Initially you said they didn't look the same, but a couple of posts later you corrected that. If LR doesn't look like the exported files, then there's something I still don't understand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mark,

As I noted with my first Before/After pair above, the JPGs look the same in IE. They do look different in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer. I was under the impression that neither was color-managed, but I could be wrong. Applying what you just said, IE appears to be unmanaged and WPFV is undermanaged.:)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Could be that WPFV is "undermanaged". I don't have Windows, so I can't test.

There are multiple ways that a photo can be tagged with a color profile -- they can have EXIF/DCF tags, they can have an embedded ICC profile, both, or neither.

I actually just tested some stuff for this yesterday for another purpose.

Firefox will honor embedded profiles, but ignores the EXIF/DCF tags. If there is no embedded profile, it assumes sRGB. Safari and other MacOS X tools (at least in MacOS 1'.4.x) honor embedded profiles, but ignore EXIF/DCF tags, and treat files with no embedded profile as unmanaged.

The files out of Lightroom have embedded profiles, but no EXIF/DCF tags. Your files out of PSP have both. JPEGs straight out of every camera I've tested have EXIF/DCF tags, but no embedded profile.

So it's a wild world out there...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top