JPEG Question

[curtiswheat]

Is it my imagination or what? I have been using lightroom for a little bit now and my photos look great. But when i convert to JPEG and then look at them online they seem to get darker? Is this common with JPEG?

[Sebastian]

Darker? Often images appear darker when they're placed against a bright background, such as white like here.

If you also see a color shift, then you may need to change your export settings to convert to sRGB. AdobeRGB will shift to a lower saturation because no browsers with the exception of Safari are colorspace aware.

[another view]

no browsers with the exception of Safari are colorspace aware.

Did not know that - cool!

If you look at an image against a dark background, and then the same image against a white background it's almost like an optical illusion. Strange, but chances are nothing has happened to the image assuming the color space hasn't changed.

[livin4lax09]

i believe lightroom edits on a black/dark grey background? i noticed mine looked darker as well when they were out of lightroom, it's just a trick the background plays on you. should be able to change it...

[Canuck935]

Is it my imagination or what? I have been using lightroom for a little bit now and my photos look great. But when i convert to JPEG and then look at them online they seem to get darker? Is this common with JPEG?

Since you say they look darker specifically when you look at them online, it is most likely a color space issue. When you export files from lightroom, there will be a color space option. Make sure you select sRGB if you plan to put your images on the web.

[another view]

There is an example of the right and wrong color space here; look halfway down the page. The first isn't in sRGB but the second one is. I'll check it out later on Safari and see if they look the same, but they don't on IE. Alright, so I'm cheating on you guys...

[reverberation]

Recently, I had the same problem, the first pics I posted to my gallery were fine. The ones I posted from my scanner were way off, though they looked fine on my monitor. I just spent the day working with colorsync (I am on a mac) trying to figure out what was wrong. I ended up going to the Apple website to get information that might help me find the problem and I was amazed. There is some excellent information there.

I blame microsoft for the entire problem.

[SmartWombat]

I blame Apple.
If they hadn't introduced their own (different) gamma setting it would be a lot easier.

I blame Adobe.
If they hadn't introduced their own colour space we'd all be using sRGB..

I blame Safari (Apple again)
Which is going to complicate the whole thing by respecting colour space setting in images so that we have yet another combination of circumstances to cater for, now a browser specific issue.

I blame the Users
Who don't know what they're doing, and blame software vendors for their inability to manage colour.

[another view]

I blame the Users
Who don't know what they're doing, and blame software vendors for their inability to manage colour.

Come on, Paul - don't sugar-coat it!

Life would be a lot easier if there were only sRGB, but easier isn't always better. As with anything, changing settings should really only be done if there is a reason for it. And part of that reasoning would include an understanding of the whole process. For example if you ask someone to print an Adobe RGB file and they automatically convert everything to sRGB, then the understanding part is missing...

[reverberation]

I blame Apple.
If they hadn't introduced their own (different) gamma setting it would be a lot easier.

I blame Adobe.
If they hadn't introduced their own colour space we'd all be using sRGB..

I blame Safari (Apple again)
Which is going to complicate the whole thing by respecting colour space setting in images so that we have yet another combination of circumstances to cater for, now a browser specific issue.

I blame the Users
Who don't know what they're doing, and blame software vendors for their inability to manage colour.

LOL, I have to agree with you. I was only kidding about the Microsoft comment, I didn't use one of those smilies, I have a habit of ommitting them when they would help me clarify my perspective. The funny thing about it is that it was my fault and not the scanners. I was certain the scanner had an out of gammut profile compared with the Adobe profile and this was the problem. This was not the case when I checked the images. There was a period of an hour or so where I was sure it had to be the luminosity of my monitor that was the culprit. It turned out that I saved the images without a profile .
I also have to agree with your comments regarding the color space. I have operated a printing press for twenty years and I thought I knew about color. When I started using computers I realized I did not know anything. When I saw how many different color profiles were on my computer, and how each one differed, I was dumbfounded.

[jgredline]

I blame Apple.
If they hadn't introduced their own (different) gamma setting it would be a lot easier.

I blame Adobe.
If they hadn't introduced their own colour space we'd all be using sRGB..

I blame Safari (Apple again)
Which is going to complicate the whole thing by respecting colour space setting in images so that we have yet another combination of circumstances to cater for, now a browser specific issue.

I blame the Users
Who don't know what they're doing, and blame software vendors for their inability to manage colour.

This is one of the best posts that I have read in a long time

[readingr]

I blame Apple.
If they hadn't introduced their own (different) gamma setting it would be a lot easier.

I blame Adobe.
If they hadn't introduced their own colour space we'd all be using sRGB..

I blame Safari (Apple again)
Which is going to complicate the whole thing by respecting colour space setting in images so that we have yet another combination of circumstances to cater for, now a browser specific issue.

I blame the Users
Who don't know what they're doing, and blame software vendors for their inability to manage colour.

Paul,

I think you forgot a few:

Patents - forcing NHI (Not Invented Here) syndrome because of financial terrorism

Lawyers - just because they breath and enforce patents

Human Biology - for making us all different and being able to see more than can be shown on monitors and print media

:mad2: :aureola: :17: :hand: :ihih: :incazzato:

Roger

[SmartWombat]

Understanding is not required, merely obedience ... Oh sorry, this isn't Babylon 5.

I have a company full of users, and even in Marketing they amaze me. People I'd expect to be Mac-savvy designer types too.
Don't get me started on cut-and-paste HTML "designers" who have to be hand held through anything they can't copy from somewhere else.

I'm glad that I'm no longer web development manager
Though it's no sinecure as Commissions system analyst either

[jgredline]

Hi folks..
Let me ask a question...My cameras have a setting with the option to choose between SRGB and Adobe RGB. Can people recommend which setting to use to get the most of my pics..I have not seen much of a difference between the two,..Now I have noticed that pictures do look better on my Mac Power Book as opposed to my Dell XPS with there true life monitor...I have learned a whole bunch in this forum...a whole bunch...

[another view]

My general advice is to stick with sRGB unless you have a reason not to. And before playing around with other color spaces I'd highly recommend using a calibrated monitor so you can accurately see what you're doing. An uncalibrated monitor really doesn't know how it's displaying colors but by using something such as Monaco Optix or a few others, the computer will know how to compensate for how the monitor displays everything. Basically, that's how it works. You could calibrate a printer, scanner and digital camera but the monitor is at least 80% of the battle. Before getting calibration software (and the tool that comes with it), check to see that you can adjust all of the things you need to adjust (chances are unless you have a rock-bottom inexpensive monitor you'll be OK).

Just for clarity, a calibrated monitor is just as important for sRGB - and calibration really needs to be a lot higher priority than trying out a different color space.

Whatever color space you use, the complete "process" has to be in that space. All of the on-line and photo stores that make prints can do sRGB (never heard of one that can't) but very, very few work in Adobe RGB. If you sent someone an Adobe RGB file, they might (probably) just convert it to sRGB and suddenly your print doesn't match what you saw on the calibrated monitor. If you didn't use a calibrated monitor, then it's more of a guessing game because there's one more variable (so the odds are stacked against you exponentially).

Bottom line, if any of this is either new to you or something you aren't doing already then stick with sRGB. Not trying to sound all "high and mighty", but excellent work can be done in sRGB. There are some very subtle differences and advantages to Adobe RGB but it's more complicated than a camera setting.

[jgredline]

My general advice is to stick with sRGB unless you have a reason not to. And before playing around with other color spaces I'd highly recommend using a calibrated monitor so you can accurately see what you're doing. An uncalibrated monitor really doesn't know how it's displaying colors but by using something such as Monaco Optix or a few others, the computer will know how to compensate for how the monitor displays everything. Basically, that's how it works. You could calibrate a printer, scanner and digital camera but the monitor is at least 80% of the battle. Before getting calibration software (and the tool that comes with it), check to see that you can adjust all of the things you need to adjust (chances are unless you have a rock-bottom inexpensive monitor you'll be OK).

Just for clarity, a calibrated monitor is just as important for sRGB - and calibration really needs to be a lot higher priority than trying out a different color space.

Whatever color space you use, the complete "process" has to be in that space. All of the on-line and photo stores that make prints can do sRGB (never heard of one that can't) but very, very few work in Adobe RGB. If you sent someone an Adobe RGB file, they might (probably) just convert it to sRGB and suddenly your print doesn't match what you saw on the calibrated monitor. If you didn't use a calibrated monitor, then it's more of a guessing game because there's one more variable (so the odds are stacked against you exponentially).

Bottom line, if any of this is either new to you or something you aren't doing already then stick with sRGB. Not trying to sound all "high and mighty", but excellent work can be done in sRGB. There are some very subtle differences and advantages to Adobe RGB but it's more complicated than a camera setting.

Thank you so very much..Your post means allot to me and thank for taking the time to write such a great answer...I will take your advice and stick with the sRGB mode and will be getting some monitor calibration software..I know my Dell XPS came with it and I have never used it, but my Power book has never been touched...
Again thanks
Javier

[another view]

Glad to help. I used Monaco Optix XR with my XP desktop but recently switched to a Mac laptop. Still working on the changeover but I think that software might be dual platform. Hope so...

Anyway, it's amazing how much a calibrated monitor will help you get the finished results you want.

[reverberation]

My general advice is to stick with sRGB unless you have a reason not to. And before playing around with other color spaces I'd highly recommend using a calibrated monitor so you can accurately see what you're doing. An uncalibrated monitor really doesn't know how it's displaying colors but by using something such as Monaco Optix or a few others, the computer will know how to compensate for how the monitor displays everything. Basically, that's how it works. You could calibrate a printer, scanner and digital camera but the monitor is at least 80% of the battle. Before getting calibration software (and the tool that comes with it), check to see that you can adjust all of the things you need to adjust (chances are unless you have a rock-bottom inexpensive monitor you'll be OK).

Just for clarity, a calibrated monitor is just as important for sRGB - and calibration really needs to be a lot higher priority than trying out a different color space.

Whatever color space you use, the complete "process" has to be in that space. All of the on-line and photo stores that make prints can do sRGB (never heard of one that can't) but very, very few work in Adobe RGB. If you sent someone an Adobe RGB file, they might (probably) just convert it to sRGB and suddenly your print doesn't match what you saw on the calibrated monitor. If you didn't use a calibrated monitor, then it's more of a guessing game because there's one more variable (so the odds are stacked against you exponentially).

Bottom line, if any of this is either new to you or something you aren't doing already then stick with sRGB. Not trying to sound all "high and mighty", but excellent work can be done in sRGB. There are some very subtle differences and advantages to Adobe RGB but it's more complicated than a camera setting.

I was not going to say anything. SmartWombat is correct when he talks about users not knowing. It is true that I did not save profiles for the images I felt were dark. This fact cost me a week, thinking I had the easy answer. I use a densitomiter at work. I have shot images with a grey bar for the densitomiter. Everything matched, I could not figure it out, until I realized I had turned up my monitors brightness to compensate for the darkness in Quake 4. Users not knowing how to handle there color space....yeah I am working up to that....

[curtiswheat]

Well to be sure I got my Spectrophotometer today and have everything calibrated. Was quite a bit off and finally have my HP5500 set up as well..... Gretag Macbeth to the rescue...

[jgredline]

Here is a good article that I have been studying these past couple of days..Thoughts?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/oct_2007.html

[reverberation]

I agree that is a good and informative article. The point that really caught my attention was Smartwombats. Considering what I just went through, I think he is dead on. My problem turned out to be the output from my monitor. The luminosity was changed (by me) and this lead to a multitude of problems and false solutions that only delayed finding the problem.

First thing I looked into was the colors underlying the blacks. I am always thinking in the US web color space, because that is where I have worked for most of my career. This is the problem I have, my shadows were not muddy, they were too dark. The scans were never corrected because they appeared correctly on my monitor. They were scanned onto another computer and transfered, and I chose to save them without a color profile. My monitor, with its altered luminosity, made the images appear spot on, when they were too dark.

I have access to a densitomiter (printed output) and have not invested in a color system (screen output) because I am not a professional. I find it interesting that noone ever faults Apple for the reasons SmartWombat has outlined when they appear valid to me, based on my experience, the funny thing is that I have so much experience in printing. How do the regular users deal with problems like mine? I would love to think they never experience them, but think probably some of them run into similiar problems. The irony for me is that Apple is seen as some champion of color uniformity, simplicity. The truth appears to be shaded...and coloured.

[another view]

Here is a good article that I have been studying these past couple of days..Thoughts?

I'm looking at this on my MacBook with Safari, and don't see any difference to the pictures. Then I remembered what Sebastian said above... It's true! I opened Firefox and the Adobe RGB image is really pale and flat.

And yes, that article sums it up nicely. One thing you might want to ask yourself after reading it is if it's really worth messing around with Adobe RGB. Is the extra work and chance that you'll upload the wrong image really worth the extra benefit that you get from your own Adobe RGB prints compared to keeping the entire process in sRGB (comparing print to print)? For me it's an easy answer.

[SmartWombat]

I asked our marketing team what they wanted form the event this weekend, RAW or JPEG, and what colour space, considering they were going for print and web ...
A corporate shrugging of shoulders ensued - so they're getting .CR2 and sRGB