-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Output for online
- Thread starter Nich Fern
- Start date
John_Nevill
New member
Hi Nich,
My workflow is:
My workflow is:
- Initial RAW processing (exp, wb, tone etc) in LR or Silkypix to PSD or TIFF respectively.
- Post processing in CS3 for dust bunny removal, curves, more creative adjustments (if needed) and sharpening.
- Back into LR for crop, resize and final sRGB output to web.
Just went to your site. Fantastic images. You are definitely the man to talk to.
Is LR's raw editor the thing to use over photoshop's editor or is it all about the same?
When working photos for the internet, I've been guided by a former photo teacher to:
-Do raw editing with adobe
-Then, I open my image in CS3 complete an action my teacher helped me create which converts the image to sRGB, bit mode 8, and constrain the images to 640 pixels at the longest side, just so they aren't massive.
-Next, I set CS3 to Proof Colors: Monitor RGB, to see how it will look after uploading (I find that this normally shows them with the brown tone they often get, and desaturation, which I can then try to fix)
-I then generally do levels followed by individual color saturation/hue. I sometimes then do some specific editing and cloning out imperfections, but generally, I just do the two basic edits over the entire image. I know, I should use Curves but haven't really sat down and figured out how to use that feature yet.
-Finally I flatten and smart sharpen the image, and post it on a site.
So should I just learn curves, and convert to sRGB and damn the rest of it to hell?
I feel like editing in the Proof View really helps on most images, but rarely an image wont be effected by the upload and will post as over saturated as it looks without Proof on. I'm not sure why some images are effected and others aren't.
I've also noticed some sites change the color of my images more than others.
Is LR's raw editor the thing to use over photoshop's editor or is it all about the same?
When working photos for the internet, I've been guided by a former photo teacher to:
-Do raw editing with adobe
-Then, I open my image in CS3 complete an action my teacher helped me create which converts the image to sRGB, bit mode 8, and constrain the images to 640 pixels at the longest side, just so they aren't massive.
-Next, I set CS3 to Proof Colors: Monitor RGB, to see how it will look after uploading (I find that this normally shows them with the brown tone they often get, and desaturation, which I can then try to fix)
-I then generally do levels followed by individual color saturation/hue. I sometimes then do some specific editing and cloning out imperfections, but generally, I just do the two basic edits over the entire image. I know, I should use Curves but haven't really sat down and figured out how to use that feature yet.
-Finally I flatten and smart sharpen the image, and post it on a site.
So should I just learn curves, and convert to sRGB and damn the rest of it to hell?
I feel like editing in the Proof View really helps on most images, but rarely an image wont be effected by the upload and will post as over saturated as it looks without Proof on. I'm not sure why some images are effected and others aren't.
I've also noticed some sites change the color of my images more than others.
Examples from the link in my sig:
Cranberry Lake posted extremely saturated, far more so then it had looked in proof colors. It basically looks just like it does without proof on.
The Brisbane River sunset shot on the other hand, uploaded looking more like it did with proof colors on, with prof colors off, it is far more vibrant.
Cranberry Lake posted extremely saturated, far more so then it had looked in proof colors. It basically looks just like it does without proof on.
The Brisbane River sunset shot on the other hand, uploaded looking more like it did with proof colors on, with prof colors off, it is far more vibrant.
John_Nevill
New member
Nich,
Everything stays in ProphotoRGB when using LR > CS3 > LR. I only switch to sRGB at the web output stage. I know, some colour gurus would shudder at the thought, but I also print, so I like to keep the orginal colour data intact right up to the final output and tweak where appropriate.
As for proofing, I adjust output the file and view it in the local browser, so no need to proof colourspace with CS3 for web ouput. Keep it simple.
Sites changing colours - that's probably more to do with server side re-sizing software doing things, the colours shouldn't change if the image displayed is native to what you uploaded.
Curves - I can defintely say it's worthwhile learning them, especially S-curves and reverse S -curves to start, you'll find that you can so much with them that there's no turning back! You can also do things like split toning with curves, but that's step 2.
I'll take a look at your images later and comment.
Everything stays in ProphotoRGB when using LR > CS3 > LR. I only switch to sRGB at the web output stage. I know, some colour gurus would shudder at the thought, but I also print, so I like to keep the orginal colour data intact right up to the final output and tweak where appropriate.
As for proofing, I adjust output the file and view it in the local browser, so no need to proof colourspace with CS3 for web ouput. Keep it simple.
Sites changing colours - that's probably more to do with server side re-sizing software doing things, the colours shouldn't change if the image displayed is native to what you uploaded.
Curves - I can defintely say it's worthwhile learning them, especially S-curves and reverse S -curves to start, you'll find that you can so much with them that there's no turning back! You can also do things like split toning with curves, but that's step 2.
I'll take a look at your images later and comment.
Last edited:
Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Hi Nich,
I'm with John on this one.
There is no reason to do any proofing in PS when all you have to do is to save the image as jpg and open it using your Internet browser.
From what I can see looking at your images at flickr, some of them are oversaturated and a couple are over sharpened. Some also have posterization issues. My humble advice would be, don't overdo things in order to let the pictures pop-out. And always undo the last modification you've done before saving
.
I don't know how a site can change the colors of your pictures. Maybe it's got to do with the color of the background that causes a subjective color shift in the way we see the images. If so, you can experiment with adding a white frame around your pics before uploading.
Cheers,
Cem
I'm with John on this one.
There is no reason to do any proofing in PS when all you have to do is to save the image as jpg and open it using your Internet browser.
From what I can see looking at your images at flickr, some of them are oversaturated and a couple are over sharpened. Some also have posterization issues. My humble advice would be, don't overdo things in order to let the pictures pop-out. And always undo the last modification you've done before saving
.I don't know how a site can change the colors of your pictures. Maybe it's got to do with the color of the background that causes a subjective color shift in the way we see the images. If so, you can experiment with adding a white frame around your pics before uploading.
Cheers,
Cem
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
gifs together with 640 pix wide seems like 10 years back!
and once for all, as soon as an image is displayed, there is nothing to protect it from theft… a screen hard copy will always work, whatever you try to avoid such things…
and once for all, as soon as an image is displayed, there is nothing to protect it from theft… a screen hard copy will always work, whatever you try to avoid such things…
I'm actually pretty new to photoshop and digital imaging in general. Got my first DSLR this summer, and photoshop just around the same time, and don't do loads of either. So I am definitely learning, though I think posting on here and getting feedback and help will definitely help.
The more I work images the more I learn. For example, the over sharpening I've been catching myself doing that when I walk away from my images and then come back. As I spend ~15 min on a photo so I don't exactly feel bad going back now and redoing the ones I like, and trashing the rest. The over sharpening also occurs because I work it to a slightly larger image than flickr shows (you have to click "see all sizes") unless you see them full size that way, flickr reduces the size and adds sharpening on its own. But, again, I already over sharpen.
As for the gif thing, I have never done anything to do with that format, so that's all flickr.
And for the over saturation, the main sites I create these files for are facebook and myspace, so I can show them to my peers for fun. I have only recently started posting them on flickr, which doesn't seem to effect the colors like the other two sites do. what I think I need to start doing is editing different versions specifically for the three sites, or just stop uploading to one or the other.
But, like over sharpening, I'm have a tendency to overdo it regardless. I'm definitely going to be toning it all down. It will help if I stop editing with proof colors on.
You mentioned differences between browsers, is there any one that tends to be more accurate with colors? I just use safari because it came installed on my computer.
Thanks guys, keep the comments rolling, it helps!
The more I work images the more I learn. For example, the over sharpening I've been catching myself doing that when I walk away from my images and then come back. As I spend ~15 min on a photo so I don't exactly feel bad going back now and redoing the ones I like, and trashing the rest. The over sharpening also occurs because I work it to a slightly larger image than flickr shows (you have to click "see all sizes") unless you see them full size that way, flickr reduces the size and adds sharpening on its own. But, again, I already over sharpen.
As for the gif thing, I have never done anything to do with that format, so that's all flickr.
And for the over saturation, the main sites I create these files for are facebook and myspace, so I can show them to my peers for fun. I have only recently started posting them on flickr, which doesn't seem to effect the colors like the other two sites do. what I think I need to start doing is editing different versions specifically for the three sites, or just stop uploading to one or the other.
But, like over sharpening, I'm have a tendency to overdo it regardless. I'm definitely going to be toning it all down. It will help if I stop editing with proof colors on.
You mentioned differences between browsers, is there any one that tends to be more accurate with colors? I just use safari because it came installed on my computer.
Thanks guys, keep the comments rolling, it helps!
here are the links to the facebook albums with these photos.
this is what i was editing for when i developed the intense over saturating process.
the files are exactly the same uploaded to my flickr album in my sig... but they post extremely differently. irritating to say the least.
http://nau.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2072277&l=874e9&id=27705755
http://nau.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2062130&l=09cb2&id=27705755
this is what i was editing for when i developed the intense over saturating process.
the files are exactly the same uploaded to my flickr album in my sig... but they post extremely differently. irritating to say the least.
http://nau.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2072277&l=874e9&id=27705755
http://nau.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2062130&l=09cb2&id=27705755
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonjour Nick
I quickly checked:
From flickr one can't get an image (I mean the real file wich is host on the web server) as it is protected by a gif layer (named spaceball.gif), but I could get one (n27705755_32110980_1532.jpg) and found that there is no icc (or icm) profile embedded within the image (sRGB should be the one for the web).
So each browser will freely interpret the colors of your image. Safari has been the first browser to be ICC aware (it shows the image according to the embbeded profile) many other do also now.
Hence the great importance to embed the profile you intend to be used. As said, the one for the web or onscreen viewing (exceptf for the happy few who own Adobe RGB complant high-end monitors such as Eizo).
I don't know how flickr or facebook do handle this, but I doubt that they remove the embeded profiles…
For the format of files, jpegs saved with 8 (on PS scale from 1 to 12) is generally a godd choice.
Nowadays, the smaller screen used to browse the web are 1024x768 pixels so for posting landcape format you may easily go up to 800 pix and 700 in height for portrait oriented images.
Posterization? choose any image, open in PS, do a "save for the web" then choose gif export and look the results when you downsize the # of colors… you'll see what posterization is!!!
As to the size in Kb of the file shown, one must be carefull not to upload to heavy files, even if now most of people have a fast connecion. Below, for info is how peope do connect to OPF for a certain period of time:
Screen size:
1. 1024x768 22,45 %
2. 1280x1024 18,19 %
3. 1680x1050 12,70 %
4. 1280x800 10,56 %
5. 1920x1200 8,14 %
6. 1440x900 8,13 %
7. 1600x1200 6,16 %
8. 1152x864 2,07 %
9. 800x600 1,85 %
Speed connection
DSL 10 839 32,47 %
Cable 10 419 31,22 %
Unknown 8 495 25,45 % (most of unknown are "corporate" network… fast!
T1 2 400 7,19 %
Dialup 989 2,96 %
Browser Visits (in %)
I Explorer 14 543 43,57 %
Firefox 12 490 37,42 %
Safari 5 257 15,75 %
Opera 671 2,01 %
Camino 173 0,52 %
visitors come from
1. United States 17 216
2. United Kingdom 3 398
3. Canada 2 284
4. Australia 964
5. Netherlands 877
6. Germany 854
7. France 627
8. Spain 443
9. Italy 382
10. Switzerland 360
Hope it helps
I quickly checked:
From flickr one can't get an image (I mean the real file wich is host on the web server) as it is protected by a gif layer (named spaceball.gif), but I could get one (n27705755_32110980_1532.jpg) and found that there is no icc (or icm) profile embedded within the image (sRGB should be the one for the web).
So each browser will freely interpret the colors of your image. Safari has been the first browser to be ICC aware (it shows the image according to the embbeded profile) many other do also now.
Hence the great importance to embed the profile you intend to be used. As said, the one for the web or onscreen viewing (exceptf for the happy few who own Adobe RGB complant high-end monitors such as Eizo).
I don't know how flickr or facebook do handle this, but I doubt that they remove the embeded profiles…
For the format of files, jpegs saved with 8 (on PS scale from 1 to 12) is generally a godd choice.
Nowadays, the smaller screen used to browse the web are 1024x768 pixels so for posting landcape format you may easily go up to 800 pix and 700 in height for portrait oriented images.
Posterization? choose any image, open in PS, do a "save for the web" then choose gif export and look the results when you downsize the # of colors… you'll see what posterization is!!!
As to the size in Kb of the file shown, one must be carefull not to upload to heavy files, even if now most of people have a fast connecion. Below, for info is how peope do connect to OPF for a certain period of time:
Screen size:
1. 1024x768 22,45 %
2. 1280x1024 18,19 %
3. 1680x1050 12,70 %
4. 1280x800 10,56 %
5. 1920x1200 8,14 %
6. 1440x900 8,13 %
7. 1600x1200 6,16 %
8. 1152x864 2,07 %
9. 800x600 1,85 %
Speed connection
DSL 10 839 32,47 %
Cable 10 419 31,22 %
Unknown 8 495 25,45 % (most of unknown are "corporate" network… fast!
T1 2 400 7,19 %
Dialup 989 2,96 %
Browser Visits (in %)
I Explorer 14 543 43,57 %
Firefox 12 490 37,42 %
Safari 5 257 15,75 %
Opera 671 2,01 %
Camino 173 0,52 %
visitors come from
1. United States 17 216
2. United Kingdom 3 398
3. Canada 2 284
4. Australia 964
5. Netherlands 877
6. Germany 854
7. France 627
8. Spain 443
9. Italy 382
10. Switzerland 360
Hope it helps
this was one of my files that doesnt have a profile? that is odd, as it is my first step when i get it into PS and it effects a lot of waht i do, so i couldnt have missed it.
ive been saving all the files as jpeg 12's and ill save them lower now.
as i think i said ive been converting to bit mode 8 because i was told this was best for the web, is this true? or should I leave it at 16?
and yes, now i do see what posterization is.
thanks a lot for the help.
ive been saving all the files as jpeg 12's and ill save them lower now.
as i think i said ive been converting to bit mode 8 because i was told this was best for the web, is this true? or should I leave it at 16?
and yes, now i do see what posterization is.
thanks a lot for the help.
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Nick
The pic I could download was from "facebook", may be THEY do disable profiles?
Who knows? Then it wouldn't be you. Better check that!
8bit is fine for the web, ayway you can't save a JEPG in 16bits mode…
Have a nice day!
The pic I could download was from "facebook", may be THEY do disable profiles?
Who knows? Then it wouldn't be you. Better check that!
8bit is fine for the web, ayway you can't save a JEPG in 16bits mode…
Have a nice day!
John Buxton
New member
I just had a look at your flickr stream Nich. As previously stated flickr attempts to protect some images by showing them as a background image and overlaying them with a transparent gif.
As said by others, it doesn't work. In fact if you use Firefox and a few greasemonkey scripts it is possible to access the original photo. So its not the best security.
Flickr removes all EXIF data but retains the ICC profile when it resizes. The original retains all EXIF data.
As said by others, it doesn't work. In fact if you use Firefox and a few greasemonkey scripts it is possible to access the original photo. So its not the best security.
Flickr removes all EXIF data but retains the ICC profile when it resizes. The original retains all EXIF data.
Phil Marion
New member
Your former teacher's action has you doing adjustments in 8 bit mode. Editing in16 bit mode TIFF would be better with the very last step being to convert to 8 bit.
Wouldn't he better off doing the PS tonal layer adjustments PRIOR to downsizing?