| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2010 11:02:43 AM · #1 |
oh yes â€Â¦ an exciting topic for sure ;)
So anyway, I made the bold (aka stupid) move of using LR3 for the first time on 2 current photo shoots. Well, now I remember that LR defaults to Prophoto color space. So when I exported to SmugMug (as I always did from LR2), the images that I had edited became washed out - not insanely washed out - but certainly not as vibrant as I had been viewing on my screen.
In the export menu, the photo is converted to sRGB (the only thing smugmug allows). Since people say I "SHOULD" work in ProPhoto RGB, I'm wondering what workflow might prevent this disappointment in the future and how I can redo this without much effort.
THanks in advance.
This is the kind of washed-out image I am talking about:
 |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 11:16:33 AM · #2 |
I believe that most web browsers only support sRGB, hence SmugMug's restriction.
I shoot in Adobe RGB on my Pentax K7 and keep in that throughout editing until export, but even for submitting here, I have to convert to sRGB.
//cameradojo.com/2009/04/19/adobe-rgb-vs-srgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/
Learn something new everyday.
I only every shoot RAW (which is good). Lightroom uses a slightly modified ProPhoto RGB (called Melissa RGB after Melissa Gaul, one of the development team). You then export to AdobeRGB or sRGB from Lightroom.
Browsers like FF and IE don't use any colorspaces, so it's all sRGB.
Safari is supposed to use AdobeRGB.
FF is supposed to go to colorspaces soon.
Of note, I do export my images to Photoshop using AdobeRGB and then save as sRGB for submission.
Message edited by author 2010-07-26 15:41:26. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 11:21:50 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by tate:
In the export menu, the photo is converted to sRGB |
not sure I follow... if it was converted to sRGB on the export menu of lightroom then it should look just fine on the internet... :-)
Message edited by author 2010-07-26 15:22:05. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 11:42:02 AM · #4 |
From the article above:
"As my friend Rick Miller puts it, you can relate gamut to containers of beer. With sRGB being a 12oz can of beer, Adobe RGB would be a pony keg, and ProPhoto RGB being a full kegger." |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 12:10:29 PM · #5 |
THanks for the feedback.
I understand the color space thing pretty well - different color spaces allow more - so in extreme examples there is some obvious luminance and brightness lost with some conversions but even when I'm converting RGB to CMYK [I work un printing) there isn't much difference if done correctly (using photoshop "convert to profile").
So I guess I'm just confused as to why the conversion to sRGB from Prophoto isn't more subtle - but maybe it's that I'm doing it in the export stage rather than another method?
Honestly though, I'm not at that computer now so I may need to try some things and report back later. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 01:35:40 PM · #6 |
This is indeed one of the "worst" unaddressed issues in LR (LR, 2 and 3 all behave the same way) -- conversion of working (ProPhoto) colorspace to any other space is "blind" -- no softproofing, and not way to change which algorithm is used for the conversion.
The LR development forums still scream (completely in vein, it seems) for softproofing, which would help address issues like this, but they continue to fall on deaf ears.
How noticeable this conversion is depends entirely on the (range of) colors present in your original image. I come across rather drastic "uglification" of sRGB in many concert photos, usually because of the color gels used on spotlights, lasers, LED-lighting, etc.
If you want to stay in LR, the only thing you can do is export and see the results -- you can quickly view them side-by-side in LR if you import the image into LR upon export (available in the export dialog), then go back and make HSL or similar adjustments on the original, re-export and try again. Repeat ad nauseum.
If you have CS available, you can edit in CS (choose your poison - smart object, intermediate export, etc.) and do "real" softproofing -- which is the method I'll usually fall back to for drastically impacted images (which happens more often than I'd like when shooting the drastic, colored lighting usually present in concerts).
Perhaps LR4 will finally implement some cobbling of softproofing so avoid the round-tripping. But I'm not holding my breath.
Message edited by author 2010-07-26 17:38:53. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 01:38:45 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Medoomi:
Originally posted by tate:
In the export menu, the photo is converted to sRGB |
not sure I follow... if it was converted to sRGB on the export menu of lightroom then it should look just fine on the internet... :-) |
You can select what colourspace to export with. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 03:25:50 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
This is indeed one of the "worst" unaddressed issues in LR (LR, 2 and 3 all behave the same way) -- conversion of working (ProPhoto) colorspace to any other space is "blind" -- no softproofing, and not way to change which algorithm is used for the conversion.
The LR development forums still scream (completely in vein, it seems) for softproofing, which would help address issues like this, but they continue to fall on deaf ears.
How noticeable this conversion is depends entirely on the (range of) colors present in your original image. I come across rather drastic "uglification" of sRGB in many concert photos, usually because of the color gels used on spotlights, lasers, LED-lighting, etc.
If you want to stay in LR, the only thing you can do is export and see the results -- you can quickly view them side-by-side in LR if you import the image into LR upon export (available in the export dialog), then go back and make HSL or similar adjustments on the original, re-export and try again. Repeat ad nauseum.
If you have CS available, you can edit in CS (choose your poison - smart object, intermediate export, etc.) and do "real" softproofing -- which is the method I'll usually fall back to for drastically impacted images (which happens more often than I'd like when shooting the drastic, colored lighting usually present in concerts).
Perhaps LR4 will finally implement some cobbling of softproofing so avoid the round-tripping. But I'm not holding my breath. |
This is my biggest bugbear with LR. Why they dont address this is crazy - I shouldnt have to wait until LR4, they should implement this in LR3 ASAP.. so annoying. |
|
|
|
07/26/2010 05:44:25 PM · #9 |
HA â€Â¦ OK so I'm not the only one!
I have over 100 images so I was hoping for an easy fix without too much trial and error.
|
|
|
|
07/26/2010 07:17:53 PM · #10 |
I stopped using LR3 64bit because of a memory leak and slow performance from it. The 32 bit version runs ok. I don't like the new interface for uploading your images images either.
As for the topic at hand I've been disappointed with LR's rendering of jpeg images from day one. I've learnt to work with it by trial and error, mostly. |
|
|
|
08/14/2010 12:57:51 PM · #11 |
I just switched to LR(3) and did not realize this until after I bought it.
But I too have a problem converting to sRGB. Yes I know about colorspaces, but the Web is sRGB, unless you use Safari and most people do NOT use Safari!
I use the export to sRGB and still hate the Not See What You Get! I tried upping the saturation to help but that does not help either.
So now I use LR3 and export to a folder on my desktop and then I open that folder in Bridge CS5, and check and or tweak the images before I upload to SmugMug. It sure seems like double work, but it seems to be the only way I can be sure my web images turn out like i want to be.
Paul |
|
|
|
01/03/2012 11:38:41 AM · #12 |
The "colorspace" dropdown in Lightroom's export appears to work more like the "assign profile..." option in Photoshop.
However, if you use the "convert profile..." option in Photoshop (ProPhoto->sRGB) you get the results for the color conversion that you would expect. I dont think there is an option in Lightroom that is equivalent to this, so I was considering using a droplet created from Photoshop for more accurate looking exports. Anyone know of a better way to convert, rather than re-assign a profile in Lightroom. There are clearly benefits to working in ProPhoto whenever possible, but there seems to be a gap in the export process for on-screen display outputs. |
|
|
|
01/03/2012 12:02:12 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
I believe that most web browsers only support sRGB, hence SmugMug's restriction.
I shoot in Adobe RGB on my Pentax K7 and keep in that throughout editing until export, but even for submitting here, I have to convert to sRGB.
//cameradojo.com/2009/04/19/adobe-rgb-vs-srgb-vs-prophoto-rgb/
Learn something new everyday.
I only every shoot RAW (which is good). Lightroom uses a slightly modified ProPhoto RGB (called Melissa RGB after Melissa Gaul, one of the development team). You then export to AdobeRGB or sRGB from Lightroom.
Browsers like FF and IE don't use any colorspaces, so it's all sRGB.
|
In reality I think FF has an add-on which allows color management, however, most users won't have it installed, so your point is more than valid.
Just out of curiosity, do you find massive differences between LR rendition of raw files and the in-camera jpgs from the k7?
My gx10 (a clone of the K10D) comes up with pretty good jpeg renditions, but the raw in LR are rendered very differently and it's always a pain to fix colours to make them more neutral. |
|
|
|
01/03/2012 12:16:39 PM · #14 |
ZOMBIE THREAD!
But I might as well feed the zombie...
I've had no problems with the lightroom export to sRGB. Both are well defined specifications and the conversion is a fixed mathematical formula. Assuming the conversion is actually happening it should be identical no matter what software you use.
I have noticed that the LR RAW convert and camera JPEG are slightly off, but I usually think LR does a better job with it's RAW convert then the camera does. I also always ignore white balance on the camera and do it all in LR anyway. |
|
|
|
01/03/2012 01:20:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
ZOMBIE THREAD!
But I might as well feed the zombie...
I've had no problems with the lightroom export to sRGB. Both are well defined specifications and the conversion is a fixed mathematical formula. Assuming the conversion is actually happening it should be identical no matter what software you use.
I have noticed that the LR RAW convert and camera JPEG are slightly off, but I usually think LR does a better job with it's RAW convert then the camera does. I also always ignore white balance on the camera and do it all in LR anyway. |
I think that works well with Canon and Nikon camera as Adobe engineers have obviously put a lot of effort profiling the most diffused models. Other brands' users, such as me, are not always that lucky and bundled software generally makes a better work of replicating in camera processing (I love my camera processing and I find it difficult to replicate in LR) :( |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/08/2025 05:05:11 PM EDT.
