Hello all!! It's been awhile since I've been on the project, I had a baby and have been focusing on her. Lately I have been getting back into the swing of things and have encountered a very strange post-processing problem. I have been editing my photos as usual using Adobe srgb as my color profile in photoshop. When I save my files something strange is happening to them. They are saving too dark and have this funky gray tinge. I checked my monitor calibration, all good there. I haven't changed my color profile (to my knowledge) in photoshop. Here's where it gets more interesting. When I save the files as "Save for Web" they come out fine, just like they should. It's only when I save them as regular JPEG's that this is happening. The "saved for web" photos also print fine where as the funky jpegs come out...funky. How do I fix this? Also, can I print large prints if I've "saved them for web"? Finally, should I check my color profile and does anyone have any suggestions on what it should be? Thanks!!
This looks like a color space issue. Many on-line photo sites do not accept
Adobe RGB. sRGB needs to be used. Because of this I shoot in sRGB and post-process in sRGB.
WARNING: Embedded color profile: “(unrecognized embedded color profile 'ProPhoto RGB')”
Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image.
Images for the web are most widly viewable when in the sRGB color space and with an embedded color profile. See my Introduction to Digital-Image Color Spaces for more information.
@abirkill Hey Alexis what color space do you have your camera set to and what color space do you edit in? Just wondering if there are real advantages to working in ProPhoto rgb over Adobe rgb
@sparrow OK, you are using the ProPhoto RGB colour-space, which is a very wide-gamut colour space. If you view this in software that doesn't support a wide-gamut space, it will display with muted and grey tones.
For web use and general safety, if you've not got a very good undestanding of colour-spaces, it's very much advisable to stick to sRGB. It sounds like you thought you were already using sRGB, so you had the right idea, but you aren't actually in sRGB.
Can you advise how you are loading your photos into Photoshop? I might guess you're sending them across from Lightroom?
Ok so i changed the color profile to srgb in PS and it is displaying exactly as it was printed, nasty grey. How do I get the grey out of all the edited photos now?
@soren If you're shooting in raw, the colour-space setting on your camera doesn't have any effect on these files -- colour-space is determined when you process the raw file. I shoot in raw + small JPEG, so I have my camera colour-space set to sRGB -- this means the small JPEG previews are in the safe and easy-to-use sRGB space (I never use these JPEGs as the basis for my final photos, I always process the raw files).
When I load the raw files into Photoshop, I use the ProPhoto RGB colourspace in 16-bit mode. This gives me the widest colour gamut, which is particularly useful when applying multiple adjustment layers to a photo, as it reduces the chance that you will run out of room in a colour channel. This reduces the prevalence of banding and/or 'posterisation' in extreme areas of colour when a lot of adjustments are done to a single photo.
When uploading anywhere on the web, I will always export the JPEG file in sRGB, using the Save for Web option in Photoshop, which does this automatically. This ensures that my photos always display correctly regardless of the browser in use or the site I upload to.
For printing, unless I am absolutely confident that the printing company truly understands colour-spaces, I will also submit in sRGB, as it's the safest option. If I'm confident in the printing company (which usually means that I'm able to directly speak to the person who is going to operate the printer), then depending on what they support, I will use an Adobe RGB JPEG, an Adobe RGB 16-bit TIFF, or a ProPhoto RGB 16-bit TIFF. (Because JPEGs are limited to 8 bits, I avoid ProPhoto RGB JPEG files as again, the limitation in available values that 8-bit files have, combined with the wider gamut, can again cause banding).
Realistically, the benefits of working in ProPhoto RGB over Adobe RGB are extremely negligible, so if you are happy with the results of your current methods, I wouldn't worry too much.
Thanks so far Alexis for your help, I am now wondering if there is a quick fix for me to "strip" the pro photo grey effect without having to re-edit all my pictures that I accidentally edited when I had that setting turned on. I am guessing that's wishful thinking though and I have a looong night ahead of me re-saturating the last three photo shoots.
@sparrow To fix existing photos, you need to load them into Photoshop (where they should display correctly), then go to Edit->Convert to Profile, then choose sRGB, then resave them.
(Note: Make sure you use 'Convert to Profile', not 'Assign Profile' -- this will cause the photos in Photoshop to appear the same dull grey as you're seeing elsewhere, because you're saying 'this photo is in sRGB, trust me', rather than 'please convert this photo from whatever it's in to sRGB'.).
Alternatively, you can, as you've discovered, simply use the Save for Web option, which does an sRGB conversion as part of the process.
To alter how Lightroom sends files to Photoshop so that you don't have to do this for future files, in Lightroom, go to Edit -> Preferences, choose the External Editing tab, and under 'Edit in Photoshop', change the colour space to sRGB.
Once you've done this, process a photo using your normal workflow and re-upload it to the above site, to make sure that sRGB is actually being used.
@abirkill excellent info, Thanks. I always shoot raw and wasn't sure if the cameras colorspace setting effected my raw images, so good to know that it doesn't.
@abirkill
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! I posted this question elsewhere and got really crap answers. That website you gave me is a gem, I am totally book marking that for the future. Every time I think I know it all, something like this happens just to remind me that I have a lot to learn. That was such an obscure problem, I am so thankful that someone could help me figure it out. Thank you again!!!!
I still have no idea how my profile got changed to Pro Photo. Maybe I did that one sleepless night? Who knows. I went back to light room, all was well there. It was just a strange fluke. THANK YOU AGAIN!!!
@aprilmilani Thank you :) You're not the first to suggest that! Although I keep on meaning to start a blog and never seem to get round to that, so I'm not sure where I'd find the time and discipline to write a book.
It's an interesting thought though, although I suspect that the market may be somewhat oversaturated already!
@abirkill Ok I have a question for you. I have a Markiii and I find the grain to be high even when the iso is not that high. I have spoke with a few others that feel the same. What do you think?
@aprilmilani In comparison with another make/model of camera, or just in general? What do you consider a 'not that high' ISO?
The Canon range in general currently has a dynamic range shortfall when compared to equivalent models from Nikon and Sony at low ISOs (around 800 and below). This means that more care in exposure needs to be taken than with some other high-end cameras, particularly if you are planning on bringing up shadow detail in the raw file.
Underexposing the shot and correcting in raw will definitely start to emphasise grain. The technique of exposing to the right (ETTR) can be useful to try out to see if it improves your results.
The grain on the 5D3 and 6D is quite nicely behaved, so even when you do start to bring it out, it's generally restricted to luminance noise (i.e. it's not got nasty colour splodges), and is a nice fine grain. This can be very effectively reduced using the tools in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom correctly, especially when combined with proper use of the sharpen masking slider to avoid sharpening noise artefacts.
Above ISO 800-1600 or so, the Canon cameras retake the dynamic range advantage that the other brands tend to have at lower ISOs, which is why the Canon full-frame range is so widely used amongst night sky photographers. If you are shooting at ISO 1600-6400, you will certainly have grain, but it's probably on a par with or better than most of the competition.
As a landscape photographer I tend to mostly photograph at ISO 100, but I do experience grain even at this setting if I'm heavily bringing up shadow detail. However, I rarely find the grain to be problematic to remove to an acceptable level.
I hope that helps a little. Do you have any examples you can upload so I can see more clearly what you're disliking?
@abirkill In regards to your earlier comment about a blog or a book.... do it!! There's so much fluff out there, but not a lot of "meaty" stuff. I asked my "grey photo" question on three different message boards and you are the only person who solved the problem. The only response I got was, "you have a color space issue". No kidding. The only usable answer I got was yours. Go for it!!!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Adobe RGB. sRGB needs to be used. Because of this I shoot in sRGB and post-process in sRGB.
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
And let us know what it says next to 'Colour Encoding'.
Some popular web browsers ignore embedded color profiles, meaning users of those browsers see the wrong colors for this image.
Images for the web are most widly viewable when in the sRGB color space and with an embedded color profile. See my Introduction to Digital-Image Color Spaces for more information.
For web use and general safety, if you've not got a very good undestanding of colour-spaces, it's very much advisable to stick to sRGB. It sounds like you thought you were already using sRGB, so you had the right idea, but you aren't actually in sRGB.
Can you advise how you are loading your photos into Photoshop? I might guess you're sending them across from Lightroom?
When I load the raw files into Photoshop, I use the ProPhoto RGB colourspace in 16-bit mode. This gives me the widest colour gamut, which is particularly useful when applying multiple adjustment layers to a photo, as it reduces the chance that you will run out of room in a colour channel. This reduces the prevalence of banding and/or 'posterisation' in extreme areas of colour when a lot of adjustments are done to a single photo.
When uploading anywhere on the web, I will always export the JPEG file in sRGB, using the Save for Web option in Photoshop, which does this automatically. This ensures that my photos always display correctly regardless of the browser in use or the site I upload to.
For printing, unless I am absolutely confident that the printing company truly understands colour-spaces, I will also submit in sRGB, as it's the safest option. If I'm confident in the printing company (which usually means that I'm able to directly speak to the person who is going to operate the printer), then depending on what they support, I will use an Adobe RGB JPEG, an Adobe RGB 16-bit TIFF, or a ProPhoto RGB 16-bit TIFF. (Because JPEGs are limited to 8 bits, I avoid ProPhoto RGB JPEG files as again, the limitation in available values that 8-bit files have, combined with the wider gamut, can again cause banding).
Realistically, the benefits of working in ProPhoto RGB over Adobe RGB are extremely negligible, so if you are happy with the results of your current methods, I wouldn't worry too much.
(Note: Make sure you use 'Convert to Profile', not 'Assign Profile' -- this will cause the photos in Photoshop to appear the same dull grey as you're seeing elsewhere, because you're saying 'this photo is in sRGB, trust me', rather than 'please convert this photo from whatever it's in to sRGB'.).
Alternatively, you can, as you've discovered, simply use the Save for Web option, which does an sRGB conversion as part of the process.
To alter how Lightroom sends files to Photoshop so that you don't have to do this for future files, in Lightroom, go to Edit -> Preferences, choose the External Editing tab, and under 'Edit in Photoshop', change the colour space to sRGB.
Once you've done this, process a photo using your normal workflow and re-upload it to the above site, to make sure that sRGB is actually being used.
Let me know if you have any questions :)
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! I posted this question elsewhere and got really crap answers. That website you gave me is a gem, I am totally book marking that for the future. Every time I think I know it all, something like this happens just to remind me that I have a lot to learn. That was such an obscure problem, I am so thankful that someone could help me figure it out. Thank you again!!!!
It's an interesting thought though, although I suspect that the market may be somewhat oversaturated already!
The Canon range in general currently has a dynamic range shortfall when compared to equivalent models from Nikon and Sony at low ISOs (around 800 and below). This means that more care in exposure needs to be taken than with some other high-end cameras, particularly if you are planning on bringing up shadow detail in the raw file.
Underexposing the shot and correcting in raw will definitely start to emphasise grain. The technique of exposing to the right (ETTR) can be useful to try out to see if it improves your results.
The grain on the 5D3 and 6D is quite nicely behaved, so even when you do start to bring it out, it's generally restricted to luminance noise (i.e. it's not got nasty colour splodges), and is a nice fine grain. This can be very effectively reduced using the tools in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom correctly, especially when combined with proper use of the sharpen masking slider to avoid sharpening noise artefacts.
Above ISO 800-1600 or so, the Canon cameras retake the dynamic range advantage that the other brands tend to have at lower ISOs, which is why the Canon full-frame range is so widely used amongst night sky photographers. If you are shooting at ISO 1600-6400, you will certainly have grain, but it's probably on a par with or better than most of the competition.
As a landscape photographer I tend to mostly photograph at ISO 100, but I do experience grain even at this setting if I'm heavily bringing up shadow detail. However, I rarely find the grain to be problematic to remove to an acceptable level.
I hope that helps a little. Do you have any examples you can upload so I can see more clearly what you're disliking?