+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB
    Quote Originally Posted by Horoscope Fish View Post
    Well here's a shot of ACR and the Workflow Options link is showing your raw file opened as an 8-bit, aRGB file on my end. Camera Raw uses 8-bit mode by default. I updated my ACR to use 16-bit mode by default, though... Unless a recent update maybe screwed that up (?!). Ugh... Now I'm going to have to double-check things on my end. LOL... It never ends!
    ......
    Attachment 299772
    ......
    .....
    Maybe something got lost in the download, but I'd suggest you click on the Workflow Options link and make sure you're defaulting to 16-bit:
    ......
    Attachment 299773
    Mine seems to open as either Adobe RGB 16-bit or sRGB 16-bit. It depends which one I used last and will open as that. And PCC is also set to 16-bit, too.

    Thanks for your help. When I have time, I will definitely try out your previous suggestions. The lady who asked me to take the car show photos asked if she can use this last car image. The man who owns the car wanted some photos with trees. It wasn't part of the car show although his car was in the show. He and I both agreed she can use the image. She is going to create a book for the participants to buy if they wish. She wants to use this car/leaf photo as a cover for the book--and have it wrap around from the front cover to the back. She said she'll flip the image so the car is facing the correct direction. Thanks again, Paul.


    › See More: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci





  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Horoscope Fish's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Quote Originally Posted by hark View Post
    Mine seems to open as either Adobe RGB 16-bit or sRGB 16-bit. It depends which one I used last and will open as that. And PCC is also set to 16-bit, too.
    Okay, cool... Probably just something in the transfer from Dropbox.


    Quote Originally Posted by hark View Post
    Thanks for your help. When I have time, I will definitely try out your previous suggestions. The lady who asked me to take the car show photos asked if she can use this last car image. The man who owns the car wanted some photos with trees. It wasn't part of the car show although his car was in the show. He and I both agreed she can use the image. She is going to create a book for the participants to buy if they wish. She wants to use this car/leaf photo as a cover for the book--and have it wrap around from the front cover to the back. She said she'll flip the image so the car is facing the correct direction. Thanks again, Paul.
    You're more than welcome.
    Thanks/Like hark Thanks/liked this post
     
    ~ Paul
    ....
    ....
    Primary Kit :: D850, Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art,
    Godox Flashes & Triggers, Manfrotto X055PROB, 3-Legged Thing Airhed II... All Stuffed into a Manfrotto Pro Backpack 50
    ....
    ....
    ● ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ๑۩۩๑ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ●

  3. #33
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB
    I copied the NEF multiple times and did many edits but kept clipping my blues. When I did it Paul's way, it was fine except for the lack of contrast. But no matter how I tried to add contrast, my blues clipped.

    So I deleted everything--after all, it was getting confusing having so many files! Then I went to ACR and converted the file to sRGB right away. One of the problems I encountered was clipping blues after doing the aRGB to sRGB conversion at the end.

    Once converted to sRGB, I toggled through all the ACR profiles. The one I chose was Adobe Landscape. This one along with Camera Flat that @Horoscope Fish mentioned were the only two that didn't clip the blues. Initially I chose Daylight as my White Balance but dialed it back slightly.

    Then I did the majority of my editing in ACR before heading to PCC. The only thing I did in PCC was to remove the long scratch on the asphalt. This is my edit that has no clipping. How does it look to everyone? There might not be as much of a red color cast overall, but I tried to keep the leaves darker than they were in the original edit. I shot over 60 photos that day...most of them in this location and hope to give the car owners around 15-20. Before I attempt editing any others, I want to be sure this one looks okay. Then I can use it as my reference.

    ORIGINAL EDIT from a few days ago:

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-299549d1541793598-adobe-rgb-vs-srgb-_dsc7685-srgb-low-res.jpg


    NEW EDIT without clipping:

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-_dsc7685-low-res.jpg
    Last edited by hark; 11-15-2018 at 05:17 PM.
    Thanks/Like Michael J. Thanks/liked this post
     
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  4. #34
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB
    This first image is from my second slot which is set to jpeg. It's Adobe RGB simply resized for the forum. No editing done. There is clipping of both the whites and blacks.

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-_dsc7695-sooc-low-res.jpg


    And this is the image converted to sRGB and edited mostly in ACR. I had to lower the red luminance to stop the whites from clipping in the tree. There was also some black clipping in the tree that I eliminated by using an adjustment brush.

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-_dsc7695-lowres.jpg
    Thanks/Like Michael J. Thanks/liked this post
     
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  5. #35
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB
    Here is a slightly different question. I uploaded the following image to Facebook then saved it to my iPhone. When viewing the image on my phone (even when looking at it via Facebook), the colors look lackluster; however, on my PC the colors are somewhat vibrant. So then I sent the saved iPhone image to my PC for comparison. The colors look almost identical to the original--of course the resolution is different due to FB and iPhone compression. Does anyone else see differences in colors when using your cell phones? This isn't the first time I've seen it. Unfortunately neither image below looks the way it looks on my phone.

    Photo saved to iPhone from Facebook:

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-iphone-screen-shot.jpg


    Original PC shot resized for the forum:

    Adobe RGB vs. sRGB-_dsc1094-edit-2-low-res.jpg
    Thanks/Like Michael J. Thanks/liked this post
     
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  6. #36
    Senior Member

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    I see a difference in my phone pictures and computer. Opposite to your problem. My facebook pics look too vibrant on my cell phone and tablet. I have to be careful on things like sunsets, birds and bugs where I push the colors a bit. What looks good on my monitor looks like I went way too far on the handheld devices. Both are Samsung. I don't have anything Apple to compare. They still look over saturated if I just email them to my devices and eliminate FB. I chalked it up to Samsung making everything look more vibrant. I found this when I was reading, maybe useful:
    Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices (and how to fix them) - Analog Senses
    I must have a really good camera.

  7. #37
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Quote Originally Posted by nickt View Post
    I see a difference in my phone pictures and computer. Opposite to your problem. My facebook pics look too vibrant on my cell phone and tablet. I have to be careful on things like sunsets, birds and bugs where I push the colors a bit. What looks good on my monitor looks like I went way too far on the handheld devices. Both are Samsung. I don't have anything Apple to compare. They still look over saturated if I just email them to my devices and eliminate FB. I chalked it up to Samsung making everything look more vibrant. I found this when I was reading, maybe useful:
    Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices (and how to fix them) - Analog Senses
    It's an interesting article, Nick, but it says iPhones are set to display sRGB, not Adobe RGB. Since I was having problems previously, I still shoot in Adobe RGB but edit everything as sRGB. So my images should look the same on my iPhone as they do on my PC since all my jpegs are now sRGB.
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  8. #38
    Senior Member

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    This color stuff is tough. Sometimes I miss the days of just dropping the roll of film in the mail and waiting. At most I'd have to think about kodak vs fuji.
    Thanks/Like hark Thanks/liked this post
     
    I must have a really good camera.

  9. #39
    Staff
    Super Mod
    hark's Avatar

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Quote Originally Posted by nickt View Post
    This color stuff is tough. Sometimes I miss the days of just dropping the roll of film in the mail and waiting. At most I'd have to think about kodak vs fuji.
    Same here! Kodak was my preference with the exception of Velvia (slide). When Kodak stopped making a lot of its film, that's when I started with Fuji. I used to mail to Clark Color Laboratories until they messed up 2 different orders. Both orders were the only times I sent highly unusual subjects. For one, my family went to Penn's Landing for a boat ride. I shot an entire roll of ships with colorful flags. Then another time my mother and I went to see many stone bridges as well as covered bridges in northern Pennsylvania. Both times Clark's mailed me a few really bad images of someone's family. All they offered was their own roll of film and a voucher for free processing. Didn't even get a refund.

    A couple of the local store labs (CVS and Target) used Fuji for processing. The colors were very different than when I used Kodak processing. Even when I used Kodak film, the Fuji processed prints were more green while Kodak were more blue. So even back then, there were differences with color film processing.

    Days of old are long gone. I'd agonize over what images to take. It would take a while just to finish up one roll of 36 images because I didn't want to waste my money on taking just anything. There were even times I'd drop off a roll of film that wasn't finished since the local stores charged by the number of actual prints.

    Now we live in a society of instant gratification! Learning can be accomplished faster with digital technology. Results are immediate and free in the sense there isn't any cost for film or processing. But I'm glad I learned photography during the dark ages. It forced me to think about what I was doing because I didn't want to pay for lousy images.
    Thanks/Like nickt, gustafson Thanks/liked this post
     
    Cindy
    Flickr
    and My 2019 Thread

    Where the Spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art
    -- Leonardo da Vinci



  10. #40
    Senior Member

    Re: Adobe RGB vs. sRGB

    Great memories! A couple of times Clark sent me negatives chopped through the middle of a frame and corresponding useless prints. They were cheap though. I used to save all the envelopes with the best prices on them. York too.
    I must have a really good camera.





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Similar Threads

  1. Post Processing
  2. D3200
  3. Computers and Software
  4. Computers and Software
  5. Photography Q&A

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •