BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/11/2005
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery
 

BP Upload Fuzziness - A Tip to Improve


The quality of my post today was marginal, compared to the actual image. I know others have had similar stories. I wrote BP an "I'm concerned" e-mail. Here's what Heather wrote back.

Basically, she's saying to oversaturate and sharpen before you upload. I don't have Photoshop installed yet, so not sure how to do the assign the sRGB profile with Elements. If anyone knows, please enlighten me.

I did a test using Heather's suggested settings.

a. Original upload from Today
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=3049035

b. Revised upload using Heather's suggested saturation and sharpness settings.
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=3051422

Clearly, the revised version is better. I do not know what BP is doing to overcome this limitation.

I did want to share with a wider audience.

v/r

Ken Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: Heather@betterphoto.com [mailto:heather.runners@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Smith Kenneth F Contr AFWA/XORT
Subject: Re: BetterPhoto Message from Ken Smith

Hi Ken,

The following are some guidelines on what you can do when you feel
your images look dull or desaturated after uploading to BetterPhoto:

*****
If your photo appears to be less colorful after uploading to
BetterPhoto, it is very likely that you are shooting in color space
other than sRGB. This color space is how images are displayed on the
Web and photos can often become slightly desaturated upon conversion.
To correct this problem, perform the following steps in Photoshop
before uploading your image to BetterPhoto:

1. Open your image.
2 .Next, go to either Edit > Assign Profile, or File > Assign Profile
in the menu commands (depending which version of Photoshop you have).

3. Click on the "Profile" button on the bottom and look for and choose
sRGB.

4. Next, go to Hue/Saturation command (in the Image > Adjust menu) and
increase the middle saturation slider to approx. +18. Then change the
mode at the top of the Hue/Saturation dialog box from Master to Reds
and decrease the saturation slider in just the reds mode to approx.
-15.

5. The next step is optional. If your image appears soft, choose
Unsharp Mask and try to snap up the contrast by putting the Amount to
10% and the Radius to 40. Leave the threshold at 0. This is a great
way to make your images pop.

6. Resize your image if required and upload. Note: your image may look
a little "fake" or strange when viewed before uploading. Don't worry
about this. When you view this image at BetterPhoto, it should look
fantastic.

--
Thanks,

Heather Young, Heather@betterphoto.com
Director of Operations, BetterPhoto.com, Inc. (r)


To love this question, log in above
11/21/2006 5:56:28 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Ken,

Why should BP'ers have to change saturation and sharpeness just to upload to the site? That's too much user work. Let's say you wanted to upload the same pic to two different forums. You would upload to the other forum, then have to go BACK into your editing program and re-edit the photo just to get it to the same liking of the other site. That's ridiculous. When you upload a photo to BP they put a white border around your image. I think that that white border messes with the image and softens it. If you'll notice they recommend a photo with a short side of 500 px. Now we've all discovered that for the best sharpeness you need to make your short side exactly 480 px. That's a difference of 20 px. How wide do you think that border is? It looks about 20 px to me. I think if they remove this white border everything will be good.

I just don't see why we would have to individually edit our photos just for BP when NO OTHER sites seem to have this compression/softening problem. I think BP should fix the problem instead of making the user try to work around the problem. Just my humble opinion.

BetterPhoto,
Users have been complaining for months, if not longer, about the softness issues on your site. I feel that this needs to be fixed. There's got to be something wrong within your upload system or your system that puts the border on. Would you please consider and run some tests of images uploaded without the border? Your contests state that you judge images partly on sharpness but the compression method on the site when upload makes the image soft. Please look into this and possibly work on some R&D to fix the problem. If you have to, get with other sites and see what they're doing. No offense, I'm just stating what I've noticed.

Now I know there's going to be some who say "don't complain when it's a free site." Well my arguement back will be, "what about the paying members?"


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2006 6:08:19 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  And Ken in no way was that an attack or anything, I guess it came off rough, lol. Just some questions for thought.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2006 6:13:18 PM

 
Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/11/2005
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery
  I'm just the messenger....I totally agree with you. My intent was to let folks know there is a way to improve the uploads for BP. Many only upload to BP. The longer-term solution is for BP to make their process like other sites.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2006 6:14:51 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Completely understand :-) I think they should remove the white border anyways. Sharp images or not, some photos just don't look right with a white border, ya know? Anyways hope they listen to us. Maybe if we get enough people to chime in and at least show that they agree so they can see what their customers want. Ahh oh well, I try not to complain too much because I am one of those non-paying members.


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2006 6:27:11 PM

 
Raymond H. Kemp
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/2/2004
  Ditto!

Ray


To love this comment, log in above
11/21/2006 7:13:08 PM

 
Colleen Farrell
BetterPhoto Member Since: 4/13/2004
  Ken, thanks for posting this tip! I just uploaded a super-sharp image and was quite disappointed to see it on the BP website. Will try the tip Heather suggested.


To love this comment, log in above
11/22/2006 7:56:28 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
 
 
 
In addition to Heather's suggestions this is what I do, and it works for me.

I have the color space set in PS to sRGB. I have it set to tell me if an image I open does not have this profile so I can choose to change the profile if I wish. Naturally on images I'm submitting to stock I do not want to change from Adobe RGB 1998 so when the program asks me how I want to handle each file unless I happen to open one that is sRGB then it just opens without the window advising of an Embedded Profile Mismatch. Here's a pic of what it look like.

Changing the color space settings in PSE shouldn't be any different than PS. Go to Edit then click on Color Settings. When that opens you should have a choice for Working Spaces with a drop down arrow. Choose sRGB. In this same window you should see a check box that says, Profile Mismatches, Ask When Opening. This way if you're opening a RGB file the program will tell you there's a mismatch and then you can select which color space you want to work in.

If you edit in sRGB and save you should not see one bit of difference in uploading to BP than you do on your monitor. Yesterday I forgot to change my settings when preparing my photo so it looks a bit washed out than it did when I was preparing it in PS. Not bad enough for me to delete it and start over but there was a difference.

If your images look a bit soft resize to 480 pixels on the short side. Always. BP suggests 500 pixels, but it makes a difference somehow. Mine look sharp when I resize to 480 pixels and soft when I resize at 500 pixels.

Hope this helps.


To love this comment, log in above
11/23/2006 9:33:59 AM

 
Pete H
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/9/2005
  Yikes!
The discussion rages on I see. LOL

Ok..First, I do not claim to be a computer expert, but probably know more than the average Joe Blow.

This much I am certain of:

BP downsizes the file size when we upload..This is obvious if you watch the upload progress. There is no way they are storing my images on their server at the original file size!

That being said, it seems logical to me, that the images are degraded.

I too did a test and uploded some sample images to another site...What a difference! Tack sharp and great color.
They looked as good as when I did the final edit.
..and I didn't have to screw around with length or width issues, or tiff or raw or jpeg! What I uploaded was what I saw.

While BP is a wonderful site for the exchange of ideas, advice etc; (and the people who operate this site are great folks) I have no intention to renew my Deluxe web site.


Pete


To love this comment, log in above
11/23/2006 6:50:53 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Thanks, Ken, for directing me to this thread! I met a professional nature photographer in a hotel here the other day and seized the chance to ask some questions--it was raining and he had time! He told me that I should be shooting in RGB, not sRGB, so for the past several days I've switched over, and I do think it makes a difference in my uploads. So, I'll follow this advice and see what difference this makes.

Aside from the advice Ken gave me along ago, to use the single-image uploader and to resharpen after downsizing, I've discovered other ways to improve the appearance of images, for example, maximizing the space given to us on the image page. But after reading Sharon's comment I'm wondering if it's good to do! The problem I have found is that the dimensions of the pics, not just the size, determine whether the pic appears large on the page, or small. I like detail and I like things up close, and I want my pics to appear as large as possible on the page. I have found that if I magnify it and make the height significantly smaller than the width, or vice versa, then it will appear bigger on the page. I don't print my pics nor do I belong to any other photo group, and nor am I ready to start trying to sell pics, so basically, I "tailor" all my pics to make them appear best on BP--and that's mainly in the dimensions of the crop. This might be a disadvantage if I ever want to sell, as many of my pics are either quite wide and short or quite long and narrow.

In addition, I try to upload as big an image as the site will accept. I've kind of settled on the smallest side as 557, and always works. It may be my imagination, but uploading a bigger size seems to make it bigger on the page. But I have rarely noticed that an image is less sharp when uploading. I HAVE often noticed that an image is "less good", not quite knowing why, and when that happens, I assume that I had it too big in Photoshop when I was editing it, and the problem is that it must be appearing smaller on the site and that's why I'm not seeing the same impact and detail. Will have to test it more.

Sharon, are you using the single image uploader? Ken says it makes a difference, and, though it might have been my imagination, I found it made a difference in sharpness when I started using it. Anyway, I'm going to experiment myself with image size and sharpness and see what happens.


To love this comment, log in above
12/6/2006 8:45:28 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
  Susan, I use the single image uploader. I rarely upload more than a couple of photos at once so I've never had any reason to use the other way.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 6:18:27 AM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Yeah, now that I think of it, you told me that once. I just uploaded the same image in four different ways. One as usual, with the small side at 557. Another just converted to sRGB as wanted to see if just that made a difference. Another was uploaded with the small side at 480 and another following all of Heather's advice to Ken about what to do if an image appears desaturated and soft upon uploading (even though I didn't have that problem). I didn't see any difference between any of them except that it seems to me that the one following Heather's advice seems softer (and she only gave that advice for cases when there wasa problem, and there wasn't). One revelation for me, which makes me feel kind of stupid, is that the 557 size and the 480 gave exactly the same upload size. I'm just giving the link because if anyone wants to look at them, it's easier to be able to go from one to the other without getting out and getting in again. But the link I just pasted in looks strange and may not work. If it doesn't just click on my gallery---it's the first four images. http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/big.asp?photoID=3120059&catID=&style=&rowNumber=1&memberID=130891


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 9:40:46 AM

 
Laura E. OConnor
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/12/2005
  HI! This has definitely been a mystery for some time, and aside from simply changing my pics to 72ppi and 500 on the short side, I don't do much fussing with them to load to BP. Sometimes I resharpen (OVER sharpen) if it still looks soft on here, but that's it.

I checked out your test loads, Susan. Just at a brief glance, #2 the color looks a little more saturated/richer and #3 is a bit sharper than the others. #1 & #4 look about the same to me, but without a side-by-side comparison, it's hard to tell.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 11:15:33 AM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  No response yet from any BP staff? Guess they don't care folks. They'll probably make a $300 4 week online class as to how to "properly" upload images.

Unless it involves you're credit/debit card, they probably don't care about all of our problems.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 2:21:44 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  No response yet from any BP staff? Guess they don't care folks. They'll probably make a $300 4 week online class as to how to "properly" upload images.

Unless it involves you're credit/debit card, they probably don't care about all of our problems.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 2:22:10 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Conspiracy Theory #52


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 2:27:45 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Thanks, Laura! What a great eye you have! Sharon, looks like Laura has vindicated your feeling that uploading with the short side at 480! Since it seems to make no difference, at least with this image, as to what size the image appears on BP, then why not? The morning after (it was about 2:00 am for me when I uploaded them) it does seem to me that #2, with Heather's saturation and sharpening procedure, is less sharp.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 6:47:19 PM

 
Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member Since: 7/13/2004
  Conspiracy theory huh? well i'm not all about those but have you noticed that the second somebody asks something that involves one of their classes their instructors are the first to chime in saying "throw money to us and we'll help you" but this thread is now 17 posts deep and not a single comment from anyone at BP?


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 6:49:41 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  Ask a question about acheiving proper exposure or seeing creatively and you get an offer to take one of the classes on that? No surprise. That's what the classes are there for.
The soft look, size to 480 instead of 500 and sharpen to 230 with pixel size 1.5 with that other thing that I can't think of what it's called at the momement, set to 3 will take care of the softness.
Why it's like that, I don't know. Do other web or posting places need the same. Don't know that either. Don't even know if people are sharpening anyway on other sites. Digital needs a little because of the high pass filter, but that's usually around 100 with a pixel width of 1 with zero on the other thing.
But if it's tied to a money thing, it could just as easily be because it's from something that has to do with maximizing storage capacity while trying to keep cost down.


To love this comment, log in above
12/7/2006 7:09:47 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Really upset! I just edited a pic, of autumn leaves of a Japanese Maple, the main feature of which was the contast of the darker leaves in the forground with a vibrant, luminous orange background of leaves against the sky. It was the background orange light which made the photo, the title of which was "Late Autumn Lights". When I uploaded it the orange was dull mud, and the warm green and red of the foreground leaves was just a dull green. I went back into CS2 and followed Heather's instructions. The instant I changed the profile to sRGB from RGB, the same dull effect was produced. The saturation settings that were suggested just didn't do it--nothing close. I tried saturating the yellows and reds and while that did bring some of the colour back, it also produced unacceptable noise, and didn't want to Noise Ninja it again because I didn't want it any softer. Last night also, uploaded a brown dried flower which I had worked hard on to produce a luminous effect with yellows and soft light, and all the luminosity was lost in the upload. WHAT TO DO? Should I stop shooting in RGB and go back to sRGB? Should I stop shooting in RAW? Please help anyone who has suggestions!


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2006 11:54:17 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
  Susan, I don't know if this would work, but may be worth a try. Try setting your color space to sRGB. Select "Profile Mismatches: Ask when opening." This way if you want to keep the RBG profile when you open a photo you'll have the choice to do that or to edit it in sRGB. I think if you edit it in sRGB to begin with you won't have those issues, but I'm not totally sure about this. Doing it this way works for me. Since I'm shooting nothing but RAW I did have PS set for RGB and was having the same problem. Switching it to sRGB once it's a RGB file doesn't seem to work, but if you open it in the color space you want it does seem to work. I'm not having those issues since changing my color settings to sRGB. Keep shooting RAW. If you blow the sky in a photo you can recover the sky in RAW whereas you can not in JPEG. RAW is better for editing if you don't get it exactly right in camera.


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2006 7:50:29 PM

 
Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/11/2005
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery
  Around and around we go. Who started this thread? LOL The basic question is this--why are BP uploads fuzzy, yet other photo sites aren't? I thoroughly enjoy BP--have learned much and met many great friends. I wouldn't trade the site for any other. But if I could have one BP Christmas gift....


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2006 8:53:07 PM

 
Laura E. OConnor
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/12/2005
  Susan, I just read in PSU magazine that if you are prepping pic files to post on the web, they SHOULD be converted to sRGB, so that may be the problem. I may be misunderstanding, but I'm sure that's what I read. HTH...


To love this comment, log in above
12/9/2006 9:42:58 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Thanks for the tips. Sharon, I'll give that a try. Laura, I think you're right--I've read something like that somewhere too. So, that means that if you never print, like me, and only display photos the web, it's rather useless to shoot in RGB because you'll never see those colours on the web? Today, went again to the amazing tumultuous Taiza coast and just got back. And I had switched from RAW to JPEG and back to sRGB, and I'll compare images from last weekend. It was raining or drizzling almost the whole day, and the salt spray from the strong winds was perhaps worse than the rain. A friend held an umbrella, but there was so much salt on my UV filter, not sure what I'll get! I'm sorry now I didn't keep in in RAW...! Know I shouldn't be shooting in the rain, but it was just way, way too wildly beautiful to resist.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 12:57:13 AM

 
Laura E. OConnor
BetterPhoto Member Since: 5/12/2005
  Actually, MOST labs print in sRGB, so if you shoot Adobe RGB, the lab "clips" the outer spectrum and your prints will actually look much flatter than if you had shot in sRGB to begin with. Some labs say they accept files in Adobe RGB color space, but then they convert it to sRGB to print. Your input has to match your output... shoot in sRGB if you print in sRGB, shoot in Adobe RGB if you print in Adobe RGB, etc. If you're ONLY posting to the web, I'd shoot in sRGB. :)


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 9:20:35 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
  Susan, it depends on where you want to go with your photography whether to shoot in RAW or not. If you never intend to sell your photos in stock and you know you never intend to do that then jpeg is fine and it is preferred for the web. If there's any kind of chance at all you may someday consider stock you will need RGB images. While RAW always has to be edited once I saw the difference RAW can make to editing I'll never shoot jpeg again. I was still shooting jpeg just this past summer and would give anything if I had been shooting RAW.

LOL Ken! Did we hijack your thread???


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 1:43:54 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  So sorry, dear Ken! If you want this turned back to sharpness issues in uploading, just say the word---and sorry, as Sharon said, for "hijacking" your thread! (And so, sheepishly, she continues...) Sharon, yes definitely, one day hope to be able to sell stock, after a couple of courses and purchasing some equipment. But if one sells stock online, and if the true colours of things shot in RGB and RAW can't be reproduced, what then? Yesterday, went back to the Taiza coast and switched back to sRGB and JPEG, reasoning as Laura correctly suggests above, that as I never print, it's useless. But sorry I did, because not only did I noticed a big difference from my shots last weekend in RGB and RAW, when I uploaded my first edited pic, the colours were STILL faded. But when, in a pique, I went back and saturated 35%, I did get a fairly reasonable proximity. Not sure that could have happened if it had been in RAW and RGB. Anyway, I'm going to try your suggestion. Never noticed these issues in macro and close-ups. It's frustrating because I'm having enough problems as it is learning how to shoot landscapes. One of these days I'm going to get the courage to post one of my muddy landscapes to the forum asking for suggestions!


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 7:23:32 PM

 
Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/11/2005
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery
  Susan, you're fine. I wasn't implying you hijacked the thread. You didn't. All pertinent points. Keep it going!!


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 7:34:30 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
  "Sharon, yes definitely, one day hope to be able to sell stock, after a couple of courses and purchasing some equipment. But if one sells stock online, and if the true colours of things shot in RGB and RAW can't be reproduced, what then?"

Susan, I think you need to shoot RAW for stock because that's what the stock sites want. They aren't necessarily selling images just for the web. If most labs print in sRGB as Laura mentioned then I don't know why they would require RBG.

I do know RGB edits better if the exposure isn't perfect. I took a photo of a scene a while back and the sky was completely blown looking when I opened it in PS. By adjusting the exposure in the RAW converter I was able to get back a LOT of detail. I saved the darkened one as something else then opened the file again and edited to expose the ground properly then combined them in PS. You can not do that with jpegs because if you can't get back detail that isn't there like you can with RAW.


To love this comment, log in above
12/10/2006 8:36:40 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  We're probably talking oranges and apples here. Laura perhaps is talking about labs which print photos for photographers and stock sites cater to people who use printing facilities designed for publication purposes. I dread the whole idea of dealing with colour issues in printing and have been studiously ignoring it! So glad I've got you Sharon, and BP for when I'll finally have to deal with it! I've already started the learning process by dealing with uploads of landscapes! Little by little.


To love this comment, log in above
12/11/2006 1:04:46 AM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Okay, seems there's something I'm not getting here. First, Sharon, I was looking closely at your pic of PS above and trying to understand what you mean in "opening it in sRGB". I don't see an option that allows me to do that in CS2. Once I open it, I can then change it from RGB to sRGB. (And then immediately it looks like it's been washed in dirty water and all the luminosity is gone.)

I was just looking at the first Taiza coast pic that I took and edited last weekend (the one you took a shot at, Ken)--it was before I started noting the problem. The colours in PS were quite lovely--somber, subdued, stormy shot. I was disappointed at the upload, but didn't realize it was the colour. I just compared them now and see that there's a green cast on the upload and all the luminosity is gone--even the pink tints in the sky are gone.

I just brought up the original shot and changed it to sRGB and immediately it looked just like the uploaded version. Now, sure, perhaps I can get the colour back, perhaps esp if I saturate it a lot in the RAW options before opening it, but why in the world would I want to edit it in sRGB if I'm going to send it to a stock company in RGB? It would mean that I'd have to start the editing all over again. I often put A LOT of work into editing, especially if there's cloning to be done or I have to edit different sections of an image differently and I use the dodge and burn and saturation tools a lot. There's such a big difference, it's not just a matter of saturating it more before uploading it. I mean, looking repeatedly at my RGB pic before and after I convert it to sRGB, I imagine that my whole APPROACH to editing it would be different.

I had read somewhere exactly what you said, Sharon--that stock companies want photos shot in RGB not sRGB. When you sell to a stock company, you submit your photo which was taken in RGB through email in psd right? Then they upload it to whatever site they display their ware on, and customers choose photos from that. I mean, don't stock companies always display their pics on the web? So, doesn't that mean that when they upload your gorgeous RGB colours for customers to see, they turn to mud on the web?

I don't get it. Why bother to shoot in RAW and RBG if everyone is just going to convert your pics to sRGB in the end anyway, both labs and printers? And if you're only preparing pics for the web, which is what I'm doing now, why torture yourself knowing what it should look like and doesn't once you upload it?

Another thing I don't get. The whole issue of "web-safe" colours is well known--I mean, even editing software comes up with warnings if your colours aren't websafe---so, am I missing something, or isn't this just a fact of life and wouldn't this be a problem on ANY website, not just BP?

Ken, in all our discussions when I first got my camera, you never mentioned that you shot in RAW. Is this a new thing, and if so, did you have such problems before you started?


To love this comment, log in above
12/11/2006 5:43:34 AM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
 
 
 
I made a typo in my last post. I meant RAW is easier to edit.

Susan, I'll try to answer your questions in order.

#1 in PS CS (and I assume PS CS2 is similiar) you can go to Edit>Color Settings and set the color space to what you want. I have mine set to sRGB. Look for Profile Mismatches [ ] Ask when opening. If you check that box anytime you open a photo that isn't sRGB the program will tell you. When you open a photo there's a place you can choose so the program will tell you if you opened a photo that has a mismatched color profile. So if you want to edit for the web and you're opening a pic that's RAW after you've done whatever you wish to the photo in the RAW converter the file won't open in PS until you decide what color space you want to work in. It then asks, "Use the embedded profile (instead of the working space) OR Convert document's colors to the working space OR Discard the embedded profile (don't color manage). Ok, say I open a RAW photo and want to fix it up for BP. I would choose, "Convert document's colors to working space" because the working space is sRGB. After you edit and save as for BP it should look just fine when you upload.
#2. You wouldn't want to edit in sRGB for stock. Only for the web. What I'm doing now is editing for stock in RGB. When I'm done editing it looks good. It looks just fine to upload to BP, but if I resize and upload a RGB to BP it loses the color and saturation and looks dull as you've noticed. If I change the color profile to sRGB and save it again just for BP it will look fine. The way you can do that is go to Image>Mode>Convert to Profile and change the RGB to sRGB. I'm going to upload a couple of photos. I started with a RAW file. I chose to use the embedded profile which was RGB then I edited it to suit me in PS CS and saved it. I then converted the profile to sRGB and saved it again. I'm rambling and I apologize. The bottom line is I open the RAW file, edit it, save for stock (keep original intact, do "save as"), then if I'm going to use it in the contest I resize it and covert the profile to sRGB.


To love this comment, log in above
12/11/2006 4:30:03 PM

 
Sharon  Day
BetterPhoto Member Since: 6/27/2004
Contact Sharon
Sharon 's Gallery
  #3. When I submit to stock I edit in RGB but I don't upload a PSD file. It has to be jpeg for the most part. One site I submit to expects the photographer to be able to produce a TIFF if requested but never PSD. Yes, when the photos are uploaded to the sites they lose the beautiful colors and look like mud. I assume the clients looking at the photos are aware they're veiwing a RGB image and have an idea it will look better printed.

I think I'm kinda at a loss and not much help. The stock sites do expect you to submit in RGB and yes, they do look like mud IMHO too, but that's what they want and I do like editing RAW better. I switched back and forth between the sRGB photo of Susie and the one still in PS several times now they look identical to me. All I did was convert the RGB to an sRGB just before uploading. That should work for you too.

Don't hesitate to ask again because I know I tend not to explain things well.


To love this comment, log in above
12/11/2006 4:44:01 PM

 
Susan Jane Allen
BetterPhoto Member Since: 8/20/2005
Contact Susan Jane
Susan Jane's Gallery
  Thanks so much, Sharon! Before reading the above, I had figured it out. I hadn't noticed that in the RAW options box one could choose sRGB there. You had explained quite well, I just hadn't looked closely. Finally found it and used it and there was a TREMENDOUS difference between that and choosing sRGB AFTER the photo was opened! Still have to tweak up the saturation a bit, but no big pain. So relieved! How awful it was to discover a new world of colours and options in RGB and RAW and not be able to upload them faithfully to my gallery! Have had my camera for one year and how silly of me all this time to be afraid to shoot in RAW.

PS: Did you get my email?


To love this comment, log in above
12/12/2006 10:45:54 AM

 
Laura Clay-Ballard
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/8/2005
  I'm currently having a totally different issue .. all of a sudden! My images are too red .. too oversaturated...I shot in rgb and rgb color space. I have never converted my images to sRGB when I submit to BP...never have .. and that's long, long time. However, today, the shot I just uploaded called "sunshiney day" looks totally different than the image I show on my screen. I have sent this image in rgb to a few other places and they look fine ... except for bp...too red ... anyone know what might be going on?


To love this comment, log in above
12/15/2006 1:37:13 PM

 
Laura Clay-Ballard
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/8/2005
  I'm currently having a totally different issue .. all of a sudden! My images are too red .. too oversaturated...I shot in rgb and rgb color space. I have never converted my images to sRGB when I submit to BP...never have .. and that's long, long time. However, today, the shot I just uploaded called "sunshiney day" looks totally different than the image I show on my screen. I have sent this image in rgb to a few other places and they look fine ... except for bp...too red ... anyone know what might be going on?


To love this comment, log in above
12/15/2006 1:37:21 PM

 
Laura Clay-Ballard
BetterPhoto Member Since: 2/8/2005
  Nevermind. I think I have figured it out. This morning when I turned on my computer, all my pscs2 settings reverted back to their normal state which is sRGB (there was an automated windows update which must have interfered somehow). I changed all my settings to my customized preferences except for the color management settings .. I think this is where my problem lies ... especially since it just started today ...


To love this comment, log in above
12/15/2006 2:02:26 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member
  Not to make a long thread longer, but here it goes!

Loading over 300 images to BP's site, and as a pro shooter who has over 6000 images loaded on my main business site, the sharpness issue is not an easy one but I don't believe it's BP's fault.

Websites, at 72 dpi (dots per inch), limited in color (256 only compared to our monitors with millions of colors) and so many monitors producing different results, it hard to match your original image regardless. My images lose color, sharpness, and detail on my website and others- it's just the nature of the beast.

Personally BP's site is no different- I may be biased, but it's true, because when I review the same image on BP, on my various sites, and on other client sites, they all look comparably the same.

Obviously it can be frustrating to produce a tack sharp saturated image and see it lose quality- but that's web technology. Turn that image into a 20x30 print in a gallery, and it will be a different story.

I'm sure in the near future, we'll have High Definition internet- then we'll all need to REALLY make sure we're shooting tack sharp images!


To love this comment, log in above
12/20/2006 11:32:29 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  I'm gonna re-work that "I may be biased..." jazz and say you're a plant, sent here to spread propaganda. Because all that rationalization is going to put a serious damper on the third party fault finding total.


So.......
C.T. #53


To love this comment, log in above
12/21/2006 1:02:32 PM

 

BetterPhoto Member
  Gregory, I man after my own demented humor- good stuff.

Gotta run, I think someone in the government is tapping into my internet connection.


To love this comment, log in above
12/21/2006 1:37:44 PM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.