Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
If you can see the structure of the water, and not only a dark blue "mash" like I see here, then the conversion should be fine.
-
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!
Cliff View
- Thread starter Georg R. Baumann
- Start date
Thierry Hagenauer
pro member
Georg,
not only a "dark mash", but nice bluish water with fine details. Seems fine to me, as well as the rest of the image, although the ski is a bit too bright for my taste (overall image too contrasty).
Thierry
not only a "dark mash", but nice bluish water with fine details. Seems fine to me, as well as the rest of the image, although the ski is a bit too bright for my taste (overall image too contrasty).
Thierry
If you can see the structure of the water, and not only a dark blue "mash" like I see here, then the conversion should be fine.
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Thank you Thierry, this is helpful. Yes, too contrasty would be my feeling as well. - I have yet to learn how to get the best out of SINAR files with PP and refrain from doing what I used to do with olympus files. -
Here is a view from the entire scene, shot with a Zuiko Digital 7-14mm @f14.
Here is a view from the entire scene, shot with a Zuiko Digital 7-14mm @f14.
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonsoir Georg
I don't understand why you don't embed the sRGB profile! it would make your life much easier!
Below is a screen hard copy of :
on left uour image seen in Safari (color managed) and superposed on right your image in PS CS3…
I don't understand why you don't embed the sRGB profile! it would make your life much easier!
Below is a screen hard copy of :
on left uour image seen in Safari (color managed) and superposed on right your image in PS CS3…
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Hi Nicolas,
I do not understand. In PS I save the sRGB and embedded the ICC profiles (is hooked!)
What am I missing?
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Georg
the best way is not to use "save for the web" but "save as" … JPG and then check the profile mark, like this:
the best way is not to use "save for the web" but "save as" … JPG and then check the profile mark, like this:
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
IMHO, the most fail-safe way is to 'convert' to sRGB, and embed that profile in the image. There are non-colormanaged displays/drivers/browsers out there, in fact most are, although many exhibit sRGB primaries and gamma.
Bart
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Well Nicolas, as I said <grin>, I do not understand!
What's the difference?
If I take the jpeg on my mac, right click on it --> Get Info, I see:
Profile Name: sRGB 61966-2.1
What's the difference?
If I take the jpeg on my mac, right click on it --> Get Info, I see:
Profile Name: sRGB 61966-2.1
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
So, are you guys saying this is a bug in Photoshop CS3?
My saving for Web workflow is:
1. reduce size
2. final sharpening
3. reduce from 16 to 8 bit
4. save for web with embedded ICC Profile
My saving for Web workflow is:
1. reduce size
2. final sharpening
3. reduce from 16 to 8 bit
4. save for web with embedded ICC Profile
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bart
Yes you're right of course, one need to convert to sRGB first.
Georg
When I get the info of your file, I get:
RGB not sRGB…
when I open your file in PS, it says that the file has no profile embeded…
Yes you're right of course, one need to convert to sRGB first.
Georg
When I get the info of your file, I get:
RGB not sRGB…
when I open your file in PS, it says that the file has no profile embeded…
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Bart
Yes you're right of course, one need to convert to sRGB first.
Georg
When I get the info of your file, I get:
RGB not sRGB…
when I open your file in PS, it says that the file has no profile embeded…
Funny stuff
Here is my version:
Michael Fontana
pro member
I dunno know why, but a normal, tagged file here says in the finder:
Espace colorimetrique: RGB
Profilename: sRGB or Adobe 98
meanwhile a image, beeing sRGB and going throu "save for web" didn't had these annotation at all in the info-panel/more informations.... 10.4.11
I don' want to add confusion, but Safari and my colormanaged Firefox display the color differently as well!
BTW: George, you're not showing the same file as Nicolas, yours is much heavier...
Espace colorimetrique: RGB
Profilename: sRGB or Adobe 98
meanwhile a image, beeing sRGB and going throu "save for web" didn't had these annotation at all in the info-panel/more informations.... 10.4.11
I don' want to add confusion, but Safari and my colormanaged Firefox display the color differently as well!
BTW: George, you're not showing the same file as Nicolas, yours is much heavier...
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Funny stuff
Here is my version:
It's not the same file!
different name and different size…
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Well, I come to the conclusion that somewhere on the way from my Mac, over the stick, to the PC, down to here, something must have gone wrong.
Could this have to do with the bytes order option in Photoshop? You can prefer MAC or IBM if I am not mistaken, I have it on Mac per default.
Could this have to do with the bytes order option in Photoshop? You can prefer MAC or IBM if I am not mistaken, I have it on Mac per default.
Michael Fontana
pro member
No way, it wouldn't make 1.8 MB out of 292 KB...
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
It is the same file, just before I send it to my Host Nicolas. What you see is the encrypted version, hecne the difference and my guess that this could be also the reason that the host is doing something to the files that I don't know.
But it is late, and I am not going to solve this tonight. LOL
Thanks Folks!
Laterz....
nicolas claris
OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Have a good night my friend!
May I suggest that tomorow you download the file from OPFto your computer and see if it has the same infos than before uploading it to your web hoster…
Make sweet dreams!
May I suggest that tomorow you download the file from OPFto your computer and see if it has the same infos than before uploading it to your web hoster…
Make sweet dreams!
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
It does!
OK, I am downloading my own picture from the Host and have a look then.... <opening another bottle, flippin ISDN, LOL>
The download is ~1.8MB
I am sharing the link again:
Michael Fontana
pro member
George, I took it down, too; it had here 292 KB, as Nicolas says...
2nd download, a few seconds ago: 292 KB....
2nd download, a few seconds ago: 292 KB....
Michael Fontana
pro member
But look here:
Screenshots opend in Photoshop while keeping the monitor's profile, converted to sRGB and saved for web - with profile.
It looks precisly the same as beeing saved °normally° with a profile.
Now, for the next image, I through the profile away, when saving for web:
Got the idea?
Screenshots opend in Photoshop while keeping the monitor's profile, converted to sRGB and saved for web - with profile.
It looks precisly the same as beeing saved °normally° with a profile.
Now, for the next image, I through the profile away, when saving for web:
Got the idea?
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Hi Michael,
when I safe over OPF, I do get the same filesize like you guys. When I go via the Host, I get the 1.8 MB, doh?!
Look:
This is the menu from where I copy the second link to post here within image tags.
Michael Fontana
pro member
What's that fuzzy °size to embed°?
Your image has here 912 x 768 pix...
Your image has here 912 x 768 pix...
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Yeah! The maximum accepted is 1024x768, and they take files down to that size, hence the912x768
Michael Fontana
pro member
Finishing Post 21:
The two sets; upper and lower one look identical in Firefox, meanwhile in Safari, they're much different:
- The colormanagemend-aware-Firefox (see the other thread) recognises sRGB when the profile is added in °save for web°.
- If FF can't find no profile, it assigns sRGB.
------
Safari:
- it looks like it assigns the monitor profile, if it can' t find one...
- if it finds a profile, it displays it plusminus correctly.
But still theirs quite a big difference beween these two browsers, both calling to be colormanaged. Pretty confusing!
The two sets; upper and lower one look identical in Firefox, meanwhile in Safari, they're much different:
- The colormanagemend-aware-Firefox (see the other thread) recognises sRGB when the profile is added in °save for web°.
- If FF can't find no profile, it assigns sRGB.
------
Safari:
- it looks like it assigns the monitor profile, if it can' t find one...
- if it finds a profile, it displays it plusminus correctly.
But still theirs quite a big difference beween these two browsers, both calling to be colormanaged. Pretty confusing!
Michael Fontana
pro member
Yeah! The maximum accepted is 1024x768, and they take files down to that size, hence the912x768
and probably they have their own idea about colormanagement and Gamma as well ;-)
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
I am afraid so!
I have to leave it here and pick up another time.... See you Saturday!
Georg R. Baumann
Inactive
Aha... this should be better!
I tried Bart's suggestion, and now I also see under Windows XP, Properties, Summary, the correct data including Sinar stuff, which was not there before! - Must read up what this new menu means, never saw that before, something about baselines. -
Who again invented colormanagement?
What a Pest! LOL
We need better interoperability by all means!
I tried Bart's suggestion, and now I also see under Windows XP, Properties, Summary, the correct data including Sinar stuff, which was not there before! - Must read up what this new menu means, never saw that before, something about baselines. -
Who again invented colormanagement?
What a Pest! LOL
We need better interoperability by all means!