I don't have any solutions for the color profile...These look great. I'm excited to see the rest.
Sorry Casey didn't call you yesterday. We got distracted with his family. I was given the honor of placing "the" angel on the top of the tree (apparently its a coveted duty) - so I felt truly accepted given such an honor;)
With my family, I think the tree topping always went to the person in the family that was least liked. This was especially true because my dad always drug in 25' trees so there was a high mortality rate associated with the duty. I lost a lot of siblings that way. They tried to off me a few times but after enough failed attempts I'd get dismissed; incompetence is generally the smartest defense.
With the save for web option I thought the desaturation had something to do with reducing the file size. How do you work around this?
| Re: Yes please. - tyrven [29.11.05::10:44]|| |
So, from what I can tell, the desaturated image is close to what the image actually looks like. You can preview what it will end up looking at by going to "View: Proof Setup: " and changing the color space (such as Windows RGB, Macintosh RGB or Monitor RGB. Monitor RGB will look the least saturated, typically, because it's assigning no color management to the image, instead allowing the operating system to apply whatever default color profile it has setup for that monitor (which is always does).
The core issue with Windows seems to be that it is application dependent as to whether or not to apply color profiles. By default, Windows Preview and Internet Explorer look different, but neither look as vivid as on the Mac. I assume they are each assigning some default color profile, but either the profiles are different per application or it's using a different profile altogether. (I haven't dug into this too much).
Anyway, the textbook answer is to apply sRGB color profile to your photos before exporting them for web. ("Edit: Convert to Profile:"). Since sRGB is pretty standardized and universal it's often used as a default profile and otherwise expected to be understood by most systems. I found that sRGB makes the image look better but it's still a bit brighter and less saturated than it looks on my Mac.
What I'm doing to fix this is I convert the profile to whatever profile I'm using on my Mac monitor. This effectively removes all color profiles by automatically adjusting the base image to look as if that color profile was applied. That way, if you preview it with the monitor RGB, it should look relatively unchanged. Arguably this makes it more susceptable to changes between platforms, applications and devices by not using a standards based color profile; in practice, though, I've found that the varied support for color profiles is worse than the variance in displays/devices.
There is also a working space in Photoshop that's optimized for internet/web use. It uses the sRGB standard by default. If you only plan on using sRGB this is a good option; the colors are not right on but they're better than the default.
Of course, if you're printing your work you'll want to keep the colors uncompensated and then use a CMYK standard profile as well as one for your printer. For this reason, I just put the conversion into my export macro so it never effects my original image. If you were ONLY working for the web, you could probably adjust the "Edit: Color Settings..." to do this automatically to all images opened.
I thought you had come to the conclusion that the main issue was an adobe setting issue, and not a mac versus pc issue.
Just that the problem didn't present itself on a mac.
If you used the exact same workflow on a pc then you would have the same issue. Where the image looked fine in CS2, but looked like crap outside it. Of course its easier to catch because as soon as you see it in IE its all messed up. Anyone using Photoshop might have this same issue.
Within the color settings of CS2, what values are you using for the working color space, and the Color Management Policy?
Within the view menu do you have proof enabled, and if so what setting?
Under system preferences what color setting are you using for the active display? On the windows XP side are you using the monitor profile for your monitor?
From what I can tell (this is more emperical than research based), the core graphics rendering engine renders graphics with an awareness and respect for color profiles. As such, when you save graphics on the Mac the "issue" is present, but the operating system is smart enough to compensate for it.
A lot of PC applications are also smart enough to deal with color profiles, but a lot of them aren't as well; it is application dependent. As such, yes, it should be more noticeable on Photoshop on the PC.
I've never noticed this issue on my PC, however. I don't know if it's new to CS2 or if the default Photoshop settings on the PC differ from those on the Mac. I did find reports of similar issues from PC users. I know that I've heard this complaint repeatedly from Mac users but not a lot from PC users (including myself) so my assumption is that Photoshop on the PC may use different defaults for color management (possibly in response to different environmental expectations regarding color management). Or it may just be a CS2 variable.
First off I think most PC applications just leave it up to the default Monitor profile, where adobe CS2 allows you to choose the working color space, and like you mentioned in the previous post you can even preview a close approximation of how it will look in other color spaces using the proof command.
Adobe uses the default of working space of sRGB when you select North American Web/Internet as the default setting. it also converts the embedded color management sRGB. I believe it does this because sRGB is the standard color space for the web.
I can imagine running into problems if the file gets saved in some other color space (Adobe RGB, etc) and then uploaded.
That's only one aspect though. The next is the just the difference between Apple and the PC world. The gamma difference, etc. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because the point of gamma is to correct for the monitor so why is it O/S based?
Yeah, the gamma difference is quirky; I've never understood that myself.
Re: Adobe RGB: Agreed. Or at least, it's obvious once you recognize that it's defaulting to a different color profile than you expected.
okay, I'm just here to say you did an amazing job.
That baby, with the blue eyes?
Holli you looked lovely doll. And Casey very handsome. You both look like you have great family.
Thanks, Sara. That child was adorable. And yeah, their family was wonderful. The only criticism of the wedding I had was the lack of alcohol; outside of that, the location was perfect and the guests were all very sociable and friendly.
I've photographed formal events before where people treat the photographer really poorly (especially if you have the audacity to eat their food); since this is just a hobby and I'm usually doing this for friends for pretty cheap it's a lot more fulfilling when the guests treat you with respect instead of a necessary utility invading their private affairs.
That reminds me, did you get to eat anything? I hoped you knew you could help yourself. I guess there was a lot of left-overs.
And, I heard you got a hug from someone? Is that true? Wouldn't surprize me - the family is friendly.
We would have had alcohol, but for the sake of our ducats-errr casey's ducats -and a few people who can't stop drinking when they should, we didn't have any.
Oh, and The Adorable Child was my youngest cousin, Dara. She is an angel.
I don't think I did get a chance to eat anything, but more just because I was busy taking photos. I tend to get caught up in that :). We intended to take some of teh grapes that were being handed out in the end, but forgot.
And yeah, I think it was the lady with the tattoo (I can't remember her relation to you? Step mom?).
"And a few people who can't stop drinking when they should" -- you know, we're friends. We won't take it personally. We all know that Katie is an alcoholic so you don't need to mince words.
Thank you:) It went amazingly well: both of my parents being remarried 3 times! So, there was a variety of my family there, but they all got along.
I'm so pleased with our photos - I can hardly wait to see more.
Well, I mean, it'll be her parent's number, of course, because I don't think she has her own phone yet. But I'm sure they're nice people and would love to put you through to her. Especially if you tell them that you're a 30+ year old Nazi and you think she's really beautiful.
Don't downplay it. I'm almost 40.
Yes, I assumed it would be their number. How about email? Would that be easier? At least that would allow for some deniability/encryption.
I just noticed, over in Ashley's LJ, where she says that you can get an aperture for $5,000, you say that you "... don't have that type of money."
Exactly when did you become poor and/or start pinching the pennies/millions?
Do I have to mention "prenuptial agreement" to you?
Well, I spent the rest of my money on a "shutter", which Ashley insisted I needed to take better photographs.
It's hard to believe that you let girls take advantage of you, especially by making you spend money on stuff you already have. I'm fairly certain that all cameras come standard with an aperture and a shutter. Otherwise, it would be hard for them to take photos.
Anyway, the cost of one or the other still doesn't explain your current dire-sounding financial condition. Do you need an interest-free loan from a Nazi to tide you over?