Proposed new way to process photos

[Baldy]

Big problem: we're getting an increasing number of photos in color spaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB (1998).

Since the dawn of time, we've converted CMYK jpegs to sRGB since the web can't display them.

So now we're proposing to do the same, sort of, for Adobe RGB files. There are two ways we can do it:

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy

[DavidTO]

Baldy, I'm not a pro, no expert, barely informed on this subject.

I gave up on Adobe RGB because smugmug didn't display it and didn't print it.

You're proposing to solve half the problem by reducing the display problems, but it will still get converted to sRGB when printed, right?

So, I'm still at a loss as to what's the advantage to Adobe RGB. I guess the rub is that you cater to pros and amateurs alike, and you offer the best consumer processing there is. Problem is, there are pro shops that offer Adobe RGB...but they're specialized.

I guess my answer is that if you do either of the above, I'm gonna stick with sRGB, since I don't see a compelling reason to do otherwise.

[Nikolai]

Baldy, I'm not a pro, no expert, barely informed on this subject....
I guess my answer is that if you do either of the above, I'm gonna stick with sRGB, since I don't see a compelling reason to do otherwise.
I'm even stripping the colorspace info from mine (which makes it sRGB by default and saves some space)

Cheers!:1drink

[rutt]

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.

[onethumb]

[QUOTE=DavidTO]I gave up on Adobe RGB because smugmug didn't display it and didn't print it.[/QOUTE]

Minor correction: smugmug displays it fine. View it in Safari or some other ICC-profile-aware application, and it looks perfect. It's the application, like say Internet Explorer, which chooses to display it badly.

You were right on the money with everything else. There's no reason to use Adobe RGB, and indeed, most of our money-making Pros don't use it - it's often the ones who don't yet understand the whole colorspace dilemma (who does?!) who have chosen it.

And then we get tons of complaints because it looks washed out and is printed washed out. That's what we're trying to avoid.

Don

[onethumb]

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.

We currently keep original, pristine JPEGs and GIFs as long as they're in RGB (not CMYK or something). Everything else is converted to JPEG, if we can, and stored that way, including TIFFs.

The big problem is that when you upload to smugmug, because of the way every Windows browser handles images, your photo looks shockingly different than it does in Photoshop if you used Adobe98. So while we are saving the file exactly, the perception is that we're changing the file. We're not - IE and Firefox and everything else are just ignoring your settings.

That's our dilemma, and it's a tough one.

Don

[DavidTO]

Minor correction: smugmug displays it fine. View it in Safari or some other ICC-profile-aware application, and it looks perfect. Don

I'm in Safari, and my aRGB files always look a bit more washed out than the sRGB--compared to viewing them in PS, not to each other. In other words, when I view the same file in PS and on smugmug via Safari, smugmug looks washed out. Not so for sRGB

In aRGB:
http://davidrosenthal.smugmug.com/photos/21588744-S.jpg

The EXACT SAME IMAGE with the sole exception that I used PS to convert to sRGB:
http://davidrosenthal.smugmug.com/photos/21667373-S.jpg

[DavidTO]

You were right on the money with everything else. There's no reason to use Adobe RGB, and indeed, most of our money-making Pros don't use it - it's often the ones who don't yet understand the whole colorspace dilemma (who does?!) who have chosen it.

And then we get tons of complaints because it looks washed out and is printed washed out. That's what we're trying to avoid.

Don

And there I was up in Yosemite, and Marc Muench insisted that you should always use aRGB, and only use shops that process it...

If color theory wasn't complicated enough, the opinions that go along with it are worse...

[Baldy]

So, I'm still at a loss as to what's the advantage to Adobe RGB.Adobe RGB is a bit broader than sRGB, meaning it can represent more colors. For example, the pure cyan in HP's original logo (the company that helped Microsoft develop sRGB), is included in Adobe RGB but not in sRGB, so sRGB has to pick a color as close to it as possible, but not quite it.

This would be meaningful to someone who (a) has a shot with colors outside of sRGB's box of crayons, (b) has a printer that can print it, and (c) can notice the difference between those colors if they have to be altered to fit in sRGB.

Wrt to (a), the colors that are outside of sRGB rarely occur in nature. They're often day-glo colors. We think 99% of photos fall completely inside sRGB, especially ones of people in natural settings.

Wrt (b), here's the crux of the issue: photographic paper and chemicals, which we've used for more than a century, have a smaller box of crayons than sRGB, let alone Adobe RGB. Since commercial printers like EZ Prints use photographic paper, there isn't much need for a wider color space since the paper can't handle it anyway. In fact, they can do better with sRGB because they can spend each of their 256 shades of red, greeen, and blue in the colors photographic paper and chemicals can actually paint, instead of making the increments coarser to be able to paint HP's logo, which the paper can't anyway.

Ink jets, however, don't use photographic chemicals. The ones with many ink cartridges can paint broader colors, if you have them and have a sharp enough eye to realize sRGB substituted a color for the one you really had.

Commercial offset printers also use Adobe RGB, and hence if you're Marc Muench and preparing shots for brochures, your client will ask for it in that space.

Clear as mud?

Thanks,
Baldy

[winnjewett]

I would like to throw out a third option. What about displaying a message to the user letting them know that some photos are not in sRGB, and might not display properly? Then give them the option to have you convert to sRGB, leave it alone, or convert the non-originals to sRGB.

I feel that the solution to the problem is education. The conversions baldy proposed are work-arounds.

-winn

[lenscape]

Big problem: we're getting an increasing number of photos in color spaces other than sRGB, such as Adobe RGB (1998).

Since the dawn of time, we've converted CMYK jpegs to sRGB since the web can't display them.

So now we're proposing to do the same, sort of, for Adobe RGB files. There are two ways we can do it:

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy I don't like the idea of converting from Adobe 1998 to sRGB,Unless I could print with the Adobe color space. So I always shoot at sRGB.:dunno

[Baldy]

What about displaying a message to the user letting them know that some photos are not in sRGB, and might not display properly? Then give them the option to have you convert to sRGB, leave it alone, or convert the non-originals to sRGB.With all due respect, I believe that for 50% of our pros and 99% of our consumers, that message would read like:

"Your files are willa garubish monsa. They won't display correctly. Would you like us to convert them to ikamebbe so they display well?"

"For more information about garubish and ikamebbe and why your files are no good and how you can spend $599 for Photoshop to fix them, wade through this pretty heavy help section and please ignore this topic in most of the Photoshop books you read."

And please decide whether you want your hi-res original converted or just the smaller images we make from them and remember that sometimes your original is a display copy and here's another help section about that.

Honestly, I think they just want good display and good prints. For the few who want to read about it, we have help sections to point them to.

[Baldy]

I'm even stripping the colorspace info from mine (which makes it sRGB by default and saves some space)

Cheers!:1drinkUnfortunately... If your file is in Adobe RGB and you strip the profile, the file is still in Adobe RGB and your browser will still wash it out. You have to choose "convert to profile" in Photoshop which does the actual pixel manipulation to make it an sRGB file so your browser can display it correctly.

[Baldy]

I like the idea that original means original and that the display copies are manipulated to look right in the browsers. I've noticed that you keep original gifs and that I can get URLs for them. I like that and use it in my smugmug banner. I think you keep tifs as well. It makes sense that when I ask for the original, I get it exactly what I uploaded. And when you print, it makes sense that you take the original and manipulate it the best you can (given manual constraints) to make the print. The more options you give to control what actually happens, the less flak you are likely to get.I do too.

So the question is are we willing to face the following scenarios:

1. A pro like Marc Muench carefully crafts his photo to be 800 pixels wide but leaves it in Adobe RGB. When people view his galleries, they see rich thumbnails, small and medium-sized images. They click on large and suddenly it doesn't look as good as the medium they were just viewing.

2. Someone chooses slideshow when viewing Rutt's galleries. They are so swept away by your shots that they hit the full-screen button. Smugmug sniffs their monitor size and finds out it's 1024x1280. We don't have a display size that big, so we make them on the fly for the slide show to fit your monitor, from the original. Hard enough to make them fast enough but now we have to also convert to sRGB on the fly before they see the next slide or their full-screen slide show will look washed out compared to the regular slide show.

See the dilemma?

[winnjewett]

To get an idea of the scope of the problem, roughly what percentage of the photos are not stored in sRGB?

Also, what is the distribution of pro to non-pro?
-winn

[colourbox]

My suggestion is in two parts, expanded on below:

On the original-size page viewed only by the logged-in gallery owner, add an advisory message as simple as possible like "If your image colors don't look right, please make sure you've converted it to the sRGB colorspace before uploading."
In all relevant portions of the help file, direct all users to convert to sRGB before uploading.


Reason for A: It could prompt the owner to take a second look at the colors, and give a simple suggestion for fixing it. This message must be as simple as possible to avoid the above-mentioned real danger of the message being read as technobabble that causes the eyes to glaze over. This is why the message only says "hey, convert to sRGB." If the user can simply be motivated to convert to sRGB, it won't matter if the profile is embedded or not. It will just be right. So I think that "motivating all users to convert to sRGB first" is the only realistic goal to aim for. It has to say "convert" so people don't just "assign." The message could contain a link to a help topic.

Reason for B: I know how much people don't pay much attention to help files. But converting to sRGB the "right thing to do" for any image going to the Web and smugmug's printing service. I can't think of a good reason to upload Web images in a color space other than sRGB unless, as mentioned above, smugmug were to offer some kind of super fine art printing service on really wide gamut devices, which would require that uploaders have an extremely comfortable handle on color management (uh huh). Converting to sRGB before any upload is not a natural tendency for most levels of users, but I strongly believe it's behavior that needs to be reinforced. While smugmug is not the only online location where sRGB conversion should be encouraged, it's in smugmug's best interest to reinforce that behavior. Ironically, I'm not actually pro-sRGB; I use Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB quite a bit. But I also know that those color spaces stand almost no chance of looking good on the Web or in non-color-managed applications, so all galleries I upload are sized and sRGB-converted copies made through a batch Photoshop action so I don't have to think about it.

The obvious problem with my ideas are that they don't do anything to address what happens when smugmug gets an image that is in a color space other than sRGB yet has no embedded profile. But there's no good uniform way for smugmug to guess. Too many images will be wrong no matter what smugmug guesses.

Again, the reason for this suggestion is that if users could simply be motivated to convert to sRGB, and they can be told that they'd been warned, smugmug no longer has to guess.

[Mitch]

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

Trouble with option 2 is when people are browsing albums and look at the original, there will be a color shift. For example, suppose a photographer uploads an 800-pixel Adobe RGB file. Then the thumbnails, small and medium views would all look vibrant (sRGB) the the large (which in this case is the original) would appear washed out.

Your thoughts.

Thanks,
Baldy
I like option #2. Maybe my pictures might look better than someone's who doesn't upload in sRGB.:D

Mitch

[flyingpylon]

Apply a hefty surcharge for files uploaded in aRGB... that will get them fixed in a hurry.

[Mike Lane]

Apply a hefty surcharge for files uploaded in aRGB... that will get them fixed in a hurry.
That'll keep those pesky customers away too. Just think how much easier life would be without all us demanding customers always trying to get their way.

[mercphoto]

1. We can convert the file so sRGB as we do now for CMYK files. Trouble is, we wouldn't retain a perfect copy of the original.

2. We can convert to sRGB just for the display copies but leave the original as Adobe RGB. We're trying to get EZ Prints to convert to their profile from Adobe RGB when we send a file, but if they don't we can convert originals that get sent to EZ Prints on the fly.

This appears a big delima. One thing you could do is not accept anything other than JPG in sRGB files in the first place. No more CYMK, TIFF, etc.

The other problem is how do you determine what a JPG has for a color space that has that info stripped? How do you catch a Nikoli who has uploaded what is really an aRGB file, but he strippped out the info so that you don't know that?

Myself, I only shoot in sRGB space anymore, and I have my working space in PS/CS setup as sRGB as well.

[mercphoto]

That'll keep those pesky customers away too. Just think how much easier life would be without all us demanding customers always trying to get their way.

That's not really a good analogy here. There is no way, as a customer, you are going to get "your way" with respect to the color space issue. And the only way Smugmug is going to get consistently good results from prints is if the "pesky customers" learn what color spaces are and which color space to use.

[Baldy]

To get an idea of the scope of the problem, roughly what percentage of the photos are not stored in sRGB?

Also, what is the distribution of pro to non-pro?
-winnIt's a good question and I'm afraid I don't know the answer. Reason I don't know is there's nothing in the database that logs which color space they're in.

What I do know is how often we see support issues about it. For prints, it's roughly one order every other day — we reprinted 4 orders for this last week. If the rule of 10:1 applies (90% of customers never complain, they just never come back), then perhaps 40 orders were affected.

The interesting thing about those 4 orders was how critical they were. One was a wedding involving around 300 prints. It took me almost two hours to disarm the furious photographer, convert all the files, and replace the order. Another involved enlargements made for a charity auction. In both cases, we had to rush them by FedEX to meet the deadlines they were in danger of missing because of this problem.

I'd have to check the log for how many help emails we get for washed out display. Maybe 1 a day? But frequently they've got a very edgy tone because they feel that we're somehow changing the beautiful shots they see in Photoshop to something less vibrant, which would make me mad too.

[bkriete]

I'm sure there are some (many?) who use Smugmug at least partly as an off-site backup for pictures (to me that's one of the biggest appeals of unlimited storage), and that many of those pictures are probably in "hidden" galleries.

Keeping that in mind, I would be annoyed if I found out that the file I had uploaded to SM for safekeeping had been modified in a destructive fashion.
Maybe the solution is to make processing the various sizes part of the "upload" process and to leave the original untouched. That would do away with on-the-fly resizing issues, and would make sure that the pictures that most customers see display properly (I know many pros don't allow visitors to view "original resolution" images).

[mercphoto]

Maybe the solution is to make processing the various sizes part of the "upload" process and to leave the original untouched. That would do away with on-the-fly resizing issues, and would make sure that the pictures that most customers see display properly (I know many pros don't allow visitors to view "original resolution" images).

But it does nothing to solve the delima of prints being washed out because they are in the wrong color space. Prints are made from the original file, which you propose to leave untouched.

[Baldy]

Somebody said this or something close to it, which resonates with me and JT:

When we receive the files and if we detect they're not sRGB, we could either produce a message or email saying, "the files you sent were blah blah blah and we'll convert them to sRGB because we're so wonderful and here to serve :D and here's a pointer to a help section on why."

Still have the dilemma of whether to convert the original or not.

I feel that it's the right thing to do to convert the original so that viewing originals works as people expect, but I feel that we'll have a tall order defending it.

I've been worried about the help burden of explaining why their originals will look bad when displayed, but maybe we nip that in the bud with the message right after the upload.

[Baldy]

But it does nothing to solve the delima of prints being washed out because they are in the wrong color space. Prints are made from the original file, which you propose to leave untouched.We could convert them to sRGB before sending to EZ Prints to dance around that issue.

Better yet, we could flag them as needing conversion so EZ Prints could apply their profile to them directly from Adobe RGB (we're currently pressuring them to do this, but we can convert to sRGB on the fly as a backup plan if they don't come through).

That way we retain the Adobe RGB original on our disks but EZ Prints gets a file in the format they expect.

[Baldy]

I'm sure there are some (many?) who use Smugmug at least partly as an off-site backup for pictures (to me that's one of the biggest appeals of unlimited storage), and that many of those pictures are probably in "hidden" galleries.

Keeping that in mind, I would be annoyed if I found out that the file I had uploaded to SM for safekeeping had been modified in a destructive fashion.And that's quite a powerful argument for keeping the originals unmodified.

[winnjewett]

Is the issue of processor time during full screen slideshows the only reason to convert the original file to sRGB?

If so, then it seems that one solution would be to store two 'originals'. One untouched, one in sRGB.

It would seem that this is simply an economics question. Is it cheaper to buy more processing power or more storage space for additional originals.

Another option is to create and save a duplicate original only when needed. From then on, you would have the duplicate, and no further processing power is needed.

-winn

[winnjewett]

With all due respect, I believe that for 50% of our pros and 99% of our consumers, that message would read like:

"Your files are willa garubish monsa. They won't display correctly. Would you like us to convert them to ikamebbe so they display well?"
I completely agree. I don't think consumers should ever have to see the words 'color space', sRGB, or gamut if they didn't ask. But, pros should be aware of these issues. I think it is akin to a pro not knowing that there is a difference between processing b+w film and color slide film. Well, that analogy isn't very good, but it's an important topic for a pro regardless.

-winn

[Baldy]

We seem to have about three kinds of pro photographers in roughly equal numbers:

1. Fine art/landscape like you see here on dgrin, dpreview, on PBase, etc. Generally, they're pretty good at knowing about sRGB versus Adobe RGB, etc., and aren't very hard to get focused on the issue.

2. Sports event photographers, and to some extent wedding photographers. Many of them are quite technically inclined and you see some of them here on dgrin, like Shay Stephens and Eric Olsen, who know this stuff cold. But the age of digital has ushered in quite a few event photographers who really don't know/don't want to know.

3. Stay-at-home moms with young children shooting portraits, families and engagements. It's amazing how much print volume they generate. They're generally absent on the forums.

I have a great deal of respect for them because they're so good with people and very frequently have a great eye for shots other moms want to buy.

But boy are they usually technically phobic. They consider themselves artists, not geeks, and they really don't want to get into techobabble. We have to make this really easy for them.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

[winnjewett]

We seem to have about three kinds of pro photographers in roughly equal numbers: Boy, nothing's as simple as it seems. I think I'm fresh out of ideas.
-winn

[Matthew Saville]

we're currently pressuring them to do this...Don't forget to pressure them about my light jet panos while you're at it! :thumb

3. Stay-at-home moms with young children shooting portraits, families and engagements. It's amazing how much print volume they generate. They're generally absent on the forums.That's cause they've got lives, unlike us bumps-on-a-log. :D

I'm a nature AND event photographer and I shoot 100% in sRGB. I tested RGB, sRGB, and aRGB on my D70 and decided to stick with sRGB in the end simply because I found that PS is a more powerful tool (as far as color tweaking, saturation enhancing etc. goes) than my camera is.

http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/gallery/393206

I say we get over it, and use sRGB 100% of the time. What we should be spending our time on instead is ridding the world of evil internet browsing software. If smugmug used Inkjet printers for their prints, then things would be different, we'd all be using RGB. But currently, you heard them, digital-chemical printers can't even handle all of sRGB's colors, let alone RGB. So I say we make everything sRGB and work on saving the world from Windows-based browsers, and buying me a Mac w/CSII for ultimate color control. heheh like how I slipped that one in there, doncha?

[dragon300zx]

OK. I was working on posting this earlier but it was 5 so I had to leave work. Here it goes. There is no good answer. You can eaither keep an originals folder and a converted folder on the server. But if you do that you double your storage needs. You can create a idiot message pop-up that warns them their file is going to be converted and they had better save an original. Or you can have an idiot message pop-up that says "Your colorspace is incompatible. We can convert it for you, however if you do not want us to convert it then it will not print properly when you order prints. Do you want us to convert it? yes/no". As far as the files that are already there. No good solution, at least no easy solution. You could create another pop-up idiot message (thats what I call them on my network in the office no offence anyone) everytime someone logs into their smugmug account that doesn't go away till they fix the color space. Annouying people gets stuff done.

[mercphoto]

OK. I was working on posting this earlier but it was 5 so I had to leave work. Here it goes. There is no good answer.

Actually, part of me wants to say the only good solution is to not try and hold the hands of those who's photographic skills and workflow needs correcting. Don't accept anything that is not in sRGB space, period. Don't convert it, simply reject it. I heard that some say they use Smugmug as an off-site storage facility. Smug should ask themselves if they want this biz or not.

I strongly believe the only long-term solution to any problem is at the source, not at the destination. Don't hold people's hands too much, it keeps them from learning from their mistakes. Sorry if it offends anyone.

[Moon Mullen]

Actually, part of me wants to say the only good solution is to not try and hold the hands of those who's photographic skills and workflow needs correcting. Don't accept anything that is not in sRGB space, period. Don't convert it, simply reject it. I heard that some say they use Smugmug as an off-site storage facility. Smug should ask themselves if they want this biz or not.

I strongly believe the only long-term solution to any problem is at the source, not at the destination. Don't hold people's hands too much, it keeps them from learning from their mistakes. Sorry if it offends anyone.
The text below is directly from Smugmug's pitch on the website, so I hope they still want me! I am one of those non-techinical moms who don't know the difference between sRGB and RGB except I am not a mom, but a dad. Please don't be sexist and please don't discriminate against us elitist RGB'ers if we are one despite our best intentions. Help us come back to the fold, and please Lord of the Smugmug, don't always listen to the few who bark on dgrin. No offense to any particular dgrin dog, but with thousands of smugmuggers, the dgrinners only represent a vocal minority.

What if you lost them?

It doesn't take a burning home to lose your digital photos. Just a computer crash. Or accidental erasure. Which may make the $29.95/year for a smugmug account priceless.

Smugmug keeps two exact copies of the photos you upload in a secure datacenter that the most trusted Internet brands use. And you can order CD and DVD backups anytime. Or download your originals back to your computer.

[mercphoto]

The text below is directly from Smugmug's pitch on the website, so I hope they still want me! I am one of those non-techinical moms who don't know the difference between sRGB and RGB except I am not a mom, but a dad. Please don't be sexist and please don't discriminate against us elitist RGB'ers if we are one despite our best intentions. Help us come back to the fold

As I stated, its not best to hold people's hands, but rather to educate them. And via this thread you have just become educated as to color spaces. I see that as a good thing. And if Smugmug had held your hand and did the right thing for you without you realizing what was going on and why, how does that help you any? Answer, it doesn't.

[colourbox]

As you may recall, my earlier post was in agreement with mercphoto. The good news is that in theory this should all fall out properly: The less technical someone is, and the less they know the difference between color spaces, the more likely they have been operating in sRGB all this time, because that is the space that consumer equipment defaults to and assumes. Someone would usually have to have the expensive version of Photoshop, and go in and consciously change the color defaults, in order for Adobe RGB to become their working space. A regular guy having fun with Photoshop Elements should be safely in sRGB without needing to know about it.

If someone is in Adobe RGB because they are a pro, then being a pro, it is their responsibility, not smugmug's, to know about color spaces. And it should not take much text to advise a working professional to convert their images to sRGB and/or change their default Photoshop space to sRGB if they don't want to keep converting.

I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?" That literature is aimed at color-finicky pros going to press, but I suppose non-pros hear it from "their neighbor who knows about computers."

[dragon300zx]

"their neighbor who knows about computers."

I say we start eliminating some of these neighbors. They are the same ones who send my clients viruses and tell them that bonzai buddy is a cool thing to download.

[mercphoto]

I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?"

Probably. Its part of the "wider is better", or "bigger is better" mantra. To someone who doesn't know any better it sounds perfectly reasonable. But even pros can be wrong. For example, how many pros will tell you that the best color space to use is the color space that is the smallest that does not produce an out-of-gamut color? Very few. Most will tell you that it is always best to work in the largest color space, which is easy to show is false if you know a bit about the math involved.

[lynnesite]

As you may recall, my earlier post was in agreement with mercphoto. The good news is that in theory this should all fall out properly: The less technical someone is, and the less they know the difference between color spaces, the more likely they have been operating in sRGB all this time, because that is the space that consumer equipment defaults to and assumes. Someone would usually have to have the expensive version of Photoshop, and go in and consciously change the color defaults, in order for Adobe RGB to become their working space. A regular guy having fun with Photoshop Elements should be safely in sRGB without needing to know about it.

If someone is in Adobe RGB because they are a pro, then being a pro, it is their responsibility, not smugmug's, to know about color spaces. And it should not take much text to advise a working professional to convert their images to sRGB and/or change their default Photoshop space to sRGB if they don't want to keep converting.

I guess what I'm missing is how non-pros end up in AdobeRGB. Is it because of the vast literature that says "it's better than sRGB?" That literature is aimed at color-finicky pros going to press, but I suppose non-pros hear it from "their neighbor who knows about computers."

Same here, since all of the consumer grade cameras default to sRGB.

My protocol, FWIW, is to shoot in sRGB in RAW, convert using AdobeRGB, and then based on its purpose change profiles as necessary after editing. Much of my stuff goes for print/to art directors.

So for stuff bound for smugmug, it's to sRGB. I have a whole set of galleries of e-mailed postcards that are still in aRGB because I was too lazy to convert them, and put a little notice on each of those galleries that they will look washed out, but those are open for download and will look okay then. One of these days I'll batch convert and re-upload them, but didn't want to lose the stats.

[ImageMapper]

I have shot tens of thousands of nature and fish shots. I clearly see a difference when shooting adobeRGB. Matter-o-fact, when shooting fish there is a substantial difference in the result the two color spaces produce. So noticeable that many times my images no longer seem to jump off the screen or paper when I use srgb. I hate srgb, it was basically built for monitors and I wish that is how it had stayed. I try to NEVER shoot in sRGB. Its a smaller colorspace, a lot smaller. You are potentially capturing more info in adobeRGB and thats that.



I would not want smugmug altering my originals! Thats just crazy! Easy solution is, let us upload the adobeRGB file, you convert the original on the fly to srgb for our comping size images and thumbs and ezprints, and the gallery owner can lock down the original so no viewing is allowed.



This does not seem like a big problem to me. Only problem I see here is people scrapping adobeRGB for convienence. Crazzzy, I think. Unless the web is your ultimate output device, and even then I still would not shoot sRGB.

[Maki]

Is there any way to disable print services for anything that is aRGB? A gallery option that either turns printing for aRGB pics off completely (by default), or allows printing and highlights the pics in the order that simply states that printing these pictures may be washed out/not comparable to what is viewed?

In the gallery settings page, you can have your short blurb about colorspace and a link to better describe the nature of the problem if the photog doesn't quite understand the differences.

Either

A) accept ONLY sRGB -- which leaves aRGB people behind.
B) accept aRGB, and do educate the photog (more - as it's really their problem, but it becomes a SM CS issue once consumers freak out)/consumer (less - "prints may not result as they appear for this photograph, contact photog").

Maybe, during the checkout process, there could be another page that isolates aRGB pics only, with a before/after conversion view before finalizing?

[winnjewett]

Is there any way to disable print services for anything that is aRGB? A gallery option that either turns printing for aRGB pics off completely (by default), or allows printing and highlights the pics in the order that simply states that printing these pictures may be washed out/not comparable to what is viewed?

In the gallery settings page, you can have your short blurb about colorspace and a link to better describe the nature of the problem if the photog doesn't quite understand the differences.

Either

A) accept ONLY sRGB -- which leaves aRGB people behind.
B) accept aRGB, and do educate the photog (more - as it's really their problem, but it becomes a SM CS issue once consumers freak out)/consumer (less - "prints may not result as they appear for this photograph, contact photog").

Maybe, during the checkout process, there could be another page that isolates aRGB pics only, with a before/after conversion view before finalizing?
I disagree. Printing seems like an easy problem to solve. Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes. Everyone is happy. It is viewing and storing that's the issue.

-winn

[mercphoto]

I disagree. Printing seems like an easy problem to solve. Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes. Everyone is happy. It is viewing and storing that's the issue.
I would (and have previously) state that holding people's hands behind their backs (i.e. fixing their problems without them knowing about it) is a practice that should be avoided. Educating people when they do something wrong, so that they can fix what they are doing, is always the better solution. Nobody wins when ignorance is allowed to flourish.

[colourbox]

Simply convert the original file before printing. No one has to know what is going on behind the scenes.

That will work if a profile has been embedded in the file. It will fail in the case where no profile is embedded and the file is not in the color space that smugmug guesses.

[Baldy]

So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.

We already do that for CMYK JPEGs, along with other file formats like tiff, bmp, etc. And we do it for the same reason: they cannot be displayed correctly on the Internet.

Our center of gravity is good sharing and printing, not archiving, which is an additional nice feature but not the driving reason why people come to us. It's not good sharing when you click on the original link and you see a color shift and pixelation.

The real kicker is we see too many instances of someone bringing thousands of photos to smugmug and painstakingly organizing galleries, only to find out that the education they thought they had so diligently pursued on the topic (by reading best-selling authors Scott Kelby and Bruce Fraser) had led them astray.

And the multiple daily occurences we see of uploaded Adobe RGB files where we attempt the education process and find that it's too hard... They have to have Photoshop or similar program, come to understand how to do a conversion (not enough to assign a profile), only to have them ask, "why don't you just do it for me?"

It's on our list of things to do but I don't have a date when it will be in effect.

Here's a help section that explains the issue:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

Thanks,
Baldy

[onethumb]

So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.

Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation. :)

We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.

On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.

Don

[jfriend]

Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation. :)

We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.

On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.

Don
Wise choice to do the conversion on new files. No point in hosting photos that you know are going to look lousy and just confuse people. If your conversion is good, this will also make it a LOT easier for people that like to work in aRGB, but sometimes share on the web too - much like you automatically take care of making multiple sizes for us when we upload originals.

If someone is buying service purely for backup, they should probably go elsewhere anyway since that isn't what smugmug is really built for. I like that you draw the analogy with BMPs, TIFFs, etc... as file types that can't be properly displayed in most browsers - same for aRGB. Nobody complains when those are converted.

--John

[grannyrobin]

Let me step in here and clarify this scary-sounding proclamation. :)

We are *not* converting all existing photos. This will be for newly uploaded photos only, whenever it actually launches.

On that day and every day thereafter, all photos uploaded in AdobeRGB, or any other colorspace we know something about, will be converted to sRGB so they can be properly displayed and printed.

Don Most of this discussion has sounded like garubish monsa and ikamebbe to me. I bravely struggled through it, however, glad to know that somebody is thinking about how to best display photos.

I think I'm one of Baldy's housewife-artiste types. Not phobic though. I'm not scared. I'd just like to get to photos of the pretty flowers right now; that other stuff makes my eyes glaze over with disinterest. Yes, I know. I'm gonna have a lot of difficulty getting photos of the pretty flowers without that other stuff... What can I say other than I'm working on developing an interest in ikamebbe.

[CalfeeRider]

So after gathering feedback here (thanks!) and over the help desk emails, we've come to a decision: we're going to make a run at converting all files to sRGB, including the originals.

We already do that for CMYK JPEGs, along with other file formats like tiff, bmp, etc. And we do it for the same reason: they cannot be displayed correctly on the Internet.

Our center of gravity is good sharing and printing, not archiving, which is an additional nice feature but not the driving reason why people come to us. It's not good sharing when you click on the original link and you see a color shift and pixelation.

The real kicker is we see too many instances of someone bringing thousands of photos to smugmug and painstakingly organizing galleries, only to find out that the education they thought they had so diligently pursued on the topic (by reading best-selling authors Scott Kelby and Bruce Fraser) had led them astray.

And the multiple daily occurences we see of uploaded Adobe RGB files where we attempt the education process and find that it's too hard... They have to have Photoshop or similar program, come to understand how to do a conversion (not enough to assign a profile), only to have them ask, "why don't you just do it for me?"

It's on our list of things to do but I don't have a date when it will be in effect.

Here's a help section that explains the issue:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

Thanks,
BaldyHi Baldy/OneThumb,

I'd respectfully ask that you reconsider and/or at a minimum ensure this new policy is clearly stated and widely publicized to include some form of "active" communication like email etc to your client base (many of whom may not use the forums). I know for myself, and I'm sure many others, the archiving/storage of my "original" files (as mentioned previously) was a huge reason for my establishing an account with Smugmug. If these files will no longer be originals, but actually a converted version, that’s an important shift in the service you provide and that should be really driven home to your client base. It may not matter to some, but I'd suspect some of us who use aRGB for a reason and do (or are trying) to understand the pro's and con's of sRGB for commercial printing, web viewing etc this new policy has the potential of having a significant impact.

I tend to print most of my own pictures on a Canon i9900 which does support aRGB so I’m understandably not enthused to switch my default color space. But, having said that, I also don’t have that much of an issue converting (if needed) the pictures that I’ll upload to Smugmug and/or that I want to have printed by a commercial lab for printing. The key really is to understanding what’s going on (aRGB vs sRBG) and how this new policy could and maybe already has affected the pictures that I’ve uploaded.

Personally, I’d prefer to have my original files stored as sent (aRGB) and if I don’t like the way they’re displayed after the upload/conversion to sRGB then I can opt to convert them myself and re-upload them. In many cases the difference may not be significant enough to worry about, but if I'm going to have a large print made I want it to look "exactly" the way I intended so for those the additional step would be well worth it. Would I be right in assuming that the printed version should match the displayed version – assuming my monitor is calibrated etc?

I do agree with you and others that this is a complex issue, both from a technical (understanding color space) issue and for you from a business perspective to ensure your customers are happy. I would also agree that (arguably) the best solution is one of education. Having read this thread has helped to accomplish a lot of that for me and I appreciate the openness and your consideration in bringing this up!

Thanks!

[mercphoto]

I know for myself, and I'm sure many others, the archiving/storage of my "original" files (as mentioned previously) was a huge reason for my establishing an account with Smugmug. If these files will no longer be originals, but actually a converted version, that’s an important shift in the service you provide and that should be really driven home to your client base.

Is there a middle ground, perhaps? Smugmug has an obvious customer satisfaction issue with files in the wrong color space, and that needs a solution, in one way or another.

1) Originals are left as-is. This lets people use the site to archive files in whatever format they want.

2) Files without an embedded profile are printed as if they were in sRGB.

3) Files with an embedded profile that is not sRGB will be converted before being sent to EZ Prints.

Is this a possible solution? As per the education route, I'll admit that is an ideal solution for sure. Probably very difficult to do, however. I have received the best, most complete education about color spaces from Smugmug and this forum. I have paid to attend photo classes that actually get the concept of color spaces wrong!

[jfriend]

Is there a middle ground, perhaps? Smugmug has an obvious customer satisfaction issue with files in the wrong color space, and that needs a solution, in one way or another.! I agree with Smugmug's decision to, by default, convert photos to sRGB. They are a site who's primary purpose is photo sharing on the web with the option to order prints and their default processes should make that the best experience possible, even for people that don't understand about color management.

If they'd have converted everything to sRGB from day one, probably there would not be a lot of complaints about that today. That said, there are obviously some users who are using Smugmug slightly different than just for photo sharing (archiving originals). If Smugmug wants to allow those users to continue to do what they do (that's their own business decision), then the easiest way to do that would be to support some new preferences that control whether photos get converted to sRGB or not. There could be either a global account preference to disable this new functionality or there could be a per-gallery preference to disable the sRGB conversion. This would allow account holders to control this issue, but allow them to set the default to ON (so new photos are converted to sRGB and viewing and printing delivers a better experience when the non-color-savvy user screws up).

--John

[crayiii]

I thought one of smugmug's selling point was the fact that you could use it as a sort of off-site storage of photo's and order backup's on cd/dvd...

How about on the Pro service level you let us decide? Don't change the "Original" files or don't call them "Original".

[Baldy]

Hi Baldy/OneThumb,

I'd respectfully ask that you reconsider and/or at a minimum ensure this new policy is clearly stated...

Personally, I’d prefer to have my original files stored as sent (aRGB) and if I don’t like the way they’re displayed after the upload/conversion to sRGB then I can opt to convert them myself and re-upload them. In many cases the difference may not be significant enough to worry about, but if I'm going to have a large print made I want it to look "exactly" the way I intended so for those the additional step would be well worth it. Would I be right in assuming that the printed version should match the displayed version – assuming my monitor is calibrated etc?Hi CalfeeRider,

I ride a Calfee too! Love those bikes and know Craig.

You would be right in assuming that if the file were sRGB then it would look right on a calibrated monitor and match the print. If it's aRGB, it won't display well or print well using photographic paper & chemicals (but would on an inkjet).

So, the only reason you'd upload an aRGB to smugmug is to store it. You can re-download it sometime and print it on your inkjet. But using a web browser to display it or a printer we're connected to will cause problems.

This is really a big problem for us because we have to fend off all the people who say we alter their colors in print and for display when they upload aRGB files.

There is a popular notion that aRGB is a better archiving format than sRGB because it has more colors. Actually, for the purpose of displaying on the Internet or printing with photographic chemicals and paper, it has fewer colors. Here's why:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

I hope this helps,
Baldy