Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Processing RAW Photos in Photoshop

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 23rd September 2018, 14:19   #1
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Processing RAW Photos in Photoshop

I have a fair bit of experience in Photoshop and using the ACR plugin for basic needs, and alot of experience in print production.

But I've started shooting in RAW with my RX100 Mk. III and have run into an issue that has me befuddled.

I am working on them in Photoshop, saving in PSD, using Smart Layers and various filters as I always do. Looks great on screen, histogram seems okay.

I save the JPEG files for use in this forum, email, etc. as I always do, removing the embedded color profile. I do this quite intentionally because this can cause issues during printing: either by choking the PostScript RIP, or it's simply superfluous because a properly set-up RIP generally ignores it. And generally, few users without access to an end-to-end calibrated workflow can make use of them.

I remove the profiles from photos at work (they shoot RAW an save masters in PSD) all the time at work at it has zero affect on the images on-screen or in print.

But the JPEGs I save from my photography that originate in RAW do not match the PSD files. The color loses saturation, tonal balance is a bit wonky, etc.

So at the moment, I assume removing the profile is doing it? If so, is there a way to "flatten" the profile data into the image so it doesn't change when saving the perfectly fine PSD to a JPEG?

Stumped...
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 23rd September 2018, 18:04   #2
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,955
What profiles are you using? Do you convert you PSDs to sRGB before saving to jpeg?
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 23rd September 2018, 21:38   #3
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono View Post
What profiles are you using? Do you convert you PSDs to sRGB before saving to jpeg?
They are in the RGB color space in Photoshop when being saved to JPEG using Save As...

The embedded profile from the camera (or at least as applied by ACR) is Adobe RGB (1998), apparently; but is removed as stated in my original post.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th September 2018, 11:44   #4
Mono
Hi!
 
Mono's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake District,UK
Posts: 1,955
You don't want to remove the profile from the image. Most desktop web browsers can now read ICC profiles and will display accordingly, but it there is no profile attached then they will assume it is sRGB. if you have used a wide gamut profile such as Adobe then if this is wrongly translated as sRGB then it will look washed out.

Either change to sRGB in Photoshop (Edit>Assign Profile) then adjust the image to suit and then save to jpeg with or without the embedded profile or save in a wide gamut profile of your choice and the make sure the profile is embedded. (There may still be a problem on phones as some mobile browsers don't read ICC profiles.)
Mono is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th September 2018, 13:23   #5
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono View Post
You don't want to remove the profile from the image. Most desktop web browsers can now read ICC profiles and will display accordingly
Good to know, though you did mention problems with phone browsers later, which is kinda important.

Also, such profiles really can mess with printing, which is why I try to remove them. Also makes the file smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mono View Post
Either change to sRGB in Photoshop (Edit>Assign Profile) then adjust the image to suit and then save to jpeg with or without the embedded profile
This was the bit I was missing.

Interesting that in decades of doing this, it never came up until now. Something specific to the Sony RX100's RAW files maybe? Don't have this problem with RAW from the SX60.

THANKS!
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd October 2018, 16:47   #6
locustella
Registered User
 
locustella's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 838
This is not exactly this problem but similar one and can happen to anybody.
Some of monitor drivers set for Windows atypical, rare ICC profile spoiling colors in some of windows of some programs.
So you have to set Windows ICC profile manually:
Code:
Settings - Display - Display adapter properties -
(Generic PnP Monitor and Intel(R) HD Graphics Properties) - Colour Management... -
[v] Use my settings for this device
Profiles associated with this device:
In my case worked out:
Code:
ICC Profiles -----------------------------------------------------
sRGB IEC61966-2.1                     sRGB Color Space Profile.icm
(added and set as defaul)
Also looked well:
Code:
Name                                  File name
WCS Device Profiles ----------------------------------------------
sRGB virtual device model profile     wsRGB.cdmp
ICC Profiles -----------------------------------------------------
Adobe RGB (1998)                      AdobeRGB1998.icc
AppleRGB                              AppleRDB.icc
Adobe RGB (1998) downloaded from:
https://www.adobe.com/support/downlo...files_win.html
https://www.adobe.com/support/downlo...a_win_end.html
but it is often not reccomended.

Perhaps these settings are wrong, BE CA-RE-FUL !!!

Last edited by locustella : Wednesday 3rd October 2018 at 16:50.
locustella is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd October 2018, 19:01   #7
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
I'm on a Mac.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 3rd October 2018, 20:55   #8
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
I'm on a Mac.
MACs still have ICC profiles. You can use an X-Rite, for example, to color calibrate your mac monitor.

Diglloyd has many articles about ICC profiles and MAC and web browsers. E.g.: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2009/20091...irefoxFix.html

Marc
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 3rd October 2018, 23:04   #9
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
MACs still have ICC profiles. You can use an X-Rite, for example, to color calibrate your mac monitor.
Quite true. I have been using Datacolor Spyders for years, and Radius PressView's before that. I finally decided to get an X-Rite i1Display Pro, and I'll be installing that soon. Also have an Eizo EV2436W for a primary display.

Some people here buy expensive binoculars and cameras; because of my profession and hobbies I tend to invest my money in my display color.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th October 2018, 00:12   #10
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Quite true. I have been using Datacolor Spyders for years, and Radius PressView's before that. I finally decided to get an X-Rite i1Display Pro, and I'll be installing that soon. Also have an Eizo EV2436W for a primary display.

Some people here buy expensive binoculars and cameras; because of my profession and hobbies I tend to invest my money in my display color.
You know, I sometimes print my photos and put them up on the wall and color calibration is very important! You can print in a wide gamut much easier than viewing in one. I have the x-rite system and a BenQ Sw monitor (aRGB color space).
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th October 2018, 00:34   #11
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
You know, I sometimes print my photos and put them up on the wall and color calibration is very important! You can print in a wide gamut much easier than viewing in one.
Wide gamut is certainly nice. I have wide-format, 8-ink printers available at work for that purpose...their wide gamut is aimed in such a way to hit PANTONE spot colors and Hi-Fi colors, but the side effect is a nicer color gamut for everything in general. Inkjet, solvent, and UV printing...we have lots of "toys" I can use.

Quote:
I have the x-rite system and a BenQ Sw monitor (aRGB color space).
BenQ is another higher-end display in the same territory as the Eizo and high-end NECs...very nice! I drool over the higher-end Eizos, but can't justify it for home use.

If I might ask, what is your profession? Rare to find someone else with nicer imaging gear. It's an under-appreciated side of hobbies like photography.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 4th October 2018, 05:02   #12
marcsantacurz
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
Wide gamut is certainly nice. I have wide-format, 8-ink printers available at work for that purpose...their wide gamut is aimed in such a way to hit PANTONE spot colors and Hi-Fi colors, but the side effect is a nicer color gamut for everything in general. Inkjet, solvent, and UV printing...we have lots of "toys" I can use.


BenQ is another higher-end display in the same territory as the Eizo and high-end NECs...very nice! I drool over the higher-end Eizos, but can't justify it for home use.

If I might ask, what is your profession? Rare to find someone else with nicer imaging gear. It's an under-appreciated side of hobbies like photography.
I bought a BenQ SW2700PT refurbished directly from the benq website. It was about $500. I cannot justify the truly high-end wide gamut monitors. I was thinking the same thing "Oh, he has an Eizo, that must be amazing."

While I have some of those same types of printers at work, I do my personal stuff at Bay Photo Lab (https://www.bayphoto.com) who accepts Adobe RGB -- their metal printers in aRGB can be really vibrant.

I have degrees in physics, medieval history, and computer engineering, the last of which is what actually pays the bills :) I work at a research lab, mostly on L2/L3 layer network protocols, distributed systems, and cyber-physical security. Nothing at all related to photography or color workflow or birding. The research lab I work for is related to a large manufacturer of color production equipment, but it is not my area. I understand color management, but I'm not at all an expert in it.

Personally, I think personal computers and the mass of internet content is a negative influence on the actual art of producing images. Even though that's the area I work in (computers, not art). People used to look at fine & graphic art, with beautiful colors, then to technicolor which was still somewhat rich, then to TVs and low-end PC monitors. Nowadays, color is sRGB or if you're lucky P3, though it looks like 709 and 2020 is starting to make inroads (if stuff if actually produced for it). I think gamut is one of those things most people don't recognize they are missing until you see it. And even then trying to explain a hardware accelerated LUT vs. faux calibration gets glazed eyes. Though I must admit much of what I've learned came from diglloyd.com, so I'm still rather superficial in the area.

It has often seemed so retrograde to me that a person of this modern time can go to a museum, look at a 500 year old painting, and say "wow, look at those colors, have you seen anything like that before?" With all the technology and modern pigments and displays, you would think we'd be inured with saturated color not deprived of it.

Marc
__________________
https://tear.com
marcsantacurz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 4th October 2018, 13:00   #13
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcsantacurz View Post
I bought a BenQ SW2700PT refurbished directly from the benq website. It was about $500. I cannot justify the truly high-end wide gamut monitors. I was thinking the same thing "Oh, he has an Eizo, that must be amazing."
Even the lower-end Eizo I have was quite the improvement over the "nice but not Eizo" displays I've had for a while.

Quote:
The research lab I work for is related to a large manufacturer of color production equipment, but it is not my area. I understand color management, but I'm not at all an expert in it.
Yeah I work in marketing with the design group with a wide range of printing technologies from $10,000 printers to our new $250,000 printer. I semi-run the RIPs and do some spot-color profiling, though I get a fair bit of help from the inhouse color separators and a RIP profiling expert.

Quote:
Personally, I think personal computers and the mass of internet content is a negative influence on the actual art of producing images.
Myself, and my quite-alot-more-artistic girlfriend would beg to differ. It's a different medium, but in the right hands, it can create "fine art." Sure, there is alot of garbage...but not all of it. I happen to count as a co-worker one of the top 3D artists in the country and his stuff is at once dazzling, disturbing, and jaw-dropping...and all digital.

Quote:
Even though that's the area I work in (computers, not art). People used to look at fine & graphic art, with beautiful colors, then to technicolor which was still somewhat rich, then to TVs and low-end PC monitors. Nowadays, color is sRGB or if you're lucky P3, though it looks like 709 and 2020 is starting to make inroads (if stuff if actually produced for it). I think gamut is one of those things most people don't recognize they are missing until you see it. And even then trying to explain a hardware accelerated LUT vs. faux calibration gets glazed eyes. Though I must admit much of what I've learned came from diglloyd.com, so I'm still rather superficial in the area.
Well, this is no different than crummy lighting at a gallery. Or a gallery with a bad presentation. Or the fact that a masterpiece hasn't been restored since it was created. One shouldn't confuse the art as displayed from it's original state. Ansel Adams had similar complaints about film-to-print back in his day.

It's one of the reasons I try to "get it right" by starting with a calibrated monitor. Then I know it looks decent to me and should look the same on another properly set-up display; I can't control how bad it looks to someone else's monitor or printer that isn't even close to accurate.

Heck, even on-screen photo adjustment isn't "correct"; a color separator could do it on a horrible monitor simple by going by the numbers given to them by Photoshop.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 20152018

Last edited by CalvinFold : Thursday 4th October 2018 at 14:11.
CalvinFold is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adjusting Photos with Nik and Photoshop dave598 Photo Critique 2 Tuesday 29th March 2016 03:32
Processing photos taken with our scopes JGobeil Photography using 'Astro' telescopes 13 Wednesday 7th May 2014 23:36
Canon processing software vs photoshop etc Viv Connett Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 13 Tuesday 28th June 2011 08:58
Improving Photos With Photoshop Staffsmartin Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 7 Sunday 4th July 2010 20:44
Photoshop Tutorial- Processing A Backlit Image Harold Stiver Photoshop, Paintshop and Printing 2 Tuesday 16th December 2008 11:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.14858389 seconds with 27 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42.