Back Versions (1)
Modifications (1)

Early Daffodil

By iancrowson  
Photographed this last week before they were flattened by the wind and rain . Hopefully Spring is well on the way.
The first image was saved in Adobe RGB colour profile whilst version 1 as SRGB.
Much has been written about posting images on this site (and the internet in general) saved as SRGB rather than Adobe. I cannot see any difference on my screen (27in Mac Retina, colour calibrated with Spyder X) between the two images.
I processed each image from the RAW file using Adobe Camera Raw and saved to each colour profile at that point.
Please comment on what you see on your screens. I guess they may look difference on line than on my screen. And other explanation and comments welcome.

Thanks Ian.

Tags: Flowers and plants Daffidil

Get 50% off Adobe CC Photography plan with any X-Rite ColorChecker Photo product!

Comments


pamelajean Plus
14 1.3k 2117 United Kingdom
17 Feb 2020 4:35PM
Acer laptop.
The yellow of the daffodil in the sRGB version is far more saturated on my screen.
There is a definite difference in the colour.

Pamela.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

iancrowson Plus
10 215 168 United Kingdom
17 Feb 2020 5:02PM
That is interesting. They look almost exactly the same on my screen If anything the Adobe a touch more saturated. I've noticed that looking at images in the critique gallery I'm sometimes seeing differently to other people.
Does either image look warmer, ie colour temp.?

Ian
cats_123 Plus
16 4.9k 30 Northern Ireland
17 Feb 2020 5:12PM
For what it's worth... I'm viewing on a Motorola smart phone and the Adobe is far more saturated... (prefer the version)
dudler Plus
16 1.1k 1605 England
17 Feb 2020 5:26PM
Uncalibrated, secondhand Dell screen, and hte version seems a little more saturated. I suspect most people would prefer the latter, on the Fuji Velvia basis. Personally, I prefer Agfachrome Professional colour rendition, which is softer.

However, the reason for choosing one or the other is to do with which comes across more accurately on the website - I wonder whether (as well as resizing and sharpening) the standard EPZ process alters rendition after upload, if the file isn't sRGB?

Willie may be able to cast some light...
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4096 Canada
17 Feb 2020 5:33PM
Obvious difference using a calibrated HP graphics monitor running windows 10, and using Firefox browser.. The V1 is a lot more saturated. When you upload Adobe profile, site alters it and it loses contrast and affects colour.

BTW, V1 is untagged, is does NOT have the sRGB tag, so different browsers will see it different ways!! Usually more saturated.


I uploaded a mod that has the UNTAGGED image converted to sRGB,

I assume you use Safari? Is this an iMac? I have an iMac and have never been able to calibrate the screen to my satisfaction due to the "glass" screen cover, - a graphic monitor never has a reflective cover for that reason



Regards



Willie
17 Feb 2020 6:28PM
I'm viewing on a 2019 MacBook Pro, Retina screen, "True Tone" disabled, via Firefox. The Version appears slightly more saturated, and slightly warmer.

Honestly, does any of this really matter? Is this what photography is really about?
My personal view is that I've just stupidly wasted five minutes of my life even thinking about it Sad



Jestertheclown 11 8.1k 252 England
17 Feb 2020 6:56PM

Quote:The Version appears slightly more saturated, and slightly warmer.

Same here; Uncalibrated Benq of some kind, viewed using Chrome.


Quote:Honestly, does any of this really matter? Is this what photography is really about?
My personal view is that I've just stupidly wasted five minutes of my life even thinking about it


I was wondering that.
As long as it looks OK to me, I'm not really interested.
iancrowson Plus
10 215 168 United Kingdom
17 Feb 2020 7:46PM
Willie
Interestingly you say the version does not show the sRGB tag, in my Bridge metadata it shows as saved in SRGB.
All three including your mod look the same online on my Apple Macbooks.
(maybe I need a visit to SpecSavers!, or maybe you won't have seen the ad out west)


iancrowson Plus
10 215 168 United Kingdom
17 Feb 2020 7:52PM
I think it does matter how other users of ePhotozine see any image if it's in the critique gallery and the poster has asked. for advice and opinions. I've seen such conflicting views about a photo I've wondered if people are looking as the same image.
Anyone one not interested can ignore this post
regards
Ian
Jestertheclown 11 8.1k 252 England
17 Feb 2020 7:59PM
Perhaps I should rephrase that.

Within the constraints of the CG., yes, it does matter since a question's been asked which requires and deserves a proper answer.

Elsewhere, in real life, as long as it looks OK, I don't care.
dark_lord Plus
16 2.5k 638 England
17 Feb 2020 8:15PM
V1 and Willie's mod are just a little more saturated and (maybe as a resul of that) a tad warmer looking.
I'm using Firefox with colour management enabled on a calibrated monitor.

Of course it's important to know how other people see the image, especially to Ian who posed the question.
There's little point in striving to get colour as you want it if no-one else can see it as you intemded.
That said, both versions, seen in isolation are acceptable.
iancrowson Plus
10 215 168 United Kingdom
18 Feb 2020 11:38AM
Thanks for all the feedback and comments.
It seems there are differences depending on the screen the photo was viewed on.
The image and version look just the same to me, off line on either my iMac screen, my MacBook screen (Safari browser) and my iPhone screen. On line on ePhotozine both images looks just the same too.
Clearly in the metadata shown in my Bridge both images are tagged, one Adobe RGB and the other sRGB.
All very interesting if not crystal clear.

This is a good site for sharing images and info. and as we are all here as hobbyists means that people give their time generously,

keep on snapping, Ian Crowson
mrswoolybill Plus
13 1.9k 2170 United Kingdom
18 Feb 2020 2:17PM
Yes, I agree that it's important for the image to appear as one intends. But I've looked at this with Firefox, Chrome and Edge and I honestly cannot see any difference. And I had a glowing report from the optician last week...
Moira
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4096 Canada
18 Feb 2020 2:27PM
Theres no profile attached according to Photoshop and Affinity Photo Ian, its marked as un tagged, so I wonder if EPZ for some reason stripped it?


Ive opened a report with EPZ support about this.
saltireblue Plus
9 10.4k 59 Norway
18 Feb 2020 2:53PM
The version shows up more vibrant and saturated on my MacBook Pro (2019),retina screen, True Tone turned off and using Firefox.
Exif for both images shows the colour space as 'uncalibrated'. (Other images on the site I used to compare with showed sRGB and RGB where I know that to be correct.)
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4096 Canada
19 Feb 2020 8:40PM
So the answer to why I see untagged is that when I right click the version to download, it is untagged, though it was indeed uploaded with the sRGB profile.


So I can tell the difference betweeen Adobe and sRGB, with the sRGB being more saturated. EPZ makes no changes to the sRGB profiles image, but does with the Adobe RGB image.



W
dark_lord Plus
16 2.5k 638 England
20 Feb 2020 11:42AM
Just another thought, and to throw something into the mix, even when an image is tagged and you're using a colour manged browser, there's the colour gamut of the monitor to consider. We're into long pieces of string there.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.