New Member with an observation.

<p>Photo.net looks like a great resource! However, after uploading a few photos to my portfolio, I notice the colors are totally off. While I usually output into the Adobe RGB colorspace, I get the same washed-out results in sRGB. I'm also noticing posterization indicative of reduced bitdepth. I don't encounter this problem at any of the other photosharing sites I belong to. It's really hard to show off your best work--or critique other's work--if the colors are simply not displaying correctly. It's a shame because it looks like an interesting place, but it's just not practical to edit photos to look right here on Photo.net.<br>

<br /> If you're doubtful about this, compare<a href="/photo/17797971"> this photo hosted here</a> to <a href=" same on Flickr</a>.</p>

<p>Kurt, welcome to photo.net.<br>

I think your problem isn't related to photo.net in itself, except for possibly one detail. It seems indeed for thumbnails, the ICC profile of images are disregarded, so if you use any profile different than sRGB, it will revert to sRGB. Posterization etc. are normal for the relatively crude mechanisms used to generate small-sized images.<br>

However, it is best practise anyway to convert your photos to sRGB for web use. The internet basically isn't colour managed (*), and you cannot expect people to see your photos right if you use colour spaces such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB. So, frankly, if you think you ought to edit photos specifically to look right on this site, you really need to reconsider what users with no colour managements are seeing on your Flickr page... because I think you make the false assumption that what looks good on your screen in your browser looks good anywhere.</p>

<p>(*) What I mean: most people do not have calibrated screens to start with, plus most browsers do not have colour management enabled by default, and some do not have colour management support at all - these will always default to a sRGB representation basically.</p>

To second Wouter: your photo.net and flickr photos look just the same here on my iPhone. Lovely critters, btw!

 

As I understand it, if you want to share your photos online, you're supposed to 'export' an sRGB, possibly with a limit on

vertical or horizontal resolution, JPG, copy of them. Photo editors often offer such functionality automated at least to a point.

<p>[[To second Wouter: your photo.net and flickr photos look just the same here on my iPhone]]</p>

<p>They do not look the same in Firefox. </p>

<p>@Rob, Firefox is known to be colour-managed. That's the exception rather than the rule.</p>

<p>sRGB is an awful colour space, but it is good enough to use in an 'output' file. Like 8-bit, like JPG.</p>

<p>Rob, isn't that exactly the problem? On one system (colour managed) they do not look identical, on another (non colour managed or not fully profiled) they do not... Using any colour space other than sRGB, you're asking for inconsistent experience for your viewers.<br>

There is no liking, prefering or disliking a colour space. They have their uses and their place. sRGB is the lowest common denominator, and as such the only safe choice for any situation where you have no idea whatsoever on what other users will have - the web.</p>

<p>[[Rob, isn't that exactly the problem?]]</p>

<p>How is that the problem? The user has uploaded the same photo to 2 different sites. Regardless of whether or not your browser is color manged, the results should be the same between the two websites, even if they are consistently wrong. The problem is that photo.net appears, in this case, to be changing the file in a way that is detrimental to image quality. </p>

 

<p>For what I see (colour managed browser, calibrated screen), the problem is with the thumbnail. The large version shows no problem at all. As said before in my first reply, thumbnail generation is often a crude, simple process.</p>

<p>[[The large version shows no problem at all]]<br>

That's not what I am seeing. Photo.net's full view of the image is as poor as the smaller view. </p>

<p>Rob, true, I was mistaken with another recent thread on the very same subject (and the same underlying user error of thinking AdobeRGB as "better"), where the problem was really on the thumbnail only in colour managed browsers. My mistake there.</p>

<p>For this case, checking with IE, which is absolutely not colour managed - the two images are equally different there as well. And the one pon Flickr has a signature, and the one here not. They're not the same output - so what are we comparing here?<br>

The one on Flickr, according to its metadata, is ProPhotoRGB, about the worst choice of colour space for web output. The one here has no more metadata at all, it seems... So, is there a colour profile in the image here, and how was it assigned? Was it converted to a colour space, or just changed colour space?<br>

We're not comparing apples with apples here. So the conclusion that photo.net is causing these issues is in my view of the mark. Else, why wouldn't we all have more serious problems?</p>

<p>To offer another perspective that won't resolve Kurt's questions...</p>

<p>Photo.net appears to be in a state of fluxmox - the site is in flux and I'm flummoxed over how to advise new members to get good results. Certain features, including the photo uploader options, appear to be changing periodically without notice. At times the same photo prepared the same way can be uploaded to photo.net and the metadata is read and preserved: EXIF data is retained; color space assignments are handled appropriately. But upload the same photo a few weeks or months later, and it may be handled differently.</p>

<p>Complicating matters, there are at least three different ways to upload photos to our portfolios:</p>

<ol>

<li>The old single photo uploader method.</li>

<li>The batch uploader (which has changed over the years).</li>

<li>The email photo drop method.</li>

</ol>

<p>I've experimented with all three, repeating experiments every few weeks or months. None of the uploader methods works the same way consistently over time. Sometimes EXIF data and color space assignments are retained; other times, not. And the three uploader methods have never worked the same as each other. At times one method might retain metadata while another strips it out completely.</p>

<p>Adding to that mess, photo.net's default JPEG size for our portfolio spaces is 680 pixels wide - this is the default view. The maximum size is 1500 pixels. If we upload a photo larger than the 680 pixel width default, the system has always created a second smaller version to suit the 680 pixel width limit. Often the metadata is preserved in the larger view but not the smaller. And if we upload photos larger than 1500 pixels, photo.net creates two versions: 1500 and 680 pixels. In those cases, the system sometimes strips out all metadata and color space information, which appears to have happened with Kurt's example photos.</p>

<p>Another complication: at times the batch uploader imposed significant degradation of images, which at times was too much of a compromise in exchange for the convenience. The smaller 680 pixel default JPEG was occasionally unusable, with horrendous JPEG compression artifacts, wonky colors and mushy results. So the single photo uploader often produced better results. But even that has changed over time, or else photo.net doesn't consistently produce the same appearances from different browsers. It's difficult to evaluate the effects of the smaller 680 pixel default JPEG created by photo.net.</p>

<p>There are at least three different methods for uploading photos to our portfolios, and none of them consistently retains metadata. There's another method for uploading photos directly to *most* discussion forums. There is yet another method for uploading photos directly to the No Words Forum. And there are methods for embedding photos hosted off site (Flickr, smugmug, Google, etc.). Occasionally with my own photos I've had to try several different upload methods to get good results, particularly with some colorful photos. B&W photos are generally less hassle here.</p>

<p>At times I've attempted to post a boilerplate set of guidelines for posting photos, updating it occasionally to advise folks how to get the best results. But I've given up. There are too many variables and inconsistencies.</p>

<p>Sorry you're having this problem, Kurt. I use Safari on an iMac and I haven't noticed the color aberrations you mentioned. And, by the way, welcome to PN!</p>

<p>Hello again! Thanks for all your thoughtful and helpful responses. While I have not encountered this problem online before, I revisited my output to jpg routine in PS and made a few corrections that provide a satisfactory compromise. Thanks for all the welcomes!</p>