PN is changing my image color

[Mark Keefer]

OK, I realize nobody can probably fix the site, and this happens occasionally to my images. My Adobe Lightroom setting may have changed and I changed my Canon 5D MK IV from RGB to AdobeRGB, and I set lightroom to save for screen, 100% image quality and also use Adobe RGB (Changed from Pro RGB which was really bad here) and I exported as a JPEG, I am noticing the website seems to change the image color from the jpeg on my computer. Is there an optimal setting for. Here is a side by side to see the difference from a screen snip. I am using calibrated monitors. Image on left viewed from PN, Image on right just viewed from computer. Any setting tweaks anyone can suggest.

[samstevens]

I’ve always converted to sRGB before posting to PN. That seems to allow my images to appear on PN as they do in Photoshop. Try a test in the testing section and see if you get the result you’re looking for. 

[Mark Keefer]

Thanks, Sam. I am going to have to do some changes to LR.  

[PapaTango]

Several things might be happening here.  Let's start with image optimization.  When you upload images the image is downsized to around 80% of its original form as it is being sent off to Amazon EC2 for permanent storage and display.  This necessarily strips some quality--the ~80% is pretty much the least one can set it for without casual observable degradation.  But it is still there and often makes the most impact in color gamut.

Second, the web favors sRGB for display, which is a different gamut than Adobe or other profiles.  This can weaken your saturation also, combined with the previous issue.

I have come to the point that all of the images I intend to be web-based are now saved in PNG format.  Much better compression algorithm, and a richer color space.

Your mileage may vary.

Edited December 21, 2023 by PapaTango
Space aliens made me do it

[Ken Katz]

When I export files from LR, I simply have it convert to sRGB color space for images that are shared on a website or with others (likely viewed on a phone, tablet, or digital frame), and when sent to printers that are not color space aware (like CVS).  PNG seems interesting if it is as universally accepted as jpegs.

[inoneeye]

PNG is lossless compression making for larger files but better quality when desired. I have noticed better gradation on some, many of my images when posted to the net. Most notably with nuanced gradation in tone and hue. I most often still use jpg for pn for size. 
SRGB at export will render the more accurate color.space... with a more accurate color rendition. 

[hjoseph7]

Its not just color, but sharpening as well. I usually have to oversharpen my images before I post on PN.

[PapaTango]

15 hours ago, hjoseph7 said:

Its not just color, but sharpening as well. I usually have to oversharpen my images before I post on PN.

Yes.  Essentially optimization for JPG storage shaves off at least 20% of the image detail information because it does not change the image canvas size itself.  There is nothing 'lossless' about it.

Depending upon how the plugin is set up, the PNG image might also be converted to a PNG-8 bit.  This is why when sending up a PNG file it's good practice to save the image in PNG-24 and sRGB space.  Either way your image is going to look better.  Add to this making images at least 1400px wide, and for portrait orientation, a minimum of 800px, and things get even better.

PNG, along with WEBP and SVG are the contemporary web development standards.  JPG is increasingly less so. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by PapaTango
My cat Bear suggested it

[inoneeye]

PT’s method goes a long way toward avoiding - minimizing halos which may be created or accentuated by sharpening.

[PapaTango]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

PT’s method goes a long way toward avoiding - minimizing halos which may be created or accentuated by sharpening.

And there is still another skeleton dancing in the closet...  🤔

This is a big reason I avoid discussing anything socially systematic.  EVERYTHING is a trip down a complex rabbit warren of details and connections--and with often varied and cross-purpose factors.

In reality and fact, forum communities ARE NOT the place to post a fine-featured portfolio or expect solid-proof results.  Rather, they seem a place to post a good quality image, and hopefully, the viewing community will discuss it; as long as it conveys the main content of its vision.  Don't do anything contrapuntal or it will confuse the audience...

The web gods now dictate that a page must be delivered in 1-2 seconds, no matter how many images are on it.  Otherwise, the site will be diminished in visibility and ranking on the search engines, and the possible value of the site financially is reduced.  Just the way it is.  Everything now is a shortcut to efficiency and lower overhead.

Site 'themes' have an impact on image display.  Sites that are made specifically for photo display do a better job, which is why a dedicated site for one's photography is an excellent way to display and curate images.  Forums are a compromise, and do the best job they can.

[hjoseph7]

"Add to this making images at least 1400px wide, and for portrait orientation, a minimum of 800px, and things get even better."

 

Due to the size of this Forum where people are posting their images left and right, there has to be a way to keep the size of the images down, otherwise they might have to start asking us for Fees to cover the cost of the added space requirements. Personal websites like Smugmug where you can post your pictures no matter what size usually don't have these restrictions. I usually don't go over 950px horizontal,  or 950px vertical when posting to PN, but I haven't tried anything bigger. There use to be a BIG Stop sign that your images went past the maximum of 800px, but I think they have since increased the Posting size at least with this version of PN.   

[PapaTango]

@hjoseph7 do you honestly think that the difference between 1400px, 1600px, or 800px makes any real difference in storage costs?

Photonet currently has over 4.7 million (quickly approaching 5M) images in its Amazon S3 storage.  To put this into context, if there were 100 new images a day of around 1 MB each uploaded, every month would add another $0.03 cents of billing--for the first wave of image access.  Remember that images are being chopped down to size.

Here is another important fact.  To trigger the lightbox display of images (what happens to enlarge the photo when clicked on) as I recall I set it as is about 1400px minimum.  What happens below that is a static display.

Guess that it all just depends on what you are looking for.

The threat to PN is not the size of images uploaded--but what is and has been for some time a money loser finding a purpose that aligns with the current crowd.  

Edited December 25, 2023 by PapaTango