njb

After testing with several different photos, it seems that the difference between the two versions is somewhat variable. In other words, Adobe RGB files that have more out-of-gamut colors (compared to sRGB)suffer more when not converted before saving.

By George, I think I've done it! I'm posting a follow-up pic to the last one that was

saved WITHOUT the profile conversion and using "uncompensated color" in the pull-

down menu. I think there should be a discernable difference when viewed side by

side. The first image has much better saturation and tone, IMO. I'd be interested to

hear results from anyone else.... Thanks for the suggestions to get me going in the

right direction.

Okay, here's what I think is going to work.... (after extensive fiddling and general

tinkering with three different computers and half a dozen different browsers). Take

your image, Open in photoshop. Convert to sRGB. This should present little to no

change when viewed immeadiately after. Now open the Save for Web dialogue and

save your image at the appropriate jpeg settings. Make sure to select the "use

document color profile" option in the main pull-down menu. You should then have

an image that is identical in your browser to what is seen in photoshop, and a

reasonable facsimile when viewed on other machines (allowing for descrepancies

between different monitors, obviously). Make sure that when closing your image in

photoshop after creating the jpeg, that you do not save the profile conversion to

sRGB. This would detrimental to "archival" type files that you later wish to print from

(use a wide-gamut space such as Adobe RGB). For the possible satisfaction of having

answered my own question, I'm attaching an image I saved using this process so I can

view it on several different machines and browsers. Update to follow....

Here's my problem... When I view my images in Photoshop on my computer, they look

great. I use the "Save for Web" dialogue to resize them for upload to the site, but after

I do, I preview them in Internet Explorer. There I usually find that the image is

severely degraded, I don't just mean from the jpeg compression. The image usaully

appears to now be over-exposed and have lost the original color balance that was so

carefully achieved in photoshop. In short, it looks like crap, not something I'd want to

share. I'm assuming this is some type of color management problem, but at this point

I've exhausted my limited personal expertise on the matter to no avail, and am now

seeking professional help. Please assist, so I can share my photos with you!

I just got a used SB-25 and have been tinkering around with it. My question is: does anybody use the little pop-out white card that's built into the flashhead. I've heard some folks say that it can be used to bounce/diffuse the flash, but I can't say I quite understand how or to what effect. I'm mostly using this flash for outdoor fill in landscapes and such, and with my 105mm micro for close-ups, so any thoughts along such veins would be appreciated.

Let me add my two cents with the disclaimer that I could be entirely wrong, but this is what works for me. It's my understanding that when using photoshop in an ICC-profile based workflow (I assume that's what we're talking about), photoshop takes the document and it's embedded profile, and converts the image to your monitor color space on the fly. As with any profile conversion (like RGB->CMYK) it's not perfect. The monitor color space cannot possibly display the entire gamut of colors contained within a typical wide-gamut working space, such as Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB, etc.. It makes sense to me that conversions between two color spaces with equal gamma settings would render more reliable results than conversions made between color spaces with unequal gamma settings. Gamma is just one setting that dictates the color gamut of a particular color space. The closer the gamut of your working space is to that of your monitor space, the more accurate the image will be on-screen, and subsequently, in print. It's been my experience that if your working space has a gamut of 2.2 (Adobe RGB 1998), setting your monitor to the same gamut yields more reliable results between monitor and print. Keep in mind that when you send an image to print, you are sending the data in the working color space, not the converted version you see on your screen.

Get a Mac and get iPhoto for free!!!! (not to mention a superior operating system)

I had noticed that prints on my Epson 890 were coming out dark and sort of muddy. It is true that different color spaces have different assigned gamma's and color temperatures. One thing that came to my mind was the fact that while I was working in Adobe RGB, which has a gamma of 2.2, my monitor was calibrated to 1.8. I re-calibrated the monitor to the higher gamma and this seems to have helped achieve more consistent prints.