PHP-Photography wrote:
What colorspace you are using ?

elaborate please

Camera Buff wrote:
Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices [and how to fix them]
http://www.analogsenses.com/2015/08/12/ … e-viewing/

I always ask people to view any  of my online work on a desktop or tablet if possible. Sites like MM absolutely fail to work well on phones anyway, so even navigating the site on a phone is hugely problematic.

Thanks for your deep dive, but life is too short. Your chances of finding an informed and aesthetically erudite viewer using a phone as their viewing medium are slim-to-none. And agencies or publications will want a different viewing experience altogether.

Mark wrote:

elaborate please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

Your images need to be sRGB for Internet.

Mark wrote:

elaborate please

I am just scratching my head how a photographer who has been on MM for 16 years and has seemingly worked with major fashion companies would not know about color spaces. The 10 setting you mention is not resolution but compression. I am wondering what your starting material is, whether RAW or something else, how many megapixels, from what camera, etc.

Eye of the World wrote:

I am just scratching my head how a photographer who has been on MM for 16 years and has seemingly worked with major fashion companies would not know about color spaces. The 10 setting you mention is not resolution but compression. I am wondering what your starting material is, whether RAW or something else, how many megapixels, from what camera, etc.

Camera Buff wrote:
Why your pictures can look weird on mobile devices [and how to fix them]
http://www.analogsenses.com/2015/08/12/ … e-viewing/

Camera Buff wrote:
3 Ways To Send Pictures On Yahoo Mail
November 30, 2020 by Editorial Team
https://whatvwant.com/send-pictures-on-yahoo-mail/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2JaTI7WmUM&t=44s

All the pics in your MM portfolio are super-classy!

Mark wrote:
OK so as I have always been using..the camera is set as sRGB but most likely saving in PS in AdobeRGB (which I believe I have been doing for years)

I have tried adjusting color profiles  in   PS  and saving as sRGB rather than AdobeRGB and well it changes some but still not happy.  I dont remember all the combinations/variations and the results that work ok on FB but not on my phone..etc  so I cant offer a very good summary at this point.

the problem is the photo looks fine in PS then when I email it its- darker and saturated.  If I adjust the image so it looks best on the phone screen then it looks washed out on a computer screen

NEVER shoot in sRGB!

That is a very low, screen-resolution format which is completely inadequate for editing purposes.
It should only be used as OUTPUT that will be seen online.

Do all of your shooting in RAW format (if your camera can).
Do all of your processing in RAW, using the ProRes colorspace –if available in your editing software.
Otherwise, do your editing in the AdobeRGB colorspace.
Always work with a fresh custom color-profile on your monitor, made with your own equipment and measuring device.
ONLY AFTER ALL OF THAT do you output it to the sRGB format!

Then, as I and others have suggested previously, check the output by viewing it in a simple photo-viewer, such as Apple's "Preview" software. Adjust either the original or the output to meet the requirements of either phone-viewing or monitor viewing until you are satisfied with the results you see on those type of devices.

It's an exacting process that has no guarantee of success, since you can't control the color-fidelity of the viewers' devices, but you can at least come closer than you apparently have been able to so far.

Modelphilia wrote:

NEVER shoot in sRGB!

That is a very low, screen-resolution format which is completely inadequate for editing purposes.
It should only be used as OUTPUT that will be seen online.

Do all of your shooting in RAW format (if your camera can).
Do all of your processing in RAW, using the ProRes colorspace –if available in your editing software.
Otherwise, do your editing in the AdobeRGB colorspace.
Always work with a fresh custom color-profile on your monitor, made with your own equipment and measuring device.
ONLY AFTER ALL OF THAT do you output it to the sRGB format!

Then, as I and others have suggested previously, check the output by viewing it in a simple photo-viewer, such as Apple's "Preview" software. Adjust either the original or the output to meet the requirements of either phone-viewing or monitor viewing until you are satisfied with the results you see on those type of devices.

It's an exacting process that has no guarantee of success, since you can't control the color-fidelity of the viewers' devices, but you can at least come closer than you apparently have been able to so far.

I think you are confused. At a guess, I think you are confusing sRGB with JPEG, particularly when you urge shooting RAW, and you talk about converting to "sRGB format" for output. It is common (but not strictly necessary) for a JPEG image to be in the sRGB colour space, but that doesn't mean that the two are the same thing.

I think you mean ProPhoto RGB colour space rather than ProRes (ProRes is a video codec, not a colour space).

You also seem confused when you talk about "do all your processing in RAW". That doesn't make sense. The first step in processing an image shot in RAW is to convert it from RAW into another format, typically an RGB matrix of a particular bit depth in a particular colour space. That RAW conversion process includes handling the demosaicing of the Bayer filter (unless it's from something like a Foveon sensor), setting a colour temperature, black point, white point, tone curves, and so forth, doing some quite sophisticated processing to convert the digital samples in the RAW file into RGB values in a specific colour space. Those of us using PhotoShop usually do that in Adobe Camera RAW, which separates that RAW conversion process from other editing, so we are well aware of the separation. That separation is less obvious in other software, but it is still there. That's because the RAW processing is camera-specific, and the later editing is not. Further editing operations, like dodging and burning, are done on the RGB matrix. That RGB matrix can be saved in a file (like a PSD from Photoshop, or a TIFF, or several other formats), and reloaded for further editing.

It sounds like what you mean when you say "do all your processing in RAW" is that you are advocating working on a 16bit RGB matrix, which is a perfectly sensible thing to suggest, and again makes it sound like you are arguing against JPEG (which is 8 bit). It is possible to convert a RAW file into an 8 bit RGB matrix in a particular colour space (there were people who advocated doing that in the past, when computers were far less capable than they are today, because it used less memory and was faster - I don't know if they still advocate that today). In theory, it's also possible to use a 32 bit RGB matrix, or a 24 bit CMYK matrix, or a 16 bit LAB matrix, but we typically use 16 bit RGB for photographs, because most of today's cameras capture 14 or 16 bit RAW files using an RGB Bayer filter.

And yes, the last step is usually to create output files. Those output files may well be JPEG format files in the sRGB colour space. But they could be JPEG format files in Adobe RGB colour space (although I'd recommend against doing that). They could be PNG files in the sRGB colour space. What they won't be is "sRGB format", because sRGB is a colour space and not a format.

Modelphilia wrote:
True, I did mess up a few times there. I've gotten a bit rusty with so few photographic endeavors these past 20 months! Thanks for straightening some things out and explaining them better than I did.

I do tend to think of sRGB as an online format, meaning that it has both a limited color space, and that it is generally applied to lower-res JPEG or PNG images for online display. Also, color-spaces are often changed when outputting for a specific use. When I can, I process in ProPhoto, then output to AdobeRGB or sRGB as may be appropiate.

Sorry if I came on a bit strong.

I am currently shooting high res RAW images (50 or 60 megapixels), so scaling them down to MM dimensions (800 pixels wide) means that every output pixel is 10x10 (or more) from the source image. With that sort of scaling you could get away with a lot of misdemeanours in the original files. Still, calibrating the screen and setting the white balance carefully - they are pretty much automatic now. I was asked to take a shot of a couple with their phone recently, and I looked around - took me a moment to realise I was looking for a grey or white surface to shoot for white balance :-)