October 01, 2014, 12:17:07 AM

Author Topic: Candid portraits  (Read 46167 times)

ghosh9691

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2012, 04:30:50 PM »
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2012, 04:30:50 PM »

DavidRiesenberg

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
    • View Profile
    • David Riesenberg
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2012, 04:40:08 PM »
And the weird thing is that there used to be a flag that you could set to enable color management in Chrome but they removed it at some point.
It's a shame really. From a performance and usability point of view, Chrome is by far my favorite browser.

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2012, 04:40:32 PM »
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.

Chrome is color managed. Start it with the "--enable-monitor-profile" command line parameter. It's there and it works but apparently only if the  images are sRGB.

ghosh9691

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2012, 06:12:15 PM »
Here it is again - not sure why it is different

It's the same thing. I've read that Chrome always considers that photos are sRGB.

Here's a photo exported with ProPhoto (I'm curious if it works). Yuck, it doesn't! It's green as hell.

Okay, here's the same photo exported with aRGB. It doesn't work, but the colors are interesting. The orange is muted.

And below is exported with sRGB.

(Oh, they have EXIF: 40D, 70-200 F4 IS)

Chrome is not a color managed browser. IE9, Safari 5 and the latest versions of Firefox are. That is why your color in Chrome (and I see the same too) look crappy. Ditch Chrome.

Chrome is color managed. Start it with the "--enable-monitor-profile" command line parameter. It's there and it works but apparently only if the  images are sRGB.

All applications are supposed to handle sRGB correctly. That does not make it color managed. Chrome is not color managed. On my color calibrated monitor, it shows up with terrible colors, even with that command line parameter. A proper color managed browser would display photos with sRGB, Adobe, ProPhoto correctly. If you want to test, go to the following: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page2 and you will see how poorly Chrome performs. Now repeat with IE9 and you can see the difference. As you will find out, Chrome completely ignores the embedded color profile!

« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 06:13:57 PM by ghosh9691 »

Crapking

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2012, 07:17:08 PM »
I was "working" from the office computer (Chrome), now I'll upload it from Safari (home)

On my screen, it looks fine, did we solve the dilemma or do I need to post-process in PS differently?  My usual work flow is to shoot in max resolution RAW, (7D), download to my MacPro, working with 27" LED screen (not calibrated), select website keepers, then edit only those keepers in Adobe Camera Raw, then "save as" JPEG ProphotoRGB 8 bit, 240 ppi, (usually downsize to ~ 1910x1274) and then "DONE" the original file.  Later I upload my keeper JPEGs to my hosting service (Phanfare) and I've just started 'sharing' some with a new FLICKr account to see how I like that service, and to facilitate copying to this forum.

I've experimented at times shooting sports in native JPEG, trying to save time post-processing, but for sports/lowlight, I find I need to post-process anyways.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 07:31:52 PM by Crapking »
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7D, (Sigma 15 FE)
16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8 II; 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400L
35/1.4, 40/2.8; 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2; 200/2

ghosh9691

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 08:30:08 PM »
I was "working" from the office computer (Chrome), now I'll upload it from Safari (home)

On my screen, it looks fine, did we solve the dilemma or do I need to post-process in PS differently?  My usual work flow is to shoot in max resolution RAW, (7D), download to my MacPro, working with 27" LED screen (not calibrated), select website keepers, then edit only those keepers in Adobe Camera Raw, then "save as" JPEG ProphotoRGB 8 bit, 240 ppi, (usually downsize to ~ 1910x1274) and then "DONE" the original file.  Later I upload my keeper JPEGs to my hosting service (Phanfare) and I've just started 'sharing' some with a new FLICKr account to see how I like that service, and to facilitate copying to this forum.

I've experimented at times shooting sports in native JPEG, trying to save time post-processing, but for sports/lowlight, I find I need to post-process anyways.

Looks fine to me on a caliberated monitor using IE9...


martinelliminimo

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2012, 09:24:58 PM »
Beautiful!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2012, 09:24:58 PM »

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2012, 03:20:15 AM »
As you will find out, Chrome completely ignores the embedded color profile!

Exactly what I was saying. The support is partial. Chrome is partially color managed because it can still properly display sRGB photos on aRGB displays (when using the above command line parameter).

NotABunny

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2012, 03:26:20 AM »
On my screen, it looks fine, did we solve the dilemma or do I need to post-process in PS differently?  My usual work flow is to shoot in max resolution RAW, (7D), download to my MacPro, working with 27" LED screen (not calibrated), select website keepers, then edit only those keepers in Adobe Camera Raw, then "save as" JPEG ProphotoRGB 8 bit

"ProphotoRGB" is the problem. If you'll export it in sRGB, it will display properly in Chrome as well. However, since that requires the browser to be started with a specific command line parameter, the people who don't do that will still not see it color managed (sure, they'll see properly on an sRGB display, but not on a aRGB one).

Tijn

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2012, 10:16:43 AM »
First one was unexpected, second one was candid. 350D body, 18-55 kit lens. (Still saving for 60D and some real lenses, thats why I came here  ;) )

I'd used a larger aperture if was more aware of the small apertures I was shooting with it at the time. Still, I like how these came out. :-)

smirkypants

  • Guest
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2012, 03:40:10 PM »
Miami Airport. Canon 7D + Siggy 50 @ f1.4, 1/250, ISO 1600. Processed in Lightroom 4.

JR

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1244
    • View Profile
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2012, 08:47:23 AM »
The Look!  This picture is actually crop at 100%, otherwise I would have removed the baby's nose...
1DX, 24mm f1.4L II, 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L, 85mm f1.2L II, 135mm f2L, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II :  D800, D4, and a whole bunch of Nikon lenses

picturesbyme

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
    • AtlanticPicture.com
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2012, 09:32:58 AM »

The Bird Whisperer I.


Double Candid


Packing

www.picturesbyme.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2012, 09:32:58 AM »

Beautor

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2012, 11:58:06 AM »
Snapped this of my son on a nature walk. 40D, 70-200 F4L


Simply a hobbyist with an expensive hobby.
40D & 60D, 24-70L, 70-200 F4L, Tamron 17-50 F2.8 No-VC

bainsybike

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2012, 12:54:23 PM »
50D, Sigma 30mm@F1.4, ISO 100

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Candid portraits
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2012, 12:54:23 PM »