Posted by Graeme Lee on November 22, 2006 at 4:27 PM
This is getting me down now! Whenever I save my image to be posted on the web, the image turns out totally different to how it looks in CS2. Detail in the blacks get lost and contrast seems to increase. What looks fine within PS as a tiff, a saved jpg looks terrible and doesn't reflect the image at all.
work flow:
My workspace is sRGB IE61966-2.1
I am using C1 to process RAw to 16bit tiffs.
Then from within PS, I am adjusting levels, curves etc.
I'm resizing the image to 640 by x and 72ppi,
converting to 8 bit tiff,
Applying USM at 100,0.2,0 x 5 times generally
Save to web
It seems to be particularly bad with blacks and I have had to lighten this image far more than I deem necessary to show detail in the blacks.
Any advice appreciated. It may be my monitor, but then all images that I view would look poor - and they don't. Often people's critiques referring to dark midtones and blown highlights for example are what I see too, so to me, it must be something I'm doing fundamentally wrong!!
Graeme
Posted by Graeme Lee on November 22, 2006 at 4:46 PM
Ok, perhaps a bit more saturation required
Posted by David Kjaer on November 23, 2006 at 4:13 AM
Hi Graeme
Nice shot, great pose, BG and good detail in the blacks. It is clear the lighting was quite flat and just looking at your histogram you can easily increase your contrast by a further adjustment of each colour channel in levels and then increase your midtones in curves a simple and quick way to lift an already pleasing image!
David
Posted by Philip Kirkham on November 23, 2006 at 4:15 AM
Hello Graeme
I don't see much wrong with your image, we all suffer a certain amount of degradation of our images when web posting, and there are many times when I have printed an image on A2 which looks really good, only to have comments suggesting more USM when it is posted for critique. You could maybe use Phil Shaw's trick of applying a final aplication of USM 20.30.1 to make your images "pop" a little more, other than that, I would be very pleased with this image if I were you (that final USM doesn't work so good on prints!).
Best wishes
Phil
Posted by John Chapman on November 23, 2006 at 4:35 AM
Hi Graeme
nice image and for me it is satisfactory PS. production.
Posted by Rob Ashton on November 23, 2006 at 4:42 AM
Detail, sharpness and saturation are very good on my monitor Graeme. Don't worry too much.
Rob
Posted by Helge Sorensen on November 23, 2006 at 8:29 AM
Hi Grame, I think this photo is very fine. What really matters is the eye and it stands out perfectly. The colours of the bird looks nice and you have a good quiet BG. My only nit would be that I think it's a bit oversharpened.
Posted by John Varley on November 23, 2006 at 8:44 AM
Hi Graeme - I have had this sort of problem in the past. I use PS7. I see you use SRGB for your workspace - but what are you using for your monitor profile in PS? Did you create one with Adobe Gamma or some other product or none.
If other peoples web pics looks ok then it sounds to me that PS is using the wrong monitor profile - that would be why you can adjust things to look right in ps and then even though you workspace is srgb when you convert for web and come out of ps the pic will look wrong
These days I use Gretag eyeone for monitor profiling and set PS7 to use the monitor profile that is created. I use RGB as my normal workspace - however once converted I find only a quite small difference between how a pic looks in PS and how it looks as a web image.
Discussion
7 replieswork flow:
My workspace is sRGB IE61966-2.1
I am using C1 to process RAw to 16bit tiffs.
Then from within PS, I am adjusting levels, curves etc.
I'm resizing the image to 640 by x and 72ppi,
converting to 8 bit tiff,
Applying USM at 100,0.2,0 x 5 times generally
Save to web
It seems to be particularly bad with blacks and I have had to lighten this image far more than I deem necessary to show detail in the blacks.
Any advice appreciated. It may be my monitor, but then all images that I view would look poor - and they don't. Often people's critiques referring to dark midtones and blown highlights for example are what I see too, so to me, it must be something I'm doing fundamentally wrong!!
Graeme
Nice shot, great pose, BG and good detail in the blacks. It is clear the lighting was quite flat and just looking at your histogram you can easily increase your contrast by a further adjustment of each colour channel in levels and then increase your midtones in curves a simple and quick way to lift an already pleasing image!
David
I don't see much wrong with your image, we all suffer a certain amount of degradation of our images when web posting, and there are many times when I have printed an image on A2 which looks really good, only to have comments suggesting more USM when it is posted for critique. You could maybe use Phil Shaw's trick of applying a final aplication of USM 20.30.1 to make your images "pop" a little more, other than that, I would be very pleased with this image if I were you (that final USM doesn't work so good on prints!).
Best wishes
Phil
nice image and for me it is satisfactory PS. production.
Rob
If other peoples web pics looks ok then it sounds to me that PS is using the wrong monitor profile - that would be why you can adjust things to look right in ps and then even though you workspace is srgb when you convert for web and come out of ps the pic will look wrong
These days I use Gretag eyeone for monitor profiling and set PS7 to use the monitor profile that is created. I use RGB as my normal workspace - however once converted I find only a quite small difference between how a pic looks in PS and how it looks as a web image.
Hope this helps
John