Red Campion

[John Robinson]

Red campion.
Oh no not another black background !
I like the way it shows the hairs !!
D7000
Sigma 50mm macro 5 images CZM
25th @ f5
Crop for comp.
Cheers
JohnR

[Diane Miller]

So do I! I'm loving your "weeds." Gorgeous light and color here!

[Jonathan Ashton]

You have good detail in the stems and hairs unfortunately it is lost in the reds because the colour is blown. I sense the greens are rather vivid but that impression is exacerbated by the black background.

[Diane Miller]

Jon, is it possible you have a wide gamut (AdobeRGB) monitor and are using a browser that is displaying untagged images in the monitor's gamut? That will show false and too-saturated colors.

I don't see any blown colors; here is the histogram:

152322

Open the image in PS -- if you don't get a warning that the image is not tagged, go to Edit > Color Settings (that's for Mac; it's in a different menu for PCs) and make sure to check the box to warn you of mismatched profiles. Then check to assign sRGB and to convert to your working space -- then you'll see the correct colors. If you don't get the warning and open it assuming (assigning) the wrong color space, you'll get a histogram (and visual appearance) with reds badly blown.

If the colors seen this way don't match your browser, it isn't properly color managed.

I have a couple of tutorials in Educational Resources that cover this stuff.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Diane Photoshop is ok checked.
My browser is Firefox maybe there is something wrong there - but if so why don't other images look oversaturated. I will have another look at the settings but I get lots of warnings not to muck about!

[Diane Miller]

FF needs to have a setting changed in order to know how to handle images with no profile. (Many other browsers have no way to do that.) See the tutorial in Educational Resources about seeing colors correctly on the web, about halfway down pg 4. (This stuff can vary with your operating system and browser version, but as far as I know the info there is still correct.)

This is only an issue for untagged images (as John's are), and can vary with the image. On a low-gamut monitor it's possible to saturate an image more than can be seen. That's why I stress watching the histogram when creating an image.

For your viewing situation, basically what is happening is that the browser is "assigning" the full gamut of your monitor, which is more than the original and correct gamut of the image. That also happened with John's Wild Arum. Reds and yellows seem to be the worst, probably because your monitor gamut is most expanded there, compared to sRGB. That can be fixed with FF as outlined in the tutorial. (You won't break anything despite the warning if you do what is shown there. They are being overly cautious.)

Of course there are other issues with monitor and browser variance, such as proper calibration, but this is one that can be fixed. It is far worse for people with so-called wide-gamut monitors, which display the full AdobeRGB gamut, which is wider than sRGB. Reds can look hugely blown in this case.

[John Robinson]

Interesting stuff Diane - especially re the Arum Picture. It was a bit yellowish etc as thats how I adjusted it in curves etc as thats how I wanted the image to look. When it was mentioned I then altered it and it suited other people so it just shows that there is no point in stamping your own "style" on a picture because others will not like it or find the colours wrong on their monitor,! You then end up producing pictures that others want to see. Don;'t know what the answer is - -maybe monochrome is the answer !! No one except the photographer can say really what the colour was like. As a matter of interest I sent some pics to two friends who took them into PS and embedded a profile..When they viewed mine and their adjusted ones they could see no difference !! Its an interestig debate which will go on and on untill everyones gear is exactly the same- which we all know will never happen.
John

[Jonathan Ashton]

FF needs to have a setting changed in order to know how to handle images with no profile. (Many other browsers have no way to do that.) See the tutorial in Educational Resources about seeing colors correctly on the web, about halfway down pg 4. (This stuff can vary with your operating system and browser version, but as far as I know the info there is still correct.)

This is only an issue for untagged images (as John's are), and can vary with the image. On a low-gamut monitor it's possible to saturate an image more than can be seen. That's why I stress watching the histogram when creating an image.

For your viewing situation, basically what is happening is that the browser is "assigning" the full gamut of your monitor, which is more than the original and correct gamut of the image. That also happened with John's Wild Arum. Reds and yellows seem to be the worst, probably because your monitor gamut is most expanded there, compared to sRGB. That can be fixed with FF as outlined in the tutorial. (You won't break anything despite the warning if you do what is shown there. They are being overly cautious.)

Of course there are other issues with monitor and browser variance, such as proper calibration, but this is one that can be fixed. It is far worse for people with so-called wide-gamut monitors, which display the full AdobeRGB gamut, which is wider than sRGB. Reds can look hugely blown in this case.

Thanks Diane I understand now, I also went through all of this with my pal who teaches Photoshop and calibrates screens and printers professionally. Your last paragraph illustrates my case perfectly. My histogram does not resemble yours, the reds are very blown.

[David Cowling]

Looks almost 3D John. The plant stands out so well from the background and the colours look spot on. Natural lighting? I have never tried stacking, will have to give it a try.

[John Robinson]

Thanks
Yes natural light,David, with a curved photo backdrop.
John

[Diane Miller]

John, if your friends had sRGB monitors (the norm until the last few years and still the affordable norm) they most likely would see no difference (although some strange browser issues could be possible, but unlikely.

This is only an issue for the newer Adobe RGB gamut ("wide-gamut") monitors and only then when viewing an image with no embedded profile. That can be fixed in most cases (where the image is actually sRGB but not tagged) by using Firefox and making a setting that tells it to assume sRGB in that case.

This issue will give larger color errors that the normal variances in browsers and monitors.

[Diane Miller]

Jonathan, if you open the image and tell PS to assign sRGB and then convert to your working space the histogram and the appearance will both be correct. (I'm sure your friend showed you that, just repeating it here for others.)