|
|
The link you've used goes to a private page.
Posted 87 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sorry about that...didn't know viewing other sizes was private. Try this link:
www.flickr.com/photos/petitshoo/7763256/
And then click on the "see different sizes" link on the right side.
Thanks.
Posted 87 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A number of my recently-loaded images also display (on different monitors) with greatly reduced ranges of contrast & tone. This is even the case with monitors calibrated (as are my camera & 'home' monitor) for Adobe RGB. I support petitshoo's bug report and urge that it is investigated as soon as possible.
Posted 87 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I believe that the issue is that we strip color profiles from the downsized jpgs. No ETA, but we do plan to stop doing that :)
Posted 87 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Any update on this, folks? There are some photos that this completely affects the entire look of the photo!
Example:
Look at downsized: www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=14046405&size=l
Look at original: www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=14046405&size=o
I don't mean to complain, as this is like my second home, but this particular issue really permeates into so much of what I do and why I'm here. I think a lot of other self-righteous, self-important photographers on here would agree ;-)
Thanks,
-Bobby
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Just to throw some more water on the fire - for those of us not using any color calibration software, etc., there is no visual difference between the two images. I clicked on both of Urban Tiki's photos and they looked identical.
Not saying that this is a problem that shouldn't be solved - it should, but just putting it into perspective. Most casual flickr users do not practice good color calibration. =)
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
.
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'm a little confused. When people calibrate their displays, don't they simply change the gamma values for all things displayed? I'm not sure how the JPG color space fits into this problem.
In other words -- I'm looking at Urban Tiki's and petitshoo's photos. I can see no color differences between the original and the reduced versions. So, if I modify my gamma levels to load my color calibration profile, why would those images suddenly begin to look different?
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh whoops, sorry. Are you guys not using sRGB?
I'm not in any way an expert on color stuff, but it would seem that either (a) flickr should perceptually map/convert all uploaded images to sRGB (except the "original") or (b) flickr should require all images uploaded to be in sRGB.
Am I way off?
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
.
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Travísimo: yes.
The colour profiles embedded into jpegs are used to make sure that images are reproduced identically on different screens and/or media. Unfortunately just sending a certain colour code somewhere doesn't always result in exactly the same wavelength of light being received by the eye. Colour profiles attempt to fix this by embedding information on how a certain device will reproduce colour. If you have a properly profiled screen and printer, an image on the screen should look identical to on paper.
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, 7256 and Marco.
My apologies for being a bit unclear. Marco, I do understand the purpose of color profiles, but I was a little thrown off by a previous comment that this issue had something to do with "color calibration software". I initially interpreted this to mean "software to calibrate your display's gamma values", but I think the poster perhaps only meant what he said in a general way. I believe the issue here is exactly what Eric (staff) said: that Flickr is stripping out the color profile information in the downsized images and thus these images are rendered incorrectly for users with color-space-aware browsers.
Now, in my case, I've never noticed these inconsistencies because none of the browser/OS platforms that I use take JPEG color space information into account -- they simply ignore it and assume that the pixel data for the image is in sRGB. So, unfortunately for me and for many other Flickr users such as Eric in SF, we are unable to correctly view the non-sRGB photos that users such as Urban Tiki have posted, even if we view the "original" versions.
So, it seems to me that Flickr can take one of two stances on the issue:
(a) In order to accomodate the widest possible user base, downsized images will be perceptually *mapped* into sRGB (this is different from just ignoring the color space) so that they will be displayed correctly for all users.
(b) Flickr will stop stripping out the color-space information, but those non-color-space-aware platforms are wrong. Flickr will stand their ground and leave it up to those platforms' developers to update their software to recognize color spaces.
To me, neither is necessarily a wrong choice. I would personally prefer option (a) since I believe it's going to be a while before software developers stop viewing the world through sRGB-colored glasses, but that's only an opinion. Also, consider that for the reduced-sized images, Flickr already takes liberty with the quality, reducing it somewhat to give us a faster experience - the artifacts from this are readily visible in most images. So why not go ahead and, while they're at it, also remap these reduced images into sRGB?
Does this make any sense?
Thanks again for everyone's comments.
-Travis
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
7256, on another topic, I believe that when Nikon refers to sRGB-I, sRGB-II, sRGB-IIIa, etc., those images are still actually in the sRGB color space. I think the differences (I,II,IIIa) have to do with the functions they use to map the sensor data into the sRGB space.
Adobe RGB, on the other hand, is truly a separate color space.
Just a comment.
-Travis
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
A useful page for everyone: www.color.org/version4html.html
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I wish I could put the entire Color space issue in a huge canyon somewhere, swear at it in the most obstreperous manner possible, then blow it up with a rocket laucher. It's evidence that software techies who do this stuff know nothing about what it means to not be an android.
Hopefully this helps.
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
*chuckle*
Posted 86 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suffer from the same problem. I have tried both sRGB and my usual Adobe RGB profile, and in either case, when viewed in a browser that respects color profiles, the original looks as intended, but all the others look very, very flat.
Posted 85 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is there an update to this? I am having a lot of trouble with the desaturation thing. It's also inconsistent from photo to photo. Has anyone found a reliable way to compensate for the stripping of color from resized images?
Thanks!
Posted 83 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The PictureSync uploading tool (mac only) applies a color correction to iPhoto images before uploading. Would be nice if the iPhoto FlickrExport plug-in did this too.
Posted 82 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yep, this needs fixing!
Posted 81 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Use Photoshop's "Convert to Profile..." to change your uploads to sRGB before sending them.
This is NOT "Assign Profile...".
If my understanding is correct, "Convert" changes the color numbers in the JPEG file but "Assign" does not. "Convert" changes your JPEG into a sRGB image while "Assign" just tells Photoshop how to interpret the numbers differently.
You need to actually change the numbers in your file so the colors will appear correct in an environment (like Flickr) that doesn't use profiles.
Also, do NOT embed a profile with your uploaded JPEG. Flickr strips it anyway. Send a naked file that will be rendered correctly in sRGB with no profile!
Posted 81 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've had the same problem with my photographs. They look much less saturated on Flickr than any other monitor or printing media that I use. It is quite disappointing.
Posted 81 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I tried resaving an image as sRGB and uploading for comparison. It made a big difference.
Original (Adobe RGB)
sRGB
Posted 81 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I posted a short article to my blog on this issue.
Posted 81 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is there a way flickr can fix this without having to go through the RGB > sRGB workaround? It's still very apparent. Just stoking the fire.
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's an example I uploaded, just for another example: 
Posted 78 months ago.
( permalink
)
taylorstevens edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads