Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 04 Mar 2009 (Wednesday) 20:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I think I found a problem with my workflow

 
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,062 posts
Gallery: 382 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 04, 2009 20:05 |  #1

Well I recently started adding in the use of Photoshop to add Unsharp Mask to all my photos (or the ones I think need sharpening)

At first things were good, now it seems like I have a small small problem, it seems like when i then convert the files to JPG (Using identical settings) any of the ones i touched up with USM in photoshop end up a bit..darker...I'm not sure if its unacceptable or not

Heres 3 examples

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …ography/IMG_667​0-Edit.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …ography/IMG_666​0-Edit.jpg (external link)


Versus this one i did not apply USM to

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …/Photography/IM​G_6665.jpg (external link)


Yes they're all a bit darker to begin with intentionally (I intentionally underexposed them, for the watch ones to replicate the product photography look in some magazines, for the kitty to make it feel "devious" or "evil")

Ok no im not being crazy, the JPGs are definately a lot darker on anything i touched in photoshop...I seem to remember have a similar problem whenever i wanted a more underexposed look...

Ah heres one as it looks in lightroom i got by taking a screenshot..

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …ghtroomproblems​creen2.jpg (external link)


So what the heck is going on with my jpg export? Although that last one there doesnt look right either..

Experimenting, it seems its underexposing my exports by 1 stop...Weird...

Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Mar 04, 2009 21:20 |  #2

I don't see a problem, or you've not described it well (or maybe i'm just tired). Do you have a calibrated monitor? Can you see the brightness shift if you open both images in photoshop?


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,062 posts
Gallery: 382 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 04, 2009 21:50 |  #3

tim wrote in post #7456954 (external link)
I don't see a problem, or you've not described it well (or maybe i'm just tired). Do you have a calibrated monitor? Can you see the brightness shift if you open both images in photoshop?

The problem shouldnt have anythign to do with calibration..i dont think

The problem is that images look different in everything i open, and are unacceptably dark in Firefox/IE on Devart and such, they're fine in Photoshop and Lightroom however

Unless that IS a calibration problem (or perhaps if it looks fine to you, then maybe its my monitor)

Heres the first picture edited in lightroom to be a full stop brighter and then exported as a jpg to "emulate" how it looks in lightroom on my screen

http://kenjis9965.devi​antart.com/art/Devious​-Neko-114908252 (external link)

Thats how it looks in lightroom on my screen...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:11 |  #4

I still don't understand your problem. Is it that images look fine in photoshop and on your PC, but look dark through a web browser on the same machine?


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,062 posts
Gallery: 382 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:21 |  #5

tim wrote in post #7457297 (external link)
I still don't understand your problem. Is it that images look fine in photoshop and on your PC, but look dark through a web browser on the same machine?

They look fine in photoshop and lightroom

Anything else they're a lot darker

This includes windows picture and fax viewer, IE, Firefox, windows explorer itself and etc all on the same computer, same monitor and everything....


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:30 |  #6

That image is hard to diagnose a problem with, since it's way overexposed in some places and underexposed in other places. Post a normally exposed image, processed so it looks good in Photoshop on your machine.

Also make sure proofing is turned off in photoshop. Control-Y toggles it I think, it's on one of the menus.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,062 posts
Gallery: 382 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:36 |  #7

Heres one thats perfect using this new workflow of mine

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …raphy/IMG_4084-Edit-1.jpg (external link)


I think its only on images that i WANT to be a bit darker, for some reason the jpeg export in lightroom seems to make it even darker...Maybe its the ProPhoto colorspace that Photoshop and Lightroom use instead of sRGB or AdobeRGB, so when its converted it doesnt have the same depth..it did it even before i added the USM to some of my images now that I think about it

To clarify, my workflow is the following:

Import RAW to Lightroom using ACR > Weed out images I dont want > Choose the ones that need USM > Righclick and choose "Edit in Photoshop CS3" > Apply USM to the images that need it> Save > Adjust the image for exposure/contrast/etc until its perfect or how I want it > Export to JPG in 2 batches, first batch full res 100% JPEG, second batch 60% JPEG

Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:37 |  #8

Windows Picture Viewer, Internet Exploder, FireFox before version 3, and Windows Exploder itself are not color-managed applications.

If you don't already have it, get the latest release of FireFox 3 (and check the tutes on how to enabled color-management) to see colors as they should be on the internet.

Use DPP as your image browser to see colors as they should be on your computer.

Also, if things are looking too dark within color managed browsers after you applied USM, you're applying USM with too large of a radius.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,920 posts
Likes: 333
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Mar 04, 2009 22:44 |  #9

KenjiS wrote in post #7457437 (external link)
Heres one thats perfect using this new workflow of mine

This looks fine on my PC, firefox in color managed browser.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,062 posts
Gallery: 382 photos
Likes: 1646
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 04, 2009 23:06 |  #10

tim wrote in post #7457486 (external link)
This looks fine on my PC, firefox in color managed browser.

I am running Firefox 3 and i just double checked it is color managed..and that one looked fine across everything...I think i jsut made the first one too darn dark...

...And for some reason now its fixed after restarting Firefox..at least it matches photoshop

Weird..

Ah well problem solved


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,245 views & 0 likes for this thread
I think I found a problem with my workflow
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jaggerkat
446 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.