|
Ok, the Nikon D70 offers two (3, in reality, but let's keep it simple) colour rooms: aRGB and aRGB Now, when I don't use Nikon's own software to transfer the pics from the camera to the PC, only the sRGB pictures get tagged with the colour room information. So far, so good - PS doesn't detect a tag and asks what it should do, Picasa displays them as sRGB pictures (hence the crappy colours), and the Windows properties info shows no colour room information either for the aRGB pics - so far everything makes sense. BUT: Window's own picture viewer (the Picture and Fax Viewer) does somehow obviously detect that it's an aRGB pic, because it displays the colours correctly - despite, as mentioned above, not showing aRGB in the properties! Why? Why is the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer the only program that detects that it's aRGB, when neither PS nor Picasa detect any tag? How is that possible, when the picture doesn't carry a tag with this information, and no other program is capable of detecting it? /tears hair out This colour management is the most confusing thing I've ever seen. You can't believe the nerves it has cost me in the last few months. Probably I should buy a Mac, eh? .gif) Edited by UncleLou at 22:54:12 18-01-2005 |
Colour management - I despair
-
-
First *bump*, hoping for otto. -
Cheers, otto - I am really confused now (not because of your post).
I made two completely identical pics right now, not moving the camera in between, same settings, one in aRGB, one in sRGB. It's a pic of my wooden floor - in the camera's own display, the floor looks much redder in the sRGB picture.
Now when I transfer both pics with PS, and tell it to use the correct colour space, both pics look identical on the screen. When I, however, tell PS to incorrectly use sRGB for the aRGB picture, it looks exactly like on the camera display.
It is as if the D70 itself doesn't know which colour space it should use. As that is pretty unlikely, the mistake must be on my end.
No need to explain anything, it helps writing about it here..gif)
Edited by UncleLou at 23:30:55 18-01-2005 -
UncleLou, maybe this thread has the answers? It seems that you have use Nikon's software for correctly tagging the files. -
Cheers valli, I 'll have a close look at that thread!
otto, maybe you can try someday to take two identical pictures, one with aRGB, one with sRGB, and compare them on the display and then on your screen, and tell me what happened. I'd be eternally grateful..gif)
-
unwashed! 272 posts
Registered 17 years agoWhen I looked at this (very briefly) in my D300's manual it basically reckoned that the colour 'room' (whatever, not sure, don't care la la la... 
is how the camera describes the colours in the picture. Basically they're standards.
However it did say that set-up correctly you'll get the same results with aRGB and sRGB, but if you use AdobeRGB the image tones will appear flatter, as it is geared towards mass reproduction (e.g. Newspapers and Magazines) so unless you're doing that kind of photography (and if you are why haven't you spent 5 and a half grand on the 1Ds MkII, hmmm?) then pick either aRGB or sRGB and stick with it.
But again, I'll re-iterate I'm a beginner, and the camera is a beginners camera...
-
Thanks otto - another thing: do you convert your pics back to sRGB when you bring them to a lab to have them printed? Because here in Germany, all labs I've seen expect sRGB pictures - meaning the colours look muted when you send them aRGB photos.
So I usually shoot in aRGB, work in PS in aRGB, but then convert them to sRGB before I send them to a lab. God knows if that makes any sense. :-/ -
unwashed! 272 posts
Registered 17 years agootto wrote:
Anyway (/hijacks) this is a bloody expensive hobby isn't it? All that money I'm saving on film I'm spending on accessories. Having got myself a speedlight I grabbed myself the remote cable this morning, so I can take nice macro shots lit from an angle. Oh and a Hoya polariser - not cheap! Plus a ring converter so I can use the same filter across all my lenses. And of course a LowePro filter pocket. Blimey. And the danger is with camera kit that it's easy to spend a lot of money without the missus knowing, because it's small and easily hidden in your kit bag.
Which reminds me. Need a bigger kit bag.
Ack, tell me, my current list of requirements is 1 or 2 2GB/3 or 4 1GB CompactFlash cards. Filters (UV, Polarizing, Gradiated). Decent Macro Lens.
Then I want to look at replaceing the zoom lens, as it's very old and was bought very cheaply. (Though I have a feeling this'll never happen...)
But the worst thing is, I share the camera with the missus, so no hiding stuff for me!!! Eeek!!! -
-
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoYour camera must be broken, otto - those M&M's are all blurry...
Edited by phAge at 04:02:09 19-01-2005 -
phAge 25,487 posts
Seen 3 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoAlas, I am no photo-geek - but I´m sure my dad would´ve had some witty retort at hand... -
Gurgy 2,924 posts
Seen 19 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoOtto, I am disappointed in you.
When young Link ran away to seek a better home I bet he didn't expect to end up as a macro fetishists plaything.
Poor boy, from rescuing princesses to a mere geek's prop.
-
Thanks a lot otto!
Now, to complicate things further: when I view them in a non colour-space sensitive browser, the difference in the aRGB and sRGB pictures is dramatic - Opera will assume the aRGB pic is sRGB, as it can't display aRGB, and it looks quite dull.
However, in PS and NikonView, the pics look almost identical, with the red just a tad more saturated in the sRGB pic. I am therefore a bit confused that you say there is a big difference in PS as well.
Now I know you're on a Mac at home, open them in IE and see if the difference is the same as on your Mac!
Edited by UncleLou at 08:34:58 19-01-2005 -
Dirtbox 92,595 posts
Seen 20 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago -
jiroczech 2,669 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 20 years agoUsed to do some image manipulation for a company that did fine art prints, so I know a wee bit about PS and colour management.
sRGB is inferior to aRGB, which has a larger gamut. A gamut is like the complete subset of colours that a particular colour model (sRGB, aRGB, HSL, CMYK etc.) has. If you convert from aRGB to sRGB you're going to lose information that you can't retrieve.
PS handles RAW files now, if you can get them out of your camera then that's the best thing to work with.
Colours aren't going to look right on-screen unless you have a good, calibrated monitor, so don't expect what you see on your monitor to be a true indication of the colour in an image. -
unwashed 1,857 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agootto wrote:
->unwashed: for me, new kit bag, ND grad filter(s), so the Cokin system, another 1 or 2 gig CF card would be nice though I have the iPod to transfer stuff to, a spare battery would be good, I'm probably pretty well covered for lenses for the time being, could do with a better tripod than the crappy one I just bought though.
Ah shit otto man! I didn't mean to get you spending more money!!! So you have seen the cokin system haven't you, since I mentioned it? -
otto wrote:
UncleLou wrote:
No difference that I can see regardless of how I view them - Safari, IE, PS, Preview, Nikon View... And yes, there is a big difference, there was even a marked difference on my D70's LCD. Odd that you shouldn't be seeing any dramatic difference.
Now I know you're on a Mac at home, open them in IE and see if the difference is the same as on your Mac!
I'll try with Firefox and IE on XP at the office.
Edited by otto at 13:37:20 19-01-2005
IE definitely isn't colour space sensitive, so the aRGB photo should look a lot duller than when you view it in Safari, PS or NikonView, for example.
So, the dramatic difference is only visible for me in not colour space sensitive apps. If you can't see a difference between the aRGB pic in IE and the very same pic in PS, something is wrong.
/spreads the confusion -
unwashed 1,857 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years agoIf you do get the cokin otto, you will of course post your opinions and some pictures (both the results and pictures of you using it... -
Um... no comment. 
I just use the Adobe RGB colour space seeing as it preserves the maximum of colour information, or so I'm told. I did have problems now and then in Photoshop where it prompted me to keep or discard colour settings (despite the fact that I was already using AdobeRGB) but I believe that was a bug which they fixed with last week's firmware update. iPhoto, Nikon View, OS X Preview, Image Capture etc have all just used whichever colour space I'd chosen, no hiccups and no problems with on-screen colours at all, as far as I've been able to notice.
edit - on re-reading your post though UncleLou, I don't think I've been paying it as much attention as you have. As I say, I just selected the one that gave me more detail and left it at that. I don't really understand what it means, presumably the number of bits given over to colour information? So larger files? Anyway, it all works fine for me.
Edited by otto at 23:15:36 18-01-2005 -
Hmm. Well I haven't found the camera's LCD to be particularly helpful when assessing a pic, to be honest. Cue the histogram. -
Isn't that exactly the problem that was fixed with the firmware update?
I dunno.
Anyway (/hijacks) this is a bloody expensive hobby isn't it? All that money I'm saving on film I'm spending on accessories. Having got myself a speedlight I grabbed myself the remote cable this morning, so I can take nice macro shots lit from an angle. Oh and a Hoya polariser - not cheap! Plus a ring converter so I can use the same filter across all my lenses. And of course a LowePro filter pocket. Blimey. And the danger is with camera kit that it's easy to spend a lot of money without the missus knowing, because it's small and easily hidden in your kit bag.
Which reminds me. Need a bigger kit bag. -
UncleLou wrote:
I'll try that tonight.
otto, maybe you can try someday to take two identical pictures, one with aRGB, one with sRGB, and compare them on the display and then on your screen, and tell me what happened. I'd be eternally grateful. -
->UL: Hell no, it's never crossed my mind to be honest! So far I've only once had a batch of prints done and that was via the iPhoto print service. I was very happy with the results but it was just for snapshot prints to put in albums, not for proper enlargements to be framed or anything. I don't know how iPhoto manages colour, it probably updates colour information automatically into whatever it is that it uses (it always leaves an unmodified original of whatever it is it imported though).
->unwashed: for me, new kit bag, ND grad filter(s), so the Cokin system, another 1 or 2 gig CF card would be nice though I have the iPod to transfer stuff to, a spare battery would be good, I'm probably pretty well covered for lenses for the time being, could do with a better tripod than the crappy one I just bought though.
Edited by otto at 23:56:35 18-01-2005 -
OK. I've been doing a bit of experimenting (you can click here for quick results as output from iPhoto - the raw jpegs as taken are linked below).
First series of pics all taken at 1/60s, F/3.2, ISO 280, white balance incandescent (no flash), -0.7EV compensation to keep the highlights. No tinkering at all after uploading.
Here's with [link=http://homepage.mac.com/chris.kendall/.Public/colour/061.JPG">Adobe RGB (Nikon mode II); here's sRGB (Nikon mode Ia); here's aRGB (mode II); here's sRGB (mode Ia); here's -
Smarties, you philistine!
Edited by otto at 04:19:37 19-01-2005 -
ReGuRgIt8oR wrote:
You're kidding?? What more noble task could he have than guarding giant smarties from dinosaurs??
When young Link ran away to seek a better home I bet he didn't expect to end up as a macro fetishists plaything. -
UncleLou wrote:
No difference that I can see regardless of how I view them - Safari, IE, PS, Preview, Nikon View... And yes, there is a big difference, there was even a marked difference on my D70's LCD. Odd that you shouldn't be seeing any dramatic difference.
Now I know you're on a Mac at home, open them in IE and see if the difference is the same as on your Mac!
I'll try with Firefox and IE on XP at the office.
Edited by otto at 13:37:20 19-01-2005 -
UncleLou wrote:
Well then something is wrong.
So, the dramatic difference is only visible for me in not colour space sensitive apps. If you can't see a difference between the aRGB pic in IE and the very same pic in PS, something is wrong.
/more confused
unwashed - yeah, you git! I went in the morning after that thread and got a polarising filter, looked for an ND grad, realised that I'd need to invest in a Cokin system if I'm going to do that - that said they don't seem to expensive so I might. But they didn't have the mount for my lens in stock so I didn't get it on that occasion.
.gif)
.gif)
is how the camera describes the colours in the picture. Basically they're standards.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
