CasaLinda Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

I uploaded my avatar and the color is awful. It looks great on my computer screen and when I've printed it, but on here it is bad. I noticed somewhat of the same thing when I uploaded a couple of my shots on another's post. Other folk's shots on this site look great. Does anyone know why my uploads are dull and lacking color? FYI: My computer is an iMac.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

The color might be perfect. I can't judge the color of your avatar, because I can't tell what it is. I'm guessing it's part of a flower, or a bug. At an enlarged view it looks like a giraffe. How far off am I?

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

It may be an issue with color space. For posting to the web, and printing, you should use the sRGB color space.

CasaLinda Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

It is a yearling giraffe. I had the privilege of going behind the scenes at the Oakland Zoo to photograph this fellow up close. Got to touch his velvet muzzle and feed him, too. He was very curious about the camera.

CasaLinda Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

I suppose you could be correct about sRGB color space needing to be used for the web. I need to see if I can change the color space for uploading here. But, I do disagree about printing sRGB. The color space sRGB means 'small' RGB (red, green, blue). To print, you need Adobe RGB, so you can get maximum color range. If you have a printer that has at least 8 colors, printing by using ProPhoto RGB is even better. But still, I hadn't thought about the color space in relation to the web. I'll see what I can do about it. Many thanks, Bruce.

Bruce, I just changed it to sRGB and it made all the difference. Thank you!!!

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

Here's my only reference to what color a giraffe might be. This is a very tall giraffe, not a yearling, and taken in full sun. It's at the Riverbanks Zoo in Columbia, SC.

They are definitely interesting animals to photograph.

CasaLinda Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Look at my avatar, now. It is all fixed and the color looks like your giraffe. Mine was also taken in full sun. They are wonderful animals, aren't they? I'm hard pressed to say which is my favorite animal on this earth, but giraffes are way up on the list.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

NO, NO. There are no printers and no monitors that can print or even display the ProPhoto space. Virtually all print labs require sRGB.
You can shoot in AdobeRGB, but you must convert to sRGB to send to a lab.
Some of the higher end Epson and Canon printers can approach using the AdobeRGB, but most cannot. Send an AdobeRGB file to a print lab and your images will suffer.
So to say that you need Adobe RGB to print is mis-information.

In fact, if you look at the map of AdobeRGB vs. sRGB, you will see that the colors you lose are just some highly saturated blues, greens and reds/oranges. For many images, this is a loss of no consequence.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

I know wild giraffes can really do lethal combat with their necks. But, it is amazing how close they can be trusted to be near people at zoos.

CasaLinda Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Although, I agree with you that sRGB is best for the internet and computer monitors, I disagree about printing. You are correct that many print labs don't have full/extended color print capability, but if you don't provide a file with as large a gamut of color as is possible (16 bit), you'll never get prints with the best possible color. I learned this at a seminar with John Shaw. I shoot in RAW and always have a mind toward printing vs merely showing my work on the web.

I've attached three links that explains a lot. We are both getting an education today:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sRGB-AdobeRGB1998.htm

http://www.advancedphotography.net/working-spaces-srgb-adobe-rgb-prophoto-rgb/

http://www.outbackphoto.com/color_management/cm_06/essay.html

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Yep- I have read all those. Nothing new.

It does not matter if you agree or not about printing - that is what the labs require. If they ever upgrade equipment, things may change.
The labs cannot accept a 16-bit AdobeRGB file. And unless you are using one of the recent Eizo or NEC monitors (there are a few more) that are in the big-buck range, you cannot eve SEE AdobeRGB, much less ProPhoto.

I think the reason I ignore all this is because I am a portrait/sports photographer and all that matters is skin tones. All skin tones are in the sRGB space.

I shoot RAW and make all the initial corrections in ACR. When I send it to PS, I go ahead and save it as a 16 bit sRGB TIFF file, I do all the work on that 16 bit file.
If I print on the Epson 3800, I send a 16bit file. If I send to the lab, I convert it to the 8-bit jpg file and the prints are gorgeous. But once I leave ACR the file is sRGB.

If you shoot landscapes/flowers I can see the advantage of AdobeRGB as long as you print to a high-end printer that can reproduce that gamut. But if you send the file to Costco as one thread has "proven" to be so great- your AdopbeSRGB file is the wrong space to send.

If you shoot for magazines, it gets converted to CMYK and that is even smaller and yet images can look great.

For even more heresy, I shoot sports as sRGB jpgs and the prints are spectacular. Gee, go figure. I do everything "wrong" and the prints win international awards. :-)

My point is simply that all the pixel peeping is silly.