Saturation loss after uploading

[pegelli]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

alberti and I have been exchanging some files to further test the "saturation loss" phenomena reported here

Here's one of my photo's that clearly shows this point:

Photo directly uploaded from my computer to this forum:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Same file, uploaded to SmugMug and then linked to this forum

This second version is exactly how I see it on my computer in Lightroom/Photoshop, the first version above is less saturated (like a grey veil is pulled over it) and I see it that way when I upload directly to this forum. When downloading the "grey" file from the forum the saturation loss remains.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by pegelli

[andybarton]

By "LFI" do you mean this forum, or LFI?

[pegelli]

Albert sent me one of his files (sorry Maarten, both your skin colour and shirt are excellent test subjects for this problem )

Here's the result and it shows the same problem. So it's not caused by the forum balking at my Sony A7ii files, genuine Leica files do the same

Direct upload to this forum

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Uploaded to SmugMug and then linked to this forum

Same grey veil on the first image

Albert will also post some files here, so let's see what happens with those.

Edited September 10, 2021 by pegelli

[pegelli]

6 minutes ago, andybarton said:

By "LFI" do you mean this forum, or LFI?

Sorry for the confusion Andy. I thought LFI was the abbreviation for "Leica Forum International" as the "non German" part of LUF.

I've now made it more clear in the post what I mean.

Edited September 10, 2021 by pegelli

[250swb]

This is similar to what I see uploading files to Flickr and then uploading the same file separately to the LUF forum (but not linked via Flickr). There is a loss of contrast when my B&W file appears on the forum, but on Flickr it equates to what I have just processed in Photoshop. Does the forum and LFI use the same/similar software? I see @pegelli 's files are RGB and the recommendation is sRGB, but contrast (and colour) is still lost when my files are sRGB.

[pegelli]

2 minutes ago, 250swb said:

This is similar to what I see uploading files to Flickr and then uploading the same file separately to the LUF forum (but not linked via Flickr). There is a loss of contrast when my B&W file appears on the forum, but on Flickr it equates to what I have just processed in Photoshop. Does the forum and LFI use the same/similar software? I see @pegelli 's files are RGB and the recommendation is sRGB, but contrast (and colour) is still lost when my files are sRGB.

Thanks for the comment @250swb, at least I'm not alone with this problem. However it seems that it's not universal since both jaapv and alberti don't see the problem.

Forgot to mention, all my files are the recommended sRGB, so it's not a colour-space problem.

I use a Windows system and alberti a MAC, what system are you using?

[Alberti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My upload, of a portrait of  @Maarten [sorry for using  your image . .  so much]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Standard in and out of LR, .. Canon Camera Co 35mm F2.8. I like the small tinge of yellow cast which in my opinion is great in portraits (from the thoriated glass?)

here the Summilux, same color temp as previous

All straight out of computer that is. I note Pegelli's handling of the second filefrom the DNG I sent him  is still different, when he loads via smugmug . .  

Edited September 10, 2021 by Alberti

[Alberti]

 I used adobeRBG above; so here in standard RBG - which might get different handling . Preview is 'pretty lousy' but once clicked and viewed in what is called the lightbox it is nice. With SRBG the tones are subdued; using AdobeRBG like above makes a flashing saturated impression . . . like it's summer time

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 10, 2021 by Alberti

[250swb]

1 minute ago, pegelli said:

Thanks for the comment @250swb, at least I'm not alone with this problem. However it seems that it's not universal since both jaapv and alberti don't see the problem.

Forgot to mention, all my files are the recommended sRGB, so it's not a colour-space problem.

I use a Windows system and alberti a MAC, what system are you using?

I've just opened the first two posted in Photoshop to have a proper look and it says they are 8 bit RGB? Anyway I don't think that matters. I had a look at the other thread and to answer the basic questions I'm using a calibrated monitor with Windows 10 and Chrome as a browser. But this goes way back when I used different monitors and different software. I never really questioned it because after all it's only the most important Leica photography forum in the world and I just thought their software was duff 😄, so I compensate by exaggerating the contrast and colour in the files I post. What I see then is a photo similar to the one I see on Flickr. 

[Alberti]

So my uploads of the pictures direct iMac LR --> LFI are different than the same processed files form Pegelli from his PS -->LFI.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Alberti

[Alberti]

7 minutes ago, 250swb said:

--  so I compensate by exaggerating the contrast and colour in the files I post. What I see then is a photo similar to the one I see on Flickr. 

That was why I used the AdobeRBG now, and only occasionally drag the sat up +5 (beacuse of the M240 trending to neutral in several clouded/overcast light conditions)  I got that tip from another forum member. Adobe-RBG might also be very good for monochrome posts

Edited September 10, 2021 by Alberti

[andybarton]

Not all browsers are fully colour compliant, so for best coverage, sRGB colour space is "recommended". While this is the lowest common denominator, if you use other colour spaces, odd results can be shown, depending upon which browser you use. You have no control over the browser used by your viewers, of course, nor do you know whether their screen is calibrated, or even capable of being calibrated.

Again, LFI is a completely different site from this one.

 

[250swb]

1 minute ago, Alberti said:

That was why I used the AdobeRBG now, and only occasionally drag the sat up +5 (beacuse of the M240 trending to neutral in several clouded/overcast light conditions)  I got that tip from another forum member. This might also be very good for monochrome posts

Interesting. Of course yes, and if it's more widespread and enough people don't notice or take it for granted this could explain why so many B&W images posted look dull and lacking in contrast (technical point, not a photo critique), the forum is sucking the life out of them 😆. Thanks, I'll experiment next time I upload a photo.

 

Just now, andybarton said:

Not all browsers are fully colour compliant, so for best coverage, sRGB colour space is "recommended". While this is the lowest common denominator, if you use other coloyr spaces, odd results can be shown, depending upon which browser you use. You have no control over the browser used by your viewers, of course.

Again, LFI is a completely different site from this one.

 

But I'm using the same browser to look at photos on both Flickr and LUF and there is a difference.

[andybarton]

2 minutes ago, 250swb said:

But I'm using the same browser to look at photos on both Flickr and LUF and there is a difference.

The very same original file?

I don't know what the answer is. I expect that the Forum software, which is what is used to "show" the photos here, is written in a different way from Flickr.

 

I will ask Andreas

[Alberti]

So here the check on my assertion about the monochrom files: on file I see no difference what so ever.

first adobeRGB:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Then sRGB:

The first one had a darker background.

And so we should talk about LCF . . . but no one will understand.

 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Alberti

[wda]

Sometimes changes occur when the original processed file is not saved to file before exporting. The colour profile needs to be attached to the image file, otherwise all of your hard work is ignored.

[pegelli]

11 minutes ago, wda said:

Sometimes changes occur when the original processed file is not saved to file before exporting. The colour profile needs to be attached to the image file, otherwise all of your hard work is ignored.

I don't think that's the problem, it's exactly the same file uploaded to LUF (this forum) and the one uploaded to SmugMug which preserves its colour. My examples are all sRGB so no confusion there and in line with the forum recommendation.

[wda]

But do you save to file when you finish processing? You do not say. If you do, then my suggestion is invalid.

[pegelli]

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

All straight out of computer that is. I note Pegelli's handling of the second filefrom the DNG I sent him  is still different, when he loads via smugmug . .  

Hi @Alberti, I sent you four files by email, can you upload the file called "L1008990 summilux 50mm-2.jpg" (the summilux picture on which I made a few adjustments) and then we can see if it resembles my direct upload of that same image file or the image I uploaded to SmugMug and then linked to LUF. I have the feeling we're currently changing multiple parameters and then it's hard to pinpoint which parameter is causing the difference. Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pegelli]

2 minutes ago, wda said:

But do you save to file when you finish processing? You do not say. If you do, then my suggestion is invalid.

Yes, I saved it, otherwise it isn't the same file .......