Jump to content

Richard Tadman

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Forum reputation = neutral

About Richard Tadman

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    22 Sep 2009

Recent Profile Visitors

554 profile views
  1. My last three sales (all August 2019) in 3 months time or so, will net me a total of $6.09. One sale is for a print run of 500,000. Q: What is the difference between a stock photographer and a pizza? A: You can provide a meal for your family with a pizza. Richard
  2. MDM - No; I only ever shoot in RAW and currently aRGB never jpegs, but this thread has made me doubt the "practical" benefits of aRGB v sRGB although as you will see from my original posts, those more knowledgeable than me still advocate aRGB as do you. I guess I'm struggling to see the real as opposed to the theoretical difference. For the record I keep all my RAW files 'as shot' and save processed 16 bit TIFFS. I also use Bridge CC and PS CC for editing.
  3. As I set this particular hare running with the original post and in light of the above clarification from Alamy as quoted by Mark (thank you) I'm struggling to see any benefit in continuing with aRGB. You may recall I originally posted: - "This morning I submitted an image to a large and reputable lab' who advised me that they have converted my colour profile to sRGB to avoid producing "undesirable results"? In fairness they may have converted previous images I have sent to them without my knowledge." As all my Canon menus only require a quick flick of the colour space switch to convert all future new images to sRGB together with both the above revelations, is anyone else sufficiently wedded to aRGB that they would be reluctant to change? and if so could you explain why. Thanks
  4. Given that I started this thread and have been incredibly intrigued by the complexity of analysis and discussion that it has generated, would it be disingenuous to conclude that while there is clearly a 'real' if minimal (to the user) difference between the colour spaces under discussion, that to all intents and purpose the reality is that this is fairly insignificant to all but the most discerning or pedantic? I don't mean this to sound in any way disparaging, just suggesting that in the real world it may not be of the magnitude we are affording it. There is much fascinating and technical debate which in truth has been very educational but goes largely above my head, although I have tried quite hard to follow it. Many of you are obviously far more proficient in the technicalities than I am. That said, standing back, I conclude that as photographers we could get obsessively engrossed in the minutiae of colour space, but with the best will in the world Alamy has been selling perfectly acceptable images to the world at large for a long time and my aRGB submission have apparently resulted in sales, with no customer detriment that I can detect. Please don't think I am in any way being critical of the comments from very knowledgeable contributors, it has been a revelation, but with the best will in the world, I am still struggling to get clear in my mind if this is a real issue to customers or an esoteric topic that in the cold light of day is very interesting but of little practical significance.
  5. Thanks Marianne I think that you have encapsulated my experience and come to more or less the same conclusion. The evidence among experienced professional photographers, of which I am not one, seems to be predominantly in favour of shooting aRGB. The issue seems to be among the various printers who drive the agency/magazine/designers etc. to seek the different colour spaces. Since my original post I have now received the print that I ordered and it looks fine in terms of colour, at least to my eyes and that was after they automatically converted it to sRGB. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I'm not sure I'm any wiser but arguably better informed!
  6. I appear to have inadvertently provoked a somewhat heated debate. To rewind; I have always been told on good authority by internationally renowned professional photographers far more knowledgeable than me, that Adobe 1998 colour space has a larger range and is more universally used by those who make a living out of these things. I also understand that in Photoshop for example you can use Edit>Convert to Profile> in the Destination Space select sRGB and convert the output. My query, possibly badly expressed was based on trying to understand the science behind the two options and whether there really was a significant difference, and if so what were the merits and detriments of each. Thank you for all your contributions. I guess at the moment I'd summarise this as "no wiser but better informed."
  7. Thank you MDM. I was genuinely interested in Space Cadet's understanding of this issue. Seemingly he is not prepared to share his wisdom, however I appreciate your contribution.
  8. Here's a "You Tube" video that purports to clarify the difference. If I am to believe this it recommends using Adobe RGB for prints! I also wasn't aware that sRGB preceded Adobe RGB as a colour space. Confused? I am - but the reality seems to be that it could be a futile argument (unless you know otherwise) along the lines of the Canon v Nikon debate.
  9. Are you prepared to share this as you will see from the thread that there appears to be a variety of opinions?
  10. Thanks Niels and Reimar for your responses. It made me wonder how all (joke) my prospective purchasers will handle the printing of my Adobe 1998 images if it's such an issue. Those I have been fortunate enough to see in print look fine.
  11. In fairness the lab didn't have a problem but just alerted me. Your point about MS is interesting. Thanks.
  12. I have always shot using Adobe 1998 colour space, having been told some years ago by two (still) well renowned and much published photographers that Adobe was preferable, having a larger colour palette than sRGB. I've never had a problem with Alamy QC on this issue or getting a faithful rendition of colours when comparing my (calibrated) monitor images to reproductions. That said I rarely print out images for my own use. This morning I submitted an image to a large and reputable lab' who advised me that they have converted my colour profile to sRGB to avoid producing "undesirable results"? In fairness they may have converted previous images I have sent to them without my knowledge. This caused me to try and research the difference and possible detriment they referred to. What do other contributors do? and does anyone have a definitive view on the relative merits. Thanks Richard
  13. I too am no fan of the NT. I visited the Farne Islands in June 2010 and the NT levied a charge of £1 to land on 'their' islands. Last Saturday I visited again and the charge was £34.80 !
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.