New on Alamy, I'm sure my portfolio has some major flaws, please let me know!

[John a N]

Thanks for the nice feedback!

 

I do shot in RAW and save in sRGB so those duller darker images in the portfolio are on me and those will be dealt with in time🙂

 

Some are actually already updated and visible in my portfolio again.

Edited January 5 by John a N

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

8 hours ago, John a N said:

I do shot in RAW and save in sRGB

anyone:

isn't aRGB a better choice?

more subtle changes in color?

Edited January 5 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Steve F]

15 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

anyone:

isn't aRGB a better choice?

more subtle changes in color?

 

10 hours ago, Marianne said:

Also, assuming you process your RAW files in a larger color space such as ProPhoto or AdobeRGB (a good idea, IMHO), when you save them as final jpeg, you will want to convert them to sRGB - if not, when Alamy converts a AdobeRGB file to sRGB, the file will look darker and duller. I don't know why they no longer want the larger AdobeRGB files (which magazines and other print media generally prefer), but I've found that the files I convert to sRGB before uploading look much brighter, and it is the format that Alamy seems to prefer. 

 

Alamy convert to sRGB as far as I know.

[Marianne]

2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

anyone:

isn't aRGB a better choice?

more subtle changes in color?

 

2 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

 

Alamy convert to sRGB as far as I know.

 

I agree with you the AdobeRGB is better but not for files I upload here. I always save a copy in AdobeRGB - either the RAW file if I've done it all in LR or a tiff in PS and then save in sRGB for Alamy and some other POD & stock sites which prefer the smaller color space.I much prefer the subtle color gradations in AdobeRGB but unfortunately many of the sites I work with want the smaller color space. I have clients to whom I license some stock directly who prefer AdobeRGB, so at least some of the duplicates are doing more than taking up space on my hard drives. I hate that I have to save so many iterations since even my jpegs are huge (~25MB) and I fill up terabytes of space way too quickly but I find that after converting to sRGB many files, especially travel and landscapes, need an extra boost to make them pop again, so I'd rather do it myself.

 

When I upload AdobeRGB files to my Phostoshelter site, even undeveloped RAW files, their conversion to sRGB for the web looks fine, so not sure why other sites can't do this. With all the competition on stock sites, every file has to pop. 

 

 

[Harry Harrison]

Mark Chapman had to go to the lengths of buying a couple of his own images to discover that all images uploaded to Alamy are converted to sRGB upon arrival (assuming they are not sRGB already) and then exported to buyers with no colour profile. There's a thread describing what he did but it's some way back.

 

Incidentally the fact that Alamy converts from AdobeRGB to sRGB should not make them darker and duller, it's a standard conversion such as you might do yourself in Photoshop before uploading only they probably use ImageMagick. That would only happen if Alamy ignored the profile that you upload in, similar to 'Assign profile' in Photoshop.

Edited January 5 by Harry Harrison

[Ed Rooney]

 

When I worked at Time Warner, they used sRGB on all their mags. And it was the publishing industry standard. 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

isn't "banding" across blue skies more likely in sRGB vs aRGB...?
regardless, advice back in ~2005 was to process aRGB,

AFAICT people here are converting to sRGB AFTER processing...

I'll let agencies continue any post aRGB converting...

Edited January 6 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[John a N]

I havent seen any banding yet on my photos. Ill try some aRGB and see how Alamy post-processes them.

[StokeCreative]

I have to admit to being completely ignorant about colour space and indeed monitor calibration ! Perhaps I should do some research

Edited January 6 by StokeCreative

[M.Chapman]

On 05/01/2024 at 05:43, Marianne said:

if not, when Alamy converts a AdobeRGB file to sRGB, the file will look darker and duller.

It shouldn't. If an image is correctly converted from aRGB to sRGB (which I believe Alamy do) then it will look almost the same (or even identical if the monitor is not wide gamut). Some out of gamut colours will have been shifted, but the differences may be subtle. What does cause aRGB images to look dull is when they are incorrectly rendered by applications that are not colour managed because they treat the image data as if it's sRGB.

 

There are some pages of test images for those with wide gamut monitors and colour managed web-browsers here http://www.protonpost.com/AdobeRGB_SRGB.html

 

Mark

Edited January 6 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

21 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Incidentally the fact that Alamy converts from AdobeRGB to sRGB should not make them darker and duller, it's a standard conversion such as you might do yourself in Photoshop before uploading only they probably use ImageMagick. That would only happen if Alamy ignored the profile that you upload in, similar to 'Assign profile' in Photoshop.

+1

[John a N]

I have submitted quite a few photos since starting this thread. I hope and think that the brightness issue is now better dealt with, and that they "pop" more!

[MDM]

What strikes me immediately looking at your portfolio is the inconsistency in terms of colour as well as exposure. Others have talked a lot about exposure and images being too dark but it is not clear if the exposure problems are due to underexposure in camera or in processing. Underexposure in camera seems likely - sky and snow causing you to underexpose. Are you using a DSLR?  

 

The colour is a separate but related issue and I really don't think that colour space is the problem here at all. The ARGB v sRGB thing is just a diversion here.  But there is definitely a problem with white balance. A lot of the images could do with being warmed up and the skies often look very bland with the blues off. It's difficult to advise on how to deal with this without knowing more about your setup -  what monitor are you using and is it calibrated? Also a lot of your images are panoramas - are you stitching in Lightroom or Photoshop?

 

To summarise - you have a lot of nice images and I think you can improve a lot of these images in post. It is not just about brightness - you need to sort out the colour as well and it is nothing to do with colour space of your exported images as such. 

Edited January 10 by MDM

[Steve F]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

What strikes me immediately looking at your portfolio is the inconsistency in terms of colour as well as exposure.

 

+1 on the white balance. 

 

Hey John, I like a lot of your images btw. 

 

It's hard to tell which new photos you're referring to, they all get jumbled up on your profile by Alamy. I could critique some images on your first page, but not sure which ones you think are the 'pop' ones.

 

[John a N]

It might be a monitor problem that is too saturated coupled with the sony A6500 by default being on the cold side of the colour spectrum. The aerial shots are with a dji mini (but processed from a RAW file), and are by nature far more saturated from the start. 

 

Could you MDM perhaps show me an example or two?

[John a N]

For example these new image:

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAJXB5

 

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAJ110

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAEJCF

 

Edited January 10 by John a N

[MDM]

49 minutes ago, John a N said:

It might be a monitor problem that is too saturated coupled with the sony A6500 by default being on the cold side of the colour spectrum. The aerial shots are with a dji mini (but processed from a RAW file), and are by nature far more saturated from the start. 

 

Could you MDM perhaps show me an example or two?

 

It would be easier to tell you which ones look ok to be honest. That is not me being a smartass either. You have a potentially great portfolio but you need to go back to square 1 in terms of post-processing. Fortunately you shot raw and still have the raws I assume - wise to keep these forever. It's not just about white balance, it's also exposure, contrast and saturation. They are all interconnected. and need to be treated together. 

 

So for example, a lot of the Namibia shots should look much warmer and more saturated and contrast. Imagine you are trying to sell holidays in Namibia. Would you buy a picture that looks bland and cold. Similarly the shots of Nevada. But there are a lot more as well that look off. Nothing that can't be fixed though.

 

I'm a Nikon user and the default auto WB is also very cool. I always warm up in post. 

 

First thing to do is sort out your monitor. If it is too saturated etc, you need to fix that.

 

Edited January 10 by MDM

[MDM]

On 06/01/2024 at 16:34, StokeCreative said:

I have to admit to being completely ignorant about colour space and indeed monitor calibration ! Perhaps I should do some research

 

Retirement has done wonders for you - you look years younger🤣. Now you have time, definitely get a basic understanding of colour management but only what you need for a simple workflow. Go too far and it will drive you crazy - and it will put all those years back on in no time. 

[Steve F]

2 hours ago, John a N said:

For example these new image:

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAJXB5

 

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAJ110

 

 

http://www.alamy.com/mediacomp/imagedetails.aspx?ref=2WAEJCF

 

 

My Sony A7iii also has a blue shift for its auto white balance. 

 

Looks ok. Could be maybe a quarter stop brighter and I know it's a spring image so the light is less warm, but it looks a bit shifted towards the blue side.

 

 

Direct setting sun on buildings, I would expect the buildings to be brighter. Would also up the exposure on this. Looks a bit blue, but not so sure, I'd play with the sliders. In Lightroom, I'd also select the sky under 'masking' and play with the dehaze and up the saturation a bit.

 

I'm estimating underexposed at least a stop. Looks like the exposure is directly from the camera - which has assumed the scene is a mid grey.

 

 

Edited January 10 by Steve F

[John a N]

Thanks, a lot of good remarks and points. You learn new things everyday i guess!

 

For the namibia, unfortunately that was an old DLSR camera, straight to jpg-format. Hard to save the image that much. 

[MDM]

3 hours ago, John a N said:

Thanks, a lot of good remarks and points. You learn new things everyday i guess!

 

For the namibia, unfortunately that was an old DLSR camera, straight to jpg-format. Hard to save the image that much. 

 

Sure and mistakes are fine as long as they are not fatal. I've learnt so much about photography from making mistakes and then making sure I don't make them again. 

 

All is not lost with your Namibia and other JPEGs anyway. Not ideal but you could easily reprocess them to warm them up as well as add some contrast and saturation. First thing to do would be to get your monitor calibrated, even a software calibration.

 

Going forward, get a good quality grey card (Calibrite) or a Color Checker Passport (better again) and shoot that in the same light as you are shooting your scene. That will help greatly to improve your exposures and you can use it to set your white balance and exposure accurately in post with Lightroom. 

Edited January 10 by MDM

[Steve F]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

Going forward, get a good quality grey card (Calibrite) or a Color Checker Passport (better again) and shoot that in the same light as you are shooting your scene. That will help greatly to improve your exposures and you can use it to set your white balance and exposure accurately in post with Lightroom. 

 

I'm not very technical on this, I do it with my 'artist's eye'! This is a better approach!

[MDM]

47 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

I'm not very technical on this, I do it with my 'artist's eye'! This is a better approach!

 

I don't always use a Color Checker Passport but I like to do so if it is something colour-critical like skin tones or flowers. It is especially useful for flowers where one might not remember what colour the flower actually was so having a shot of a truly neutral subject in the same light comes in very handy. It has to be used judiciously as you don't always want everything neutral (e.g. a sunset) but it is a great accessory to have in the camera bag. 

[Steve F]

39 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I don't always use a Color Checker Passport but I like to do so if it is something colour-critical like skin tones or flowers. It is especially useful for flowers where one might not remember what colour the flower actually was so having a shot of a truly neutral subject in the same light comes in very handy. It has to be used judiciously as you don't always want everything neutral (e.g. a sunset) but it is a great accessory to have in the camera bag. 

 

Oh no, another camera accessory 😆 This is cheap and a good idea though, thanks MDM

[wiskerke]

3 minutes ago, Steve F said:

 

Oh no, another camera accessory 😆 This is cheap and a good idea though, thanks MDM

They are not that cheap. Plus they do degrade over time.

 

wim