Best option on posting images

[tybrad]

Sir, if your camera is set to sRGB then it must be your software that is converting it to Adobe RGB

I am trying to help you here. A single one-line reply from you without consideration is not going to elicit any more help from me.

There is no magic at play here....you are producing an image in AdobeRGB format and only you can find out why

I did not mean to come off snarky- sorry if I did. I was only re-iterating what I'd said prior.

I found (I think) what I needed in the software- it is an option to "Save for Web", with size and other options. Does this sound correct?

[pschlute]

I found (I think) what I needed in the software- it is an option to "Save for Web", with size and other options. Does this sound correct?

"Save for web" will usually mean sRGB so that does sound correct.

It may or may not be possible in your software to change individual settings, even in the "save for web" option, so I would double check it is producing sRGB colour space files.

[revi]

It is, and always has been, set to sRGB

Yes, well... that's the in-camera setting, which will be applied to the camera -generated jpeg.

But you use an editor program on that jpeg. That editor can set the colour space to use (and in some cases has to, when there is no colour space indicated in the imported file).

Looking at this screenshot from GraphicConverter shows a default of AdobeRGB if there's no colour space assigned to the image
So that might be the cause of what we see here...

[odds]

...It appears that a- or s-RGB is a RAW thing?

No, not really.

I believe my Nikons indicate sRGB/aRGB by the position of an underscore character in the image filename. An out of camera filename that starts with "DSC_" is sRGB, while "_DSC" is aRGB.

--
Odd S.

[revi]

sRBG or AdobeRGB never concerns the raw file, only the jpeg produced by the camera (a version of which is also embedded in the raw file, but that's a detail).

A raw file has no associated colour space; until it is developed, it's not even an image, just a series of values corresponding to the pixels on the sensor. You need
quite a bit of information (from the metadata) to turn raw data into an image.

[tybrad]

Thank you, everyone. This discussion has elevated my understanding by a lot.

[pschlute]

The most important factor in posting great and high-quality images. Make sure your images are sharp, well-lit, and in focus.

I plan to shoot using ICM technique....got any advice for me ?

[Manfred M]

The most important factor in posting great and high-quality images. Make sure your images are sharp, well-lit, and in focus.

Nope - try starting with a great image.

While many strong images are sharp (which often means the main subject is in focus), many are not. The ICM example that Peter gives is one technique where sharpness is not important. Motion blur is definitely something that we often use in strong images. Selective focus (i.e. using appropriate depth of field to blur parts of the image) is another technique that can give extremely strong images, even though there are areas that are not in focus and lack sharpness. The "well lit" I will agree with. These are the technical characteristics of an image (and there are many others that you have not listed).

You are missing two even more import aspects of a strong image; strong composition and strong impact.

Nail all three of these aspects of a photograph and you will have a strong image...

[DanK]

This is one of those nice situations where everyone is right, at least in part. For many images, Leo is spot on, IMHO. For those images, a good composition is worthless if the image is poorly focused or poorly lit. For other images, Peter and Manfred are spot on.

Here's a useful (I hope) comparison: two images taken about 40 miles (64 km) from each other in western Massachusetts. I'm not very good at landscapes in general, but the first one was one of my more successful images. It would have been a failure if it had been out of focus, otherwise unsharp, or poorly lit:




The second one was taken with the ICM technique Peter referenced. It's outside the Clark Institute, which has a fabulous collection of impressionists, and I was working on using ICM to achieve some of the same effect. Had it been sharp, it would have failed.