1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

I am confused!

Discussion in 'Printers, Monitors, and Color Management' started by flygirl1, Jul 28, 2007.

  1. Ok, please if someone could explain. On my website, in my signature, all of the pics are tiff's and have been converted to Mode III from II (NEF) in NX. Now, I never really thought about it until reading an article on color space, that I had not done anything about changing the pics space from Nikon adobe RGB to sRGB. So, I tried that with one of the pics, but did not see any difference in the quality of the colors viewed in my monitor. So, do any of you see where like the colors look like they have not been converted? The Madagascar pics are in sRGB. Mostly look in the Florida gallery. I appreciate your thoughts thanks.:confused: :confused: 

    Best to all
  2. BigPixel

    BigPixel Guest

    images for the web should always be converted to sRGB.
  3. fks


    Apr 30, 2005
    sf bay area
    hi nancy-

    to add to what mike said, the newer web browsers are color-space aware, so your system might be able to work with adobe RGB. photos posted on the web should be converted to sRGB for maximum compatibility.

    i took a look at your florida gallery, and to be honest, i couldn't really identify any color issues. however, i don't really have a reference for what the colors should look like, so it's a bit difficult to tell. you might want to try saving an image in sRGB and one in adobe RGB and posting both of them so we can compare (i can't save your photos to do the test myself). try using the roseate spoonbill family photos as these have reds, which tend to have issues when they're saved in adobe RGB.

    i'm curious why you post TIFF's? these tend to be really large, and don't have much of an advantage over JPEG's for web display.

  4. Thanks all for your comments. I just went and converted them all to sRGB, so that which ever monitors people are looking at them with, there would not be an issue. As far as why Tiff's, well I save my converted NEF's as tiff's and Phanfare only limit is 20mb's so it saves me from saving to another form such as jpeg.

  5. BigPixel

    BigPixel Guest

    Like Ricky said, large tifs take a very long time for people to open even on a DSL or Cable feed. Fogetaboutit if someone's on dial up! You'll scare them away. It only takes a minute to go: File>save for web in PS. You'll be able to take that 6-10MB TIF down to 100KB or less jpeg if you use this additional step. Makes your work and site much more user friendly.

  6. On Phanfare, what people view are the Jpeg's not the tiff's. The tiff's are stored on their server, but a web size jpeg is then made and that is what is viewed online. The full size version is only available if I choose to let people download the full size, but I have that feature turned off.

  7. I just browsed through your Alaska gallery, and whatever you're doing, don't stop :biggrin:. The pictures are pure poetry and Phanfare's full screen presentation is awesome. So unless Phanfare sets a limit on storage, the only disadvantage would be the amount of time it takes you to upload those big files.
  8. Thank you so much, Uncle Frank:smile:. I appreciate your kind words. The trip was great and am quite pleased with the shots I did get and I am glad they present well to share. Also, Phanfare has no limit, except for the 20meg individual file size.

    All the best
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.