Facebook vs B&W photos

[Ordnance]

I followed the advice of others and started a Facebook page for sharing photos since sharing is caring, lol. Now, I'm having an issue with some of my B&W shots showing up too dark on mobile devices, so people aren't really getting the experience or intended effect. I know my stuff isn't the greatest out there, but I'd like to at least have people see it for what it is and not the almost unviewable that I believe many first time people are getting. Any suggestions?

[toolboxluis00200]

FB lowers the quality of your photos

[Thompson]

FB lowers the quality of your photos
Not just that, but realize that pictures uploaded online can look very different from the actual image itself. Especially for monitors, what one person sees can look slightly different from what another person sees due to screen calibration of color and brightness, etc.

If you want a quality place to upload photos, I'd recommend Flickr. I know I use it, Carbon Scoring, Pyzik, Stick, and GOST use it. One of the nice features that I personally like about Flickr, is the ability to post the EXIF data of each photo; when you upload photos, Flickr doesn't shrink them down (unless you choose to do so) like FB does. And if you wanted to share them here or other forums for that matter, it's a very simple code to write - unlike FB, which you can't, and I'm not sure but I think you might have to have a FB account to view things on FB. .... plus Flickr offers (I think) 1TB (not GB) of storage space ... I don't know of any website that offers anywhere near that amount.

[Pyzik]

Facebook REALLY lowers the quality. Also, I've noticed photos look different between my four monitors and my phone. One monitor is specifically dark. I've learned not to edit photos on that monitor.

I would also recommend Flickr.

EDIT: As noted above. Thanks Thompson. I need to suck it up and purchase Photoshop. I just use pixlr now and it destroys my EXIF.

[toolboxluis00200]

i use lightroom its dose not destroy your photo like photoshop

[Pyzik]

i use lightroom its dose not destroy your photo like photoshop

Photoshop does too? Didn't know that.

I am torn between Lightroom and photoshop.

[toolboxluis00200]

Photoshop does too? Didn't know that.

I am torn between Lightroom and photoshop.

i use both but i like to use lightroom more

[Dstrbdmedic167]

I use Lightroom and photoshop. I just started using flikr as i had the same quality issues recently with photobucket.

But to the OP facebook is your culprit as far as destroying your photos

Edit: for those interested you can use the Adobe creative cloud suite that gives you access to photoshop, illustrator, Lightroom and several more programs for only $30 a month. It's a good option when you don't have the $$$ for the entire programs.

[Ordnance]

I do use photoshop, and I have an imgur account. When I upload and look at the photos on FB with my computer or laptop they're fine, but when I look at them on my tablet or phone they're super dark. I guess I just have to deal with it and that I can't control the image settings for other peoples viewing devices. Somebody please explain to me EXIF since I usually save them in PSD and a copy in JPEG for uploading to imgur.

[Thompson]

i use lightroom its dose not destroy your photo like photoshop
Wait, really? In what way(s)?

To be fair Pyzik - your photos look good enough that I was always under the assumption that you used something like Photoshop/Lightroom. ... mine on the other hand ....

[toolboxluis00200]

Wait, really? In what way(s)?

To be fair Pyzik - your photos look good enough that I was always under the assumption that you used something like Photoshop/Lightroom. ... mine on the other hand ....

when you open a picture in Photoshop and is an original photo and you save it whit whatever edit you have done it will over wright the original photo and you can not re do it and you get stuck whit the edit photo

in light room you don't have that issue it will not over wright your original photo and you can edit it as much as you want

[Thompson]

when you open a picture in Photoshop and is an original photo and you save it whit whatever edit you have done it will over wright the original photo and you can not re do it and you get stuck whit the edit photo
Are you sure about that? I've created different versions of photos (ie: B&W, Vignette, select color, etc) without overwriting the original file.

Plus, if you do editing with RAW files, you won't have to worry about overwriting, unless you specifically want to overwrite the JPG version (if it's a preexisting file)

[Ordnance]

when you open a picture in Photoshop and is an original photo and you save it whit whatever edit you have done it will over wright the original photo and you can not re do it and you get stuck whit the edit photo

in light room you don't have that issue it will not over wright your original photo and you can edit it as much as you want

You do realize that you can always "Save as" after certain edits and just make it vs2 then you have the original and the new? I always save the original as a DNG that's untouched then save a second as a PSD and do all my edits on that one.

[toolboxluis00200]

Are you sure about that? I've created different versions of photos (ie: B&W, Vignette, select color, etc) without overwriting the original file.

Plus, if you do editing with RAW files, you won't have to worry about overwriting, unless you specifically want to overwrite the JPG version (if it's a preexisting file)

this is my own experience but if Photoshop has change the last few years then i am wrong and they added new options that i did not know about

[Hmac]

i use lightroom its dose not destroy your photo like photoshop

LOL. What an amazing statement!

[toolboxluis00200]

You do realize that you can always "Save as" after certain edits and just make it vs2 then you have the original and the new? I always save the original as a DNG that's untouched then save a second as a PSD and do all my edits on that one.

i was going to add that but you bet me to it

[toolboxluis00200]

LOL. What an amazing statement!

hhheeeyyy i am just saying you now i had different experience than other ppl i am not saying that my way is the only way

[Hmac]

hhheeeyyy i am just saying you now i had different experience than other ppl i am not saying that my way is the only way

You're saying that Photoshop destroys peoples' images.

[toolboxluis00200]

You're saying that Photoshop destroys peoples' images.

more like it destroyers ppl dreams lol

[alamo5000]

I am torn between Lightroom and photoshop.

Lightroom all day every day. It's better. Then again I have never used photoshop.

It all depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to keep an image 'intact' and fine tune it and 'develop' it to it's perfection then Lightroom is the way to go.

If you want to do photo EDITING then go with photoshop. You can cut this paste that... really the two programs are apples and oranges.

Lightroom is not destructive at all. Shoot RAW and you can edit the same shot 100 different ways and still no ill effects on the original image.

LR is more for 'developing a picture' and photoshop is more for editing stuff.

[Txfilmmaker]

Lightroom all day every day. It's better. Then again I have never used photoshop.

It all depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to keep an image 'intact' and fine tune it and 'develop' it to it's perfection then Lightroom is the way to go.

If you want to do photo EDITING then go with photoshop. You can cut this paste that... really the two programs are apples and oranges.

Lightroom is not destructive at all. Shoot RAW and you can edit the same shot 100 different ways and still no ill effects on the original image.

LR is more for 'developing a picture' and photoshop is more for editing stuff.

Agreeing with Alamo. LR is for %99 of what I would want for most photography. Being nondestructive is a really big deal. All of the photos specific presets are really helpful. Photoshop comes in really handy for manipulating reality. A friend of mine had me process all of his wedding photos. His wife was overweight. He wanted to look younger and her to look thinner. Photoshop was great for that. Liquify was my constant companion for weight reduction. You can buy a standalone version of Lightroom. If you need Photoshop you can lease it from Adobe on a month-to-month basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alamo5000]

Agreeing with Alamo. LR is for %99 of what I would want for most photography. Being nondestructive is a really big deal. All of the photos specific presets are really helpful. Photoshop comes in really handy for manipulating reality. A friend of mine had me process all of his wedding photos. His wife was overweight. He wanted to look younger and her to look thinner. Photoshop was great for that. Liquify was my constant companion for weight reduction. You can buy a standalone version of Lightroom. If you need Photoshop you can lease it from Adobe on a month-to-month basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are for sure on the same page. I went back and forth on what to get for quite some time. I have a few friends who are quite remarkable photographers (major mag covers, national geographic etc etc) and I discussed with them what I 'wanted' ad nauseum. At the end of the day my philosophy on shooting pictures is NOT to alter reality. I don't want to make a fat girl skinny or make a little kid appear like he's flying off into space being pulled by some balloons. This is what photoshop is capable of. It's more for graphic arts.

Lightroom on the other hand is more for true photography. You can change exposure or selective exposure or blot out dust spots yes, but your picture is still your picture. You don't create an alternative universe with Lightroom.

With photoshop you can essentially create fake images of things that don't truly exist. That is not what Lightroom does. Again, apples and oranges.

If I was making invitations to a party I would probably want photoshop. If I want to fine tune a photo that I consider an artistic capture of a scene I want lightroom.

[toolboxluis00200]

We are for sure on the same page. I went back and forth on what to get for quite some time. I have a few friends who are quite remarkable photographers (major mag covers, national geographic etc etc) and I discussed with them what I 'wanted' ad nauseum. At the end of the day my philosophy on shooting pictures is NOT to alter reality. I don't want to make a fat girl skinny or make a little kid appear like he's flying off into space being pulled by some balloons. This is what photoshop is capable of. It's more for graphic arts.

Lightroom on the other hand is more for true photography. You can change exposure or selective exposure or blot out dust spots yes, but your picture is still your picture. You don't create an alternative universe with Lightroom.

With photoshop you can essentially create fake images of things that don't truly exist. That is not what Lightroom does. Again, apples and oranges.

If I was making invitations to a party I would probably want photoshop. If I want to fine tune a photo that I consider an artistic capture of a scene I want lightroom.

i concur whit this statement

[Ordnance]

With photoshop you can essentially create fake images of things that don't truly exist. That is not what Lightroom does. Again, apples and oranges.

If I was making invitations to a party I would probably want photoshop. If I want to fine tune a photo that I consider an artistic capture of a scene I want lightroom.

Enhancing color and lighting, vignetting, splicing photos, and touching up blemishes doesn't create fake images. There's nothing fake about any of my photos other than the absence of color on some or fading out backgrounds since not all of us have the extensive lighting equipment or space, but to insinuate that the images are fake? You essentially just told guys like me that our photos are basically "invitations to a party" while yours are "artistic capture of a scene".

[alamo5000]

Enhancing color and lighting, vignetting, splicing photos, and touching up blemishes doesn't create fake images. There's nothing fake about any of my photos other than the absence of color on some or fading out backgrounds since not all of us have the extensive lighting equipment or space, but to insinuate that the images are fake? You essentially just told guys like me that our photos are basically "invitations to a party" while yours are "artistic capture of a scene".

NOOOOO. Not to disagree but I think you read far too much into that and made that assumption about something that was never said about you. I didn't infer that you specifically or anyone else was doing anything. I said the software called photoshop is capable of doing all sorts of things that lightroom is not designed for.

I know a few photographers and many have and use both quite effectively. There is nothing wrong with using either program. My comment was more aimed at how photoshop CAN BE (depending on the user) used to create all this other stuff whereas with lightroom it just doesn't have those features. I was drawing a contrast in those programs' capabilities. Nothing more.

[UWone77]

I'd just keep doing what you're doing. Someone already nailed it, FB converts your pics into crap.

Some of the top guys in the business are using 4k calibrated monitors. What they see on their screen often looks much different on a 4" cell phone.

[alamo5000]

I'd just keep doing what you're doing. Someone already nailed it, FB converts your pics into crap.

Some of the top guys in the business are using 4k calibrated monitors. What they see on their screen often looks much different on a 4" cell phone.

I agree.

[toolboxluis00200]

holy cow a 4k monitor i bet bluray movies look amazing on dose

[Txfilmmaker]

I use Photoshop a lot for graphics and also heavy photo editing. Lightroom is really good for most of your photography chores. Here's an example of a photo where Photoshop was the appropriate tool. I did not take the photo. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/09/dd7b0057a16e1e4e99b686622d545426.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Txfilmmaker]

Please don't share this photo outside of WEVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ordnance]

NOOOOO. Not to disagree but I think you read far too much into that and made that assumption about something that was never said about you. I didn't infer that you specifically or anyone else was doing anything. I said the software called photoshop is capable of doing all sorts of things that lightroom is not designed for.

I know a few photographers and many have and use both quite effectively. There is nothing wrong with using either program. My comment was more aimed at how photoshop CAN BE (depending on the user) used to create all this other stuff whereas with lightroom it just doesn't have those features. I was drawing a contrast in those programs' capabilities. Nothing more.

Sorry about that then. I need to work on my reading comprehension, lol.

[Ordnance]

Some of the top guys in the business are using 4k calibrated monitors.

I don't know what that is, but it sounds epic lol. I literally just learned about the F-stop a week ago, and I've never changed my ISO from 100 because I need to read up on it to figure out exactly what it does. I'm literally just moving stuff around until I get the angle and lighting I like then snapping pics and adjusting the exposure time until I see what I like. I wish I would have taken a photo class at school instead of this stupid web development which is boring as shit.

[Txfilmmaker]

There a lot of good tutorials on the web.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dstrbdmedic167]

I don't know what that is, but it sounds epic lol. I literally just learned about the F-stop a week ago, and I've never changed my ISO from 100 because I need to read up on it to figure out exactly what it does. I'm literally just moving stuff around until I get the angle and lighting I like then snapping pics and adjusting the exposure time until I see what I like. I wish I would have taken a photo class at school instead of this stupid web development which is boring as shit.

As far as 4k goes you've heard of high definition right? 4k is double that.. Instead of 1920x1080 you have 3840x2180. So twice the resolution.

Look up the triangle of photography. It will help with understanding your f-stop vs ISO vs shutter speed. There is also a couple websites and apps that will help you "play" with the setting and understand what each one does.

[Thompson]

There a lot of good tutorials on the web.
There's definitely alot out there. You could spend days on Youtube if that tells you anything haha.

Here are some that I've used:
DigitalRev TV (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuw8B6Uv0cMWtV5vbNpeH_A)
Jared Polin (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZG-C5esGZyVfxO2qXa1Zmw) (don't be hatin' lol)
Jeremy Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/spymit)

[alamo5000]

I don't know what that is, but it sounds epic lol. I literally just learned about the F-stop a week ago, and I've never changed my ISO from 100 because I need to read up on it to figure out exactly what it does. I'm literally just moving stuff around until I get the angle and lighting I like then snapping pics and adjusting the exposure time until I see what I like. I wish I would have taken a photo class at school instead of this stupid web development which is boring as shit.

As far as calibration goes... in the digital era not all cameras capture colors the same way nor do monitors all display those colors the same. Red isn't just red. Smurf purple can be a bunch of different shades of blue depending on which screen you're looking at. This matters a lot especially when printing. If your colors are a bit 'off' your pictures can be printed with all sorts of shades of not intended colors. Hence people 'calibrate' their screens to some 'standard' so that when they print the pictures can turn out as intended.

[alamo5000]

I use Photoshop a lot for graphics and also heavy photo editing. Lightroom is really good for most of your photography chores. Here's an example of a photo where Photoshop was the appropriate tool. I did not take the photo. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/09/dd7b0057a16e1e4e99b686622d545426.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Makes me want to buy photoshop. I dream of all the pictures I could have saved.

[din]

FB lowers the quality of your photos

And the quality of your life.

[RiverRat]

i use lightroom its dose not destroy your photo like photoshop

WTF?

[Txfilmmaker]

There's definitely alot out there. You could spend days on Youtube if that tells you anything haha.

Here are some that I've used:
DigitalRev TV (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuw8B6Uv0cMWtV5vbNpeH_A)
Jared Polin (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZG-C5esGZyVfxO2qXa1Zmw) (don't be hatin' lol)
Jeremy Smith (https://www.youtube.com/user/spymit)

Fro knows photos.... :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Txfilmmaker]

Makes me want to buy photoshop. I dream of all the pictures I could have saved.

You can rent it on a month to month basis from Adobe. It definitely comes in handy. The last two years I photographed the Christmas party for a large corporation, here in Houston. I always make sure I touch up the lady who hires me. I make her thinner and younger looking. I make her teeth whiter, but not unnaturally white. :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toolboxluis00200]

And the quality of your life.

lol good one

[Thompson]

Fro knows photos.... :)
Winner winner, chicken dinner.

[Txfilmmaker]

Watched Polin interview Scott Kelby today. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GOST]

I'm still learning Photoshop. I used to do sculptures and murals, then my best friend who owned several businesses asked me one day if I knew how to use Photoshop. I told him no, then he threw a new laptop loaded with it to me and told me to learn how to use it. That SOB had designing clothes, logos for companies and tattoos. It's been fun though. I've had gear in UFC and Strikeforce fights, kinda cool to see your stuff on TV. And it's paid some rifles that my wife wouldn't have approved of.

[Txfilmmaker]

I'm still learning Photoshop. I used to do sculptures and murals, then my best friend who owned several businesses asked me one day if I knew how to use Photoshop. I told him no, then he threw a new laptop loaded with it to me and told me to learn how to use it. That SOB had designing clothes, logos for companies and tattoos. It's been fun though. I've had gear in UFC and Strikeforce fights, kinda cool to see your stuff on TV. And it's paid some rifles that my wife wouldn't have approved of.

That's great! I'd like to see your work. It's pretty deep, so I'm constantly learning too. I've used it combined with After Effects a lot. I've created quite a few tv show opens with the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GOST]

The tattoo on UFC fighter Ovince St. Preux of his school is the one that is on TV the most.

[toolboxluis00200]

i need a new comp to do my work flow better

[CarbonScoring]

To get the truest color, you will need to have a calibrated and profiled monitor (one that supports a wide color gamut), use the correct profile within PS or Lightroom, and then save the photo out with the correct color profile attached. For web, use sRGB. In PS, use the Edit > Convert to Profile menu option. Also realize that not all web browsers handle color profiles the same.

There are so many caveats that you just need to accept the fact that no one will see your photos exactly as you do. Most people will see a crappy version of it because their device (phone, tablet, monitor) is not only not calibrated and profiled, but made to display colors that aren't accurate. Companies make their displays over saturate and boost contrast to make things "pop", the same way the music industry over compresses music to make it jump out at you more. Then there is the FB issue. Many websites with alter images that are uploaded to their servers by compressing them, stripping meta data, or changing/removing color profiles. There is just no way to 100% ensure your images will display correctly.

The best solution, as I mentioned above, is to convert all photos in PS and Lightroom to sRGB when outputting for the web. Photoshop's 'Save for web' option will automatically do this. It's the most common profile and the most widely supported by both software and hardware.

[Txfilmmaker]

To get the truest color, you will need to have a calibrated and profiled monitor (one that supports a wide color gamut), use the correct profile within PS or Lightroom, and then save the photo out with the correct color profile attached. For web, use sRGB. In PS, use the Edit > Convert to Profile menu option. Also realize that not all web browsers handle color profiles the same.

There are so many caveats that you just need to accept the fact that no one will see your photos exactly as you do. Most people will see a crappy version of it because their device (phone, tablet, monitor) is not only not calibrated and profiled, but made to display colors that aren't accurate. Companies make their displays over saturate and boost contrast to make things "pop", the same way the music industry over compresses music to make it jump out at you more. Then there is the FB issue. Many websites with alter images that are uploaded to their servers by compressing them, stripping meta data, or changing/removing color profiles. There is just no way to 100% ensure your images will display correctly.

The best solution, as I mentioned above, is to convert all photos in PS and Lightroom to sRGB when outputting for the web. Photoshop's 'Save for web' option will automatically do this. It's the most common profile and the most widely supported by both software and hardware.

Thanks for the tip. It's a similar problem in television. I spend a lot of time color correcting images/video for television. I have a very expensive monitor that's calibrated to put out true colors for video. Then the commercial/show/whatever gets watched on any number of television sets (computers) with different settings. I have worked in many different edit suites. We have had several monitors where you could view the output of the project. None of the monitors ever matched perfectly. The clients would ask, "which one is correct." We would always respond, "which one do you like?." Anyway... Good info. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Txfilmmaker]

The tattoo on UFC fighter Ovince St. Preux of his school is the one that is on TV the most.

I'll have to check it out. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alamo5000]

The clients would ask, "which one is correct." We would always respond, "which one do you like?."

Spoken like a true professional. LoL!!!!

[Txfilmmaker]

Spoken like a true professional. LoL!!!!

:-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hmac]

Lightroom all day every day. It's better. Then again I have never used photoshop.


http://www.the370z.com/images/smilies/rofl2.gif

[CarbonScoring]

The clients would ask, "which one is correct." We would always respond, "which one do you like?."

Most people want to be told what they should like. Just flip a coin. [:D]

Besides, the brain is an amazing thing. It will correct things to meet what people expect.

[Txfilmmaker]

Most people want to be told what they should like. Just flip a coin. [:D]

Besides, the brain is an amazing thing. It will correct things to meet what people expect.

You are absolutely correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GOST]

Most people want to be told what they should like. Just flip a coin. [:D]

Besides, the brain is an amazing thing. It will correct things to meet what people expect.
Very true, but every now and then you get that client that is dead set on what they want. That's when you get to see how good you really are at your trade. But I have often found when this happens it's a blessing from God to exhibit what he's given you.

[Txfilmmaker]

With video, I have scopes to confirm I'm where I need to be. The rest is subjective. I work with the directors to get a feel for how they envisioned a scene. If a client wants something that falls within technically sound parameters, I will give them what they want. I know I'm good at what I do, but I'm not the end-all be-all and subjectivity is a variable I will concede. Regarding monitors; I do have a calibrated monitor in my edit suite that I can show them. It's a Flanders Scientific. It's pretty good. I like showing off God's gifts, when I can. :-)