[jstevewhite]

Hmmm...going back and looking at the photos I just posted, the images don't look nearly as good in the browser as they do in Photoshop or in Windows Picture Viewer on my computer. They look kind of flat, with less contrast and much less saturation. They just "pop" much more on my computer.

I tried to compensate on the first picture by cranking up the saturation when processing from the RAW DNG file, and it helped a little, but it still doesn't look as good as it does on my computer. I'm guessing it must be some kind of color space issue?

Not sure what color space you're using, but on export, make sure you set color space to srgb, as IE and Chrome don't support color profiles by default. Firefox needs it turned on. I think Opera and Safari support color profiles out of the box. I use ProPhoto colorspace in Lightroom, and had similar problems:

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Not sure what color space you're using, but on export, make sure you set color space to srgb, as IE and Chrome don't support color profiles by default.

It's very frustrating that my web images don't look like they should, so thanks for your help. Maybe you could try to walk me through this. We'll use the first image I posted:



And here is the metadata as displayed in Adobe Bridge CS5 from the original DNG RAW file showing that the "Color Mode" is RGB and the "Bit Depth" is 16.



Now when I take the image into PhotoShop CS5, the color mode shows "RGB Color" and "8 Bits/Channel":



And when I save the final image as a JPEG, I see a check box for "ICC Profile: Adobe RGB (1998)":



Unchecking that box doesn't seem to do anything. Here's the same image from above with the box unchecked:



Both images still appear de-saturated and flat in the browser when compared to the same image in PhotoShop. Do you see where I'm doing something wrong?

[MrPetkus]

Ok, the Tamron 28-75 may be sharp, but does it have a special look or any other reason to buy it?.

Personally I think "pixie dust" is BS.

[jstevewhite]

Both images still appear de-saturated and flat in the browser when compared to the same image in PhotoShop. Do you see where I'm doing something wrong?

It's a piece of cake in Lightroom (I just check a box labelled "sRGB"); I didn't remember how to change it in photoshop (as I edit images from Lightroom into photoshop, then return them to LR for jpg export), so I looked it up. Here's a page with the information you need:

Preparing Images for the Web: Color Profiles, sRGB and Adobe RGB

It's for CS4, but it should work for you, too. Edit->Change Profile or so.

Give it a shot and lemme know if it works for you!

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I followed the link you provided, and I think that did the trick! Thanks!

Here's the original image again:



And here's the same image with the same exact post-processing, but converted to sRGB:



On my monitor at least, there's a significant difference, especially in terms of saturation and color accuracy.

Thanks a bunch! Now if I get time I may go back and redo all the sample images I posted earlier.

[jstevewhite]

I followed the link you provided, and I think that did the trick! Thanks!

Here's the original image again:



And here's the same image with the same exact post-processing, but converted to sRGB:



On my monitor at least, there's a significant difference, especially in terms of saturation and color accuracy.

Thanks a bunch! Now if I get time I may go back and redo all the sample images I posted earlier.

Not much difference for me - I use Safari, so the embedded color profile renders properly But I'm glad it helped!

[Frogfish]

Not much difference for me - I use Safari, so the embedded color profile renders properly But I'm glad it helped!

I stopped using Safari because of the many issues encountered with flash. Now using Chrome and those changes Eddie made following your advice make a huge difference !

[jstevewhite]

I stopped using Safari because of the many issues encountered with flash. Now using Chrome and those changes Eddie made following your advice make a huge difference !

Heh... If I stopped using browsers because of flash problems, I'd be using elinks.

But yeah, I fought that same ( lightroom/photoshop vs web ) problem for some time...

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I've converted all of the images I posted on the previous page to sRGB, and have reposted them in the following thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/145599-tamron-...ml#post1521362

[jstevewhite]

I've converted all of the images I posted on the previous page to sRGB, and have reposted them in the following thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/145599-tamron-...ml#post1521362

Wow, they all look exactly the same! ( Actually, I see the difference in Chrome ) Glad it worked for you!

[ozlizard]

What about the DA 40mm for portrait work? I can pick one up second hand here for $300.

[Ash]

The DA 40 is great for half-body to full body work.
Small, very sharp and fast focusing. The only drawback on it is if you want thinner DoF than what f/2.8 can provide you.
Can't fault that lens.

[twitch]

What about the DA 40mm for portrait work? I can pick one up second hand here for $300.

Probably best for 1/2 body or wider shots like this





But can be used for tighter shots too (f2.8)




It's sharp wide open, but then f2.8 @ 40mm isn't ideal to blur the background, although as can be seen above it's not terrible either if you get a bit closer.

[ozlizard]

Thanks Ash and nice shots twitch! The second shot is close to what I do with kids. I think outdoors that amount of blur would probably be ok.
Don't know that I will get a better lens for $300?

[Ash]

Can't get better value for that kind of a lens in my books.