Hosting images with Flickr vs Photobucket

Hi all, there appears to be a loss of vibrancy when I use Flickr to host my pictures vs Photobucket. I am not sure why this is the case but the following is an example:

This is from Flickr

and this is from Photobucket

As you can see, although I uploaded the same picture into both files, the colours on the Photobucket pic is much more vibrant. Anyone have any idea why this is so?

PS Also, I realised that when I view the same pictures through Safari, the Flickr picture does not lose vibrancy. Go figure....

It's because Safari supports color profiles, whereas most other browsers do not. Be sure to convert your web images to sRGB before uploading! (PS3's "Save for web" does this automatically)

It's because Safari supports color profiles, whereas most other browsers do not. Be sure to convert your web images to sRGB before uploading! (PS3's "Save for web" does this automatically)

That makes sense. However, it still does not explain why the Photobucket pictures looks more vibrant than the Flickr pic on Windows Explorer. Does Photobucket support color profiles as well?

Does Photobucket support color profiles as well?

Tim, Not that I know of. I've seen slight variations in color between photobucket and flickr, but not as noticeable as your example as I recently migrated my u/w photos to flickr from photobucket. let me check later tonite by uploading the same photo to both sites.

[cor edit: this is wrong, it's actually PB that changes the image]

This is not a browser issue. If you look at the two photos in detail you can see two differences. The flickr image has been sharpened, the photobucket one hasnt (or less). But more importantly, flickr has stripped all metadata from the image, which means that viewers like a browser do not know what colorspace the image is in. This means that it is up to the viewer (firefox, ie, whatever) to chose what to use, and some browsers pick sRGB, but others just pick your native screen profile when there is no information at all. In any case, if it isnt the exact same profile as your image was saved in originally, you will see color differences.

The photobucket image still has all metadata, so browsers can find out how to show it.

So the moral of the story is, Flickr and Photobucket differ significantly in how they process your images.

Cor

This is not a browser issue. If you look at the two photos in detail you can see two differences. The flickr image has been sharpened, the photobucket one hasnt (or less). But more importantly, flickr has stripped all metadata from the image, which means that viewers like a browser do not know what colorspace the image is in. This means that it is up to the viewer (firefox, ie, whatever) to chose what to use, and some browsers pick sRGB, but others just pick your native screen profile when there is no information at all. In any case, if it isnt the exact same profile as your image was saved in originally, you will see color differences.

 

The photobucket image still has all metadata, so browsers can find out how to show it.

 

So the moral of the story is, Flickr and Photobucket differ significantly in how they process your images.

 

Cor

That is very interesting. In other words, it could simplify the photo editing workflow if Photobucket was used to host photos. The main problem I have had was that in order to maintain maximum picture quality in the RAW/TIFF format, a larger color space (Prophoto or Adobe RGB) should be used. To post on the web via Flickr, the color space would need to be converted to sRGB, which will result in some degradation of vibrancy and detail. To have quality in both, the RAW files have to be saved twice (once in Adobe/Prophoto RGB and once in sRGB). Then the sRGB file can be uploaded into Flickr without the loss in detail/vibrancy. If Photobucket was used, then only one color profile need be saved. It does save a lot of disk space.

Do you agree?

I've split this topic out because it was getting way off topic.

Anyway, I believe it *is* a browser issue as well. Cor says that Flickr strips metadata. I agree, but programs like PhotoMechanic say that sRGB is still embedded in Flickr images, for some reason.

It's important to note that IE on Windows and FireFox ignore embedded color spaces in images, so if you want to cater to 94%+ (or whatever) of web users, you should absolutely convert to sRGB before you upload. Even if your image has Adobe RGB or ProPhoto embedded, FireFox and IE will ignore you, and you will get a desaturated image.

Take a look at this test:

These are screenshots taken with Firefox and Safari of images on the web in three formats:

1) sRGB embedded

2) AdobeRGB 1998 embedded

3) sRGB image uploaded to Flickr (and stripped of metadata, as a result)

Safari is clearly paying attention to color profiles, because all of the images show up looking the same. Note that because the Flickr image is showing up the same, Safari must be treating it as sRGB, even though it's untagged.

FireFox ignores color space and interprets images in the monitor's color space (which appears to not match sRGB). If I disable colorsync and view these images on my computer, they look the same as they do when I look at them through FireFox (even with colorsync on).

In this case, AdobeRGB images come out as less saturated. It's not so obvious in this example, but it is plenty obvious in others. And since the Flickr image was uploaded as an sRGB file, it appears to be identical to the sRGB-tagged version.

So I NEVER advocate putting images on the web that are not in the sRGB color space. Just because you use Photobucket and a browser that pays attention to color spaces doesn't mean that the majority of peopel out there do. And since most monitors aren't going to show much more than sRGB's color gamut anyway, it is unlikely that you'll get to many people who can even see those colors, unless they download your images and print them.

I'm only talking about color here, and not sharpening and compression quality (which are the other differences apparent in the Flickr vs. Photobucket images, above).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

Thanks for splitting the thread. It was getting off topic.

Actually, something I have observed does not jive with your thoughts. I am using Windows Explorer at the moment (in the office )and if you are right, both pictures from Photobucket and Flickr should appear desaturated on my monitor. That is not the case. The picture from Photobucket does not look desaturated while the one from Flickr does. That has got me REAL confused. If the browser does not read the colour space, why should there be differences in the pictures between 2 hosting sites? *scratch head*

WELL, I have no idea what Flickr and Photobucket are actually doing to the images. I've found that Flickr doesn't do anything to mine (which are all sRGB by the time they hit the web).

Maybe one of the sites does some strange conversion. If you post the original image in web resolution, we can do a proper comparison...

WELL, I have no idea what Flickr and Photobucket are actually doing to the images. I've found that Flickr doesn't do anything to mine (which are all sRGB by the time they hit the web).

 

Maybe one of the sites does some strange conversion. If you post the original image in web resolution, we can do a proper comparison...

OK.. I will try to upload a picture in sRGB, Adobe and Prophoto into Flickr and Photobucket tonight. This should be fun..

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Check out this test:

I downloaded your images. The FLICKR image says it's in the ProPhoto color space, which means that Flickr is not stripping out the color space information (the opposite of what Cor said).

The Photobucket image has no color space embedded, but it is "vibrant", which suggests to me that Photobucket has actually converted your images to sRGB and then stripped all metadata.

If it had just stripped the metadata without doing anything else, the image would look identical to the Flickr image in Firefox and in IE, because it would be the same data, with color space ignored (and non-existent, in metadata). Also, it would then look bad in Safari as well because it would be ProPhoto data being interpreted as sRGB (or whatever Safari chooses to do with non-tagged images).

I'll do a test and come right back here.

OK. Confirmed. A ProPhotoRGB image that is de-metadata'ed looks just like the image in the upper-left, in both Firefox and Safari. This means that PhotoBucket is actually doing a color convert of some sort in its upload processing -- most likely, to sRGB.

And now, I'm going to sleep. I actually got out of bed to reply to this after seeing Cor's post come in on my blackberry. g'night.

Eric is correct, flickr is stripping all metadata, but the color profile is still there. It's indeed prophoto, which is not good Most browsers wont know what to do with that and will just show sRGB which will look ugly.

I think Photobucket is probably doing the most sensible thing by converting it to sRGB (assuming wolverine uploaded both as prophoto), as that will be interpreted by browsers the best. But I suppose that could be defended either way. Some people might argue that it's up to the photographer to decide. I personally think most people wont have a clue, so you should do what is best for them.

Eric, I think we each looked at a different question of his.

I answered: why am i seeing these two differently in my browser. That is not a browser issue perse, but it's because one of the two (which I had flipped around) does something to his image. It is the only explanation if you see them differently in 1 browser.

You answered: ps: why am i seeing them right in Safari. That is because Safari is the only browser that will display profiles correctly almost always. So that is indeed a browser issue.

I had it flipped around because I didnt look closely enough I saw that Flickr stripped all metadata, didnt see a color profile in the metadata (at least: File Info in CS3 didnt show any), but did not look at an embedded profile.

To make things even more complicated. If you look at these two images in Photo Mechanic (winXP), im seeing the thumbnails differently, but the actual image the same. That suggests to me that PM isnt using the color profile to show the thumbnail. Or maybe it's because the PB file has an embedded thumbnail as well, but then still PM isnt using the color profile for the thumbnail. Im going to mail PM about that, because that means thumbs can give the wrong view of an image in PM.

Wolverine, dont bother about testing anything. Just upload in sRGB. It is the only right thing to do for normal web viewing.

Cor

And now, I'm going to sleep. I actually got out of bed to reply to this after seeing Cor's post come in on my blackberry. g'night.

I was just about to ask what fricking time is it CA right now! jeez, put that crackberry on silent mode...

Tim, now, didn't I tell you to convert to sRGB yesterday?... :glare:

Yes yes, I know. I usually do it. But to make sure the picture is vibrant, you would have to save 2 files from the RAW: 1 in Adobe/Prophtoto (for print), and 1 in sRGB (for web). If you save a jpeg file in Adobe/Prophoto, and subsequently convert that to sRGB for web, vibrancy is lost (just tested it). I was hoping I would not have to save an extra file but looks like there is no way around it. Thanks to Eric (sorry to wake you up so late!) and Cor for all your help. And thanks to Pak too....

You should not lose any "vibrancy" in the color space conversion if you are using the proper rendering intent. When converting a wide color space to a narrower one, the software needs to have a strategy for handling out-of-gamut colors. One strategy is to compress all color and this leads to the result you describe. You can also tell the conversion to essentially "clip" out-of-gamut colors. In this case, the bulk of the image's appearance is preserved.

Here is a useful Google search on the subject.

You should not lose any "vibrancy" in the color space conversion if you are using the proper rendering intent. When converting a wide color space to a narrower one, the software needs to have a strategy for handling out-of-gamut colors. One strategy is to compress all color and this leads to the result you describe. You can also tell the conversion to essentially "clip" out-of-gamut colors. In this case, the bulk of the image's appearance is preserved.

 

Here is a useful Google search on the subject.

Thanks! That helps too. I have decided to create an action in CS3 to convert pics with 16bit Prophoto profiles into 8bit sRGB profiles. Looks like I am finally getting a decent workflow for the pics.. Thanks all! You guys have been a great help!

To make things even more complicated. If you look at these two images in Photo Mechanic (winXP), im seeing the thumbnails differently, but the actual image the same. That suggests to me that PM isnt using the color profile to show the thumbnail. Or maybe it's because the PB file has an embedded thumbnail as well, but then still PM isnt using the color profile for the thumbnail. Im going to mail PM about that, because that means thumbs can give the wrong view of an image in PM.

Cor - there is a toggle button for color management in the upper right-hand corner of the PM window, at least, on the Mac version.

Tim -

If you "Save for web" in CS3, the sRGB conversion is done automatically. Alternatively, you can use something like Photo Mechanic or Breezebrowser to batch re-size and convert to sRGB.

I've gone from paying a lot of attention to what I upload on the web to using tools like PM and BB to do it automatically. I just don't have the time to do it any other way!

Cor - there is a toggle button for color management in the upper right-hand corner of the PM window, at least, on the Mac version.

 

Tim -

 

If you "Save for web" in CS3, the sRGB conversion is done automatically. Alternatively, you can use something like Photo Mechanic or Breezebrowser to batch re-size and convert to sRGB.

 

I've gone from paying a lot of attention to what I upload on the web to using tools like PM and BB to do it automatically. I just don't have the time to do it any other way!

Yup, found the button. Thanks What Tim is describing here is why I really love the switch to Lightroom (or Aperture). No more lingering versions for print/web/whatever. Easy exporting, stacking, etc. It saves so much time in your workflow,

Cor