I was somewhat crest fallen to see the colour management of my "Focus on"
photo-essay was pretty much a disaster.
That said, the link here http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery12.html hopefully gives a better rendition, but I am beginning to suspect the colour management imposed by Photoshop may be the culprit.
To solve the problem, Id' be interested to hear from ISS members on how the above link image looks on their machines....and what colour management, if any, they are using
Cant help much with colour management Peter, I have enough problems of my own, regarding that area, however the image on my screen looks great, maybe a little darker than usual, but other wise a fine image.
the image on yourwebsite looks fine..... strangly when i saved it via right click and save picture ( then had to add the .jpg to open it) and opened it in photoshop its terrible... its a bright redish magenta to the extreme, i have no idea what happened there i did it twice with the same result... very strange. i just wanted to check the black point as that was the only thing i could think of that might be out.
Havent seen the mag yet so cant comment on that
EDIT just went to save it to post it so you could see what i see ,and in the save for web it looks fine again. Never seen anything like it bizzare!!
It looks normal on my monitor but when saved it turns out very red based as well.
Looking at the histogram in photoshop the red channel is out to compared the others, I'm unsure whats going on, it would be interesting to know.
the image is what it looks like when opened on my computer.
edit.
next time you save a JPEG out in photoshop check that you don't have it on convert to sRGB. If you check this it turns into what you see below, unchecked is how it looks on the net.
The majority of browsers don't know about the different colour spaces so you'll frequently get these sorts of inconsistent resuts (I believe Safari is the main color managed browser).
The browsers are assuming that JPEGs are sRGB and render them assuming this - and when you open the images up with something which understands the different colour spaces it will render them "correctly".
But it still doesn't make full sense - the web browsers are displaying it correctly, and your Photoshop is displaying it correctly, but others Photoshops are displaying it incorrectly - what's unusual about your Photoshop? What colour management are you using? Normally you'd expect to see the web browser renderings to be off, not the Photoshops renderings.
Best to calibrate your monitor and always save to the same colour space. For those with a image editor that you can change the colour space have a look at the image in Apple RGB. On my pc it looks fine but under sRGB 1966 2.1 it looks to magenta.
I checked out your image from the link and it looks great, pity about the problems with the encoding and reproduction.
When all is said and done, it is still a very impressive image, even if the production team spilled their red wine on it before publication.
Its probably little consolation, but, it still must be a buzz to get "published" in the magazine with such a good essay and a slightly red but still awesome image along side it.
I was somewhat crest fallen to see the colour management of my "Focus on"
photo-essay was pretty much a disaster.
That said, the link here http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery12.html hopefully gives a better rendition, but I am beginning to suspect the colour management imposed by Photoshop may be the culprit.
To solve the problem, Id' be interested to hear from ISS members on how the above link image looks on their machines....and what colour management, if any, they are using
Cheers
Peter
Well the wheel does go round - must be your turn. I remember when Paul Mayo had his article in S&S - a similar thing happened to that as well (and some other editor changes). It is a shame, but now that you guys have really highlighted the issue, or really shown what is possible to get mixed up, then is it really up to us to get out the tall poppy scythes and criticise the images?
Well the wheel does go round - must be your turn. I remember when Paul Mayo had his article in S&S - a similar thing happened to that as well (and some other editor changes). It is a shame, but now that you guys have really highlighted the issue, or really shown what is possible to get mixed up, then is it really up to us to get out the tall poppy scythes and criticise the images?
Well I'm not the type of person to start threads with statements like "it has to make me wonder what the photo editor is looking for in images" or "other photos were a sight for sore eyes after looking at Peter Ward's image".
So your off the hook as far as me wasting my time bagging your images as you did to me (on Advanced Meade Users Group and elsewhere).
Something you didn't consider when you were doing this was that my article in S&S Mag. had medicore images because Part 1 was designed that way!
I wanted to show mediocore average images (including dark dougnuts around some stars) for Part 1 because Parts 2, 3 and 4 showed how images improved with different techniques and different equipment. And in fact Part 3 which covered masking techniques did refer to the dark halos around stars in the M42 image (in Part 1) to explain why they appeared and how to avoid them....
Well I'm not the type of person to start threads with statements like "it has to make me wonder what the photo editor is looking for in images" or "other photos were a sight for sore eyes after looking at Peter Ward's image".
So your off the hook as far as me wasting my time bagging your images as you did to me (on Advanced Meade Users Group and elsewhere).
....
looks like payback time.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this particular photo, given its in a magazine specifically about Astronomy
and you would think the editor would be just that an editor .....
and...... its about the most imaged object along with M42,
why the ...........(lets be polite and say goodness) couldnt the magazine people tell it was the wrong colour. EDIT... maybee they thought it was really good???
I sent them some images a while back after they put up the request with the images section for submissions, ..... never even got a quick reply..... probably just as well they cant tell a good one from a bad...............
duh , dont bother replying now cos im not interested after seeing that stuff up.
We at AS&T do try to take care that our published articles represent what the contributor had intended.
We have a process whereby a pdf of the relevant pages is e-mailed to the writer before the magazine goes to print.
In this case, the unexpected colour change was missed, and I'm sorry I did miss it. Ultimately, it's my responsibility.
Hopefully, we will be able to reprint the image in its intended appearance in the near future. In the meantime, I'll pay extra attention to side-by-side comparisons of the original image and the prepress layout.
Well the wheel does go round - must be your turn.........................it really up to us to get out the tall poppy scythes and criticise the images?
I have no problem with a fair critique of any of my images. In this case is was just as much my stuff-up as anyone elses's.
"Trippy colour" would be a very apt description and certainly not the norm with AS&T which IMHO has been a consistently high quality publication. You live and learn! (well, some do )
albeit too late for AS&T 
So many things to go wrong.
