Opinions Wanted

On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-25 20:21:55 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:


I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC
profile Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

You still have some DB issues, neither of those was delivered. *ERROR 404*

I got them OK.

As far as "tonal integrity" for online delivery and general viewing
goes, sRGB is all that is needed for the 8-bit JPEG since PP is
complete and the wider ProPhoto RGB & Adobe RGB gamuts are now
superfluous for most displays.

Pro Photo always has been. Unless you have unusual color management
settings the wide gamut of Pro Photo is squeezed down to that of the
monitor. (Otherwise it is truncated at that of the monitor.) That used
to mean you ended up looking at Pro Photo via sRGB but monitors are
improving. My several-year-old Dell U2410 monitors are very close
(97%) to AdobeRGB.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/25/2014 6:00 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/25/14 PDT, 9:58 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 00:42:52 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 16:58:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2014-05-24 23:17:30 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:
Le Snip

I don't think Dropbox photos helps the images. Here is a JPG of my
quick and dirty B&W.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...26W%20copy.jpg



Sorry that doesn't work for me. It is neither here, nor there as a B&W
conversion. Your opacity adjusted layer technique isn't right for that
image. The way it is presented it has a bad selective color feel to it,
and the contrast for the hills looks too harsh.
This is where I prefer my softer approach with the sight selenium tone.
https://db.tt/TT7e6kYX

Yours works better in a smaller print viewed more closely. I think
mine works better in a larger print likely to be viewed from across a
room. Mind you, I'm not going to print a large and small of each to
find out whether I'm right or not. :-)

My views have nothing to do with the fact that I can't find a quick
and dirty way in PS to emulate your image. I have several ideas which
will make it a piece of cake if they work. I would particularly like
to try a gradient 50% grey fill. Right now I'm going to have lunch.

Considering everything overall, this has been a very helpful
discussion.

I am not really a fan of “quick & dirty” B&W conversions, straight
greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of
the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach
in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2.
That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W
rendition.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg

BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but
from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the
San Andreas Fault Zone, there is very defined rise from West to East.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg


Can't resist: As the human eye, in situ, doesn't naturally see such a
tiny tilt, I'd remove it from the print.

If this was an image with water I'd agree. Land however, is usually
hilly. And the old run=down building has more of a decrepit look, when
tilting.



--
PeterN

On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:


I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile
Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job
of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now
see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-(
thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference.
I did only minimal sharpening in ACR, adjusted the color to neutral
gray. Then did a slight curves adjustment in LAB mode on the Lightness
and b channels. By working in LAB it waas easier to bring out the tonal
subtleties. The B&W conversion was done in Nik, with some adjustments to
the shadow & highlights. Opacity of the conversion layer was cut back to
75% opacity. I saved it as a layered tif, so you can play with the
layers for yourself.


I also like the little puffs of smoke and flying fragments where you
blew up the flax stalks protruding from the greenery. :-)

Thank you

Apart from that, I think the greenery in the foreground is rather too
dark, but that's just my preference.

It is all a matter of individual preference. To me, the subject is the
mountains. To my eye a lighter foreground detracted from the subject.

--
PeterN

On 2014-05-25 23:02:28 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/25/2014 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 20:43:24 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2014-05-25 19:48:39 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/25/2014 12:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-25 00:42:52 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 16:58:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2014-05-24 23:17:30 +0000, Eric Stevens
said:
Le Snip

I don't think Dropbox photos helps the images. Here is a JPG of my
quick and dirty B&W.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...26W%20copy.jpg



Sorry that doesn't work for me. It is neither here, nor there as a
B&W
conversion. Your opacity adjusted layer technique isn't right for
that
image. The way it is presented it has a bad selective color feel
to it,
and the contrast for the hills looks too harsh.
This is where I prefer my softer approach with the sight selenium
tone.
https://db.tt/TT7e6kYX

Yours works better in a smaller print viewed more closely. I think
mine works better in a larger print likely to be viewed from across a
room. Mind you, I'm not going to print a large and small of each to
find out whether I'm right or not. :-)

My views have nothing to do with the fact that I can't find a quick
and dirty way in PS to emulate your image. I have several ideas which
will make it a piece of cake if they work. I would particularly like
to try a gradient 50% grey fill. Right now I'm going to have lunch.

Considering everything overall, this has been a very helpful
discussion.

I am not really a fan of “quick & dirty� B&W conversions, straight
greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of
the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter
approach
in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2.
That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W
rendition.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg

BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but
from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the
San Andreas Fault Zone, there is a very defined rise from West to East.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg


I like it.

Thanks.

I have a particular fondness for B&W rendering these days, where the
interpretation can add to character and the viewer’s impression of the
image. In the case of the Carrizo Plain shots, there is a wind blown
desolate feel to the place which seems to be better expressed in B&W
than color.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...arrizo%20B%26W


or


http://tinyurl.com/l9xkqwm



It was a slow sync. I don't know why.

These should work:

jpeg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

The layered tif

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif


Nice try, but no cigar from this pair of eyes. In fact it is a mess.

The layered TIF tells the story. You have mixed and mismatched techniques.
Starting with your *Background Layer* which I assume got to PS via ACR.
you have pushed the saturation, and/or vibrance into the beyond good
taste level. So much so there is a very noticeable color fringe halo at
the foreground vegetation/ocean boundary on the right. There is also a
fair amount of CA and noise present.
Next you did some healing and/or cloning on the Background Layer*
before adding *Layer 1*.

In *Layer 1* you did way too much to fix things that didn't need
fixing, such as your bad removal of the branches. The cloning/healing
is too conspicuous. There are bits of branches and foreground frond
suspended in mid-air, and some areas are badly smudged. While dust
spots were left untouched.

Next you did your favorite thing *Lab* and screwed things up royally
and unnecessarily. That curves adjustment buried the foreground in
impenetrable dark, and imparted a totally out of place tone, along with
a particularly harsh contrast. Big mistake. There are times Lab should
not be touched, this was one of them.

Then you went to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2 and started with damaged goods.
At this point it was beyond saving. Silver Efex Pro wasn’t going to
rescue this, and didn’t.

Then inexplicably, you added a *Stamp visible 50% mult* layer,
(whatever the Hell that is?), to drive the final nail in the coffin of
this production by removing whatever remained of any hints of
foreground definition.

I am sorry to say this is a time your method did not work.

You would have done much better if you had applied your RAW adjustments
with some restraint, whether you used ACR or something else. (and done
the spot fix).

Then as the first step in PS, apply some NR, I prefer NIK Define.

Now forget about Lab (I know you think Lab is wonderful) and got
straight to NIK Silver Efex Pro 2, or if you prefer OnOne Perfect B&W.
Adjust to taste, and avoid my harsh opinion when my eyes hurt.

Give it another try.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-26 00:04:49 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:

I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile
Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job
of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now
see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-(
thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference.

Always, but dust spots have nothing to do with personal preference.
They should be fixed at the earliest possible stage of post, otherwise
they can become a visible problem as they are in your version.

I did only minimal sharpening in ACR,

That's OK.

adjusted the color to neutral gray.

Not that you could tell from the *Background layer*.

Then did a slight curves adjustment in LAB mode on the Lightness and b
channels.

No kidding! That was in my opinion the wrong move.

By working in LAB it waas easier to bring out the tonal subtleties.

There was not one *tonal subtlety* revealed by your Lab treatment. If
anything any subtlety was obliterated.

The B&W conversion was done in Nik, with some adjustments to the shadow
& highlights.

OK, it is just that any chance you had of producing something pleasing
was gone by the time you started removing branches and foliage.

Opacity of the conversion layer was cut back to 75% opacity.

Why?
Your final layer made any opacity adjustment to the NIK layer superfluous.

I saved it as a layered tif, so you can play with the layers for yourself.

Yup! Evidence of the crime remains intact.


I also like the little puffs of smoke and flying fragments where you
blew up the flax stalks protruding from the greenery. :-)

Thank you

It doesn’t work for me, That is nothing more than sloppy and smudged
branch and foliage removal.

Apart from that, I think the greenery in the foreground is rather too
dark, but that's just my preference.

It is all a matter of individual preference. To me, the subject is the
mountains. To my eye a lighter foreground detracted from the subject.

To me the subject is the totality of the image with the coastal
hills/mountains shrouded in an etherial mist/fog, and by imposing that
imbalance, the subject and image are ruined.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-25 23:49:41 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/25/2014 6:00 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/25/14 PDT, 9:58 AM, Savageduck wrote:
Le Snip

I am not really a fan of “quick & dirty� B&W conversions, straight
greyscale mode changes, etc. I feel that I can get so much more out of
the original by using a color sensitivity adjustment, or filter approach
in ACR, LR5, or with a dedicated plugin such as NIK Silver Efex Pro 2.
That way I can take a relatively bland shot and get an acceptable B&W
rendition.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_718.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...951_Edit-3.jpg

BTW: One might be tempted to comment on the level of the horizon, but
from that position out on the Carrizo Plain, which is bisected by the
San Andreas Fault Zone, there is very defined rise from West to East.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg


Can't resist: As the human eye, in situ, doesn't naturally see such a
tiny tilt, I'd remove it from the print.

If this was an image with water I'd agree. Land however, is usually
hilly. And the old run=down building has more of a decrepit look, when
tilting.

If you look at the left most vertical corner of the building you will
see that it is set square. Whatever happens to the rest is irrelevant.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_719.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-26 00:59:14 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-26 00:04:49 +0000, PeterN said:
On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:

I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile
Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job
of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now
see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-(
thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference.

Always, but dust spots have nothing to do with personal preference.
They should be fixed at the earliest possible stage of post, otherwise
they can become a visible problem as they are in your version.

I did only minimal sharpening in ACR,

That's OK.

adjusted the color to neutral gray.

Not that you could tell from the *Background layer*.

Just to check that my eyes were not deceiving me, I went back to your
*Background Layer*, and if anything my thoughts are confirmed.
There is no "neutral gray" there, if anything saturation/vibrance has
been boosted, and CA exacerbated. Also your sloppy branch trimming
starts to show up, as does a bunch of noise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_722.jpg

Then did a slight curves adjustment in LAB mode on the Lightness and b
channels.

No kidding! That was in my opinion the wrong move.

By working in LAB it waas easier to bring out the tonal subtleties.

There was not one *tonal subtlety* revealed by your Lab treatment. If
anything any subtlety was obliterated.

The B&W conversion was done in Nik, with some adjustments to the shadow
& highlights.

OK, it is just that any chance you had of producing something pleasing
was gone by the time you started removing branches and foliage.

Opacity of the conversion layer was cut back to 75% opacity.

Why?
Your final layer made any opacity adjustment to the NIK layer superfluous.

I saved it as a layered tif, so you can play with the layers for yourself.

Yup! Evidence of the crime remains intact.


I also like the little puffs of smoke and flying fragments where you
blew up the flax stalks protruding from the greenery. :-)

Thank you

It doesn’t work for me, That is nothing more than sloppy and smudged
branch and foliage removal.

Apart from that, I think the greenery in the foreground is rather too
dark, but that's just my preference.

It is all a matter of individual preference. To me, the subject is the
mountains. To my eye a lighter foreground detracted from the subject.

To me the subject is the totality of the image with the coastal
hills/mountains shrouded in an etherial mist/fog, and by imposing that
imbalance, the subject and image are ruined.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-05-26 02:15:13 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-26 00:59:14 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-05-26 00:04:49 +0000, PeterN said:
On 5/25/2014 6:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 16:21:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:

I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC profile
Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

I like your treatment of the hills. You have also done a very good job
of preserving the texture and tonal subtleties of the sky. I can now
see the spots which Savageduck complained of. :-(
thanks, It's all a matter of personal preference.

Always, but dust spots have nothing to do with personal preference.
They should be fixed at the earliest possible stage of post, otherwise
they can become a visible problem as they are in your version.

I did only minimal sharpening in ACR,

That's OK.

adjusted the color to neutral gray.

Not that you could tell from the *Background layer*.

Just to check that my eyes were not deceiving me, I went back to your
*Background Layer*, and if anything my thoughts are confirmed.
There is no "neutral gray" there, if anything saturation/vibrance has
been boosted, and CA exacerbated. Also your sloppy branch trimming
starts to show up, as does a bunch of noise.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_722.jpg

Then did a slight curves adjustment in LAB mode on the Lightness and b
channels.

No kidding! That was in my opinion the wrong move.

By working in LAB it waas easier to bring out the tonal subtleties.

There was not one *tonal subtlety* revealed by your Lab treatment. If
anything any subtlety was obliterated.

The B&W conversion was done in Nik, with some adjustments to the shadow
& highlights.

OK, it is just that any chance you had of producing something pleasing
was gone by the time you started removing branches and foliage.

Opacity of the conversion layer was cut back to 75% opacity.

Why?
Your final layer made any opacity adjustment to the NIK layer superfluous.

I saved it as a layered tif, so you can play with the layers for yourself.

Yup! Evidence of the crime remains intact.


I also like the little puffs of smoke and flying fragments where you
blew up the flax stalks protruding from the greenery. :-)

Thank you

It doesn’t work for me, That is nothing more than sloppy and smudged
branch and foliage removal.

Apart from that, I think the greenery in the foreground is rather too
dark, but that's just my preference.

It is all a matter of individual preference. To me, the subject is the
mountains. To my eye a lighter foreground detracted from the subject.

To me the subject is the totality of the image with the coastal
hills/mountains shrouded in an etherial mist/fog, and by imposing that
imbalance, the subject and image are ruined.

OK!
Just to be fair, I revisited the project and got rid of the twigs with
a little bit of care. I used *Content aware-fill* to do that.

I reprocessed the NEF with ACR and corrected the CA & fringing. Then
came some basic adjustments, and some masked sharpening. (there is no
need to apply sharpening to the fogged out sky or the soft detailed fog
cloaked hills, that gets noisy). and cropped in ACR to 16:9.
Into PS CC, duplicated background layer. Used Content aware-fill to
make the twigs vanish.
Next some NR with NIK Define.

On to the B&W, and this time, for a change I used OnOne Perfect B&W.

So what you will find in the folder is a PS screen capture, a JPEG, and
a layered PSD.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/10ne14df8...%20Project%202



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/24/14 PDT, 2:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-24 19:46:02 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/24/2014 12:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-24 15:25:56 +0000, PeterN said:

here is another glimpse of the sort of day it was up there in the
Sierras.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-1.jpg

That one would probably have been a bit easier to *burn in*.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...884-Edit-2.jpg

You can view it via Dropbox without downloading it. That is a resized to
624x940, 409 KB version for online viewing, I didn't think you actually
wanted to download it.

If you want to play with the original just say so.

I like both images.

As to water, I usually shoot both fast and slow shutter back to back.
*Some* images with water all blurry via slow shutter speed are just too
trite.

On 5/25/14 PDT, 4:07 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 13:40:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-05-25 20:21:55 +0000, PeterN said:

On 5/24/2014 7:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2014 11:35:48 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/23/2014 10:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:


smip


Now it's
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ok28ebd3p...s0Am5pTwRtDQva


In your BW conversion you seem to have lost the texture in the sky. I
lit a subtle sky with texture, the green foreground a darker green, and
the bare branches gone. I don't think you need them.
Please post another link to the NEF and I should have a chance to play
later today.

Link coming up:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3/_DSC1370.NEF

Here is my version, using a 2 x 3 aspect ratio:


I saved a layered tif. To help you to follow what I did, the layers are
labeled.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.tif

I had some DB issues, so I also saved a jpeg. I assigned the ICC
profile Adobe RGB to maintain tonal integrity.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/Eric%20file.jpg

You still have some DB issues, neither of those was delivered. *ERROR 404*

I got them OK.

As far as "tonal integrity" for online delivery and general viewing
goes, sRGB is all that is needed for the 8-bit JPEG since PP is
complete and the wider ProPhoto RGB & Adobe RGB gamuts are now
superfluous for most displays.

Pro Photo always has been. Unless you have unusual color management
settings the wide gamut of Pro Photo is squeezed down to that of the
monitor. (Otherwise it is truncated at that of the monitor.) That used
to mean you ended up looking at Pro Photo via sRGB but monitors are
improving. My several-year-old Dell U2410 monitors are very close
(97%) to AdobeRGB.

In any event sRGB is the right one to use for posting on the 'Net......