Processing RAW in Lightroom and going to WEB

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by ryan_lasek, Apr 26, 2010.

  1. Alright well this has been frustrating me for days, I am shooting with Nikon and shooting in raw. The images are great exposures everything is spot on when I am post processing them. This is when the problem begins, I export them in lightroom converting to SRGB since they are going to the web. When I open the image in photoshop seems to have some desaturation and dullness to the image. This happen sometimes not all the time, what always happens is that after resizing and adding smart sharpening in photoshop CS4 the images look great but when they are put on the web they are really dull and desaturated. I never had this problem before since I was shooting in jpeg, I have been shooting raw now for sometime. The one thing I notice the most are the greens almost becoming a mix of greens and yellow very dull and also all colors are not as vibrant. This is the set up I am using to save the question about that.
    - Camera ..... Shooting RAW, Color Space - ADOBE RGB
    -Monitor ...... Eye-One 2 Display Calibrated
    -Computer ...... Macbook
    -Lightroom...... Color Space- ProPhoto, Bit -16
    -Photoshop CS4 ..... Color Space - ProPhoto , Under Image>Mode>RGB COLOR and 8 BIT Color
    I am importing the image directly into lightroom, as NEF File , then do the post processing export as SRGB, resize in photoshop as 72 DPI apply smart sharpen. save to the web. When opening in Photoshop as SRGB I leave the embedded working space of that, since CS4 is set to ProPhoto. I hope to post some screen shots of the settings. Thanks for all the help!
     
  2. What happens when you open the jpegs in Photoshop? They should look basically the same as the edited TIFF (except that they are SRGB and not Prophoto).
    Some web services compress images when you upload them, Facebook being among the most notorious for leaving you with undersaturated dull images.
     
  3. [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]
    Here is a series of images where you can see the color change that is occurring....
    The First Image was a screen shot from Lightroom, Second was in Photoshop after sharpening, and last Image is a screen shot from the web which was safari as a browers.
     
  4. I think when saving in Photoshop before changing the Color Mode to 8-bit you should do Edit->Convert to Color Space-> sRGB
     
  5. When I exported the image in Lightroom I converted to SRGB and the image is now a jpeg. When I open the RAW image in photoshop its 16 bits. When I saved as a jpeb and then open in photoshop its a 8 bit image. I have been reading all over the place , is this something with a camera profile in in lightroom?
     
  6. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Your PS settings show you honor ProPhoto RGB so are you getting a profile mismatch from the exported (sRGB) images? If so, do they then match (as they should) at this point?
    In terms of that last image above, if you working with a non color managed browser (the only two being Safari or FireFox) OR looking at a gallery using an older version of Flash, they will not match.
     
  7. Yes the images with embedded profile of SRGB when open in Photoshop prompt a message so I can choose to whether I want to use the working space of ProPhoto or the embedded space which I choose to keep the embedded profile. I am using Safari to view and firefox which both look the same as above.
     
  8. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    But how are you viewing them in Safari? Again, any web gallery using a version of Flash older than 10 will not color manage the images.
     
  9. I have Flash 10.0.42
     
  10. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I have Flash 10.0.42​
    Yes but is the site where the images appear using it? What’s the URL?
     
  11. This is the page I am working on with the last image above, http://72.29.86.82/~ryan/index2.php#/rgallery/2/
     
  12. On your web gallery they all look the same to me, though I can see the difference in your screen shot above. I'm using Firefox 3.6.4 on MacOS 10.6.3.
     
  13. Looks as intended on my system using Safari 3.1.1, Flash 10.0.12.36-(®1996-2008) and Mac OS 10.4.11.
     
  14. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    On your web gallery they all look the same to me, though I can see the difference in your screen shot above.​
    The image on the URL supplied matches more closely what I see above in example 1&2 as than #3.
    Just open the JPEG in Safari (file open) and compare how they look in Photoshop and Lightroom. They should match. I suspect the disconnect here is the way the site is handling the images (again, a Flash issue or something along those lines),
     
  15. I take that back. On closer inspection there seems to be slight differences in red and cyan. See screenshot...
    I'm really beginning to hate Flash.
    Holy crap! My processor fans are whining and it takes forever for that gallery to download and display Ryan's images. I had to close the browser window displaying his gallery just so I can type this response. That's how resource intensive Flash player is. No wonder Apple didn't include it in iPad.
    00WKeb-239481584.jpg
     
  16. hmmm this is a head knocker, I have check every little thing with the color spaces I guess I will email to see what flash version is being used on the hosting for now, and by the way the last few images on where the image was placed a few times was the screen copy image the rest on there I was test increasing the vibrance beyond normal to see if I could find a pattern with the images.
     
  17. Ryan's top and first posted PN screenshots are png's that aren't converted to sRGB. I tried to get profile info using Apple's Colorsync scripts and got nothing and tried to extract the profile and got the "File Name Is Not Defined" dialog box.
    When I open the png image in CS3 I get "The file has an embedded profile...Monitor_4-15-10_1" dialog box and displays correctly and the same as it does in this thread.
    Screenshots should have their custom calibrated monitor profile embedded, not some generic one as indicated. What profile do you have selected as your system profile, Ryan? It shouldn't be a generic one.
     
  18. I guess there are too much color space conversions. Please try the following: in Lightroom invoke 'Edit in Photoshop' directly, this way you will have in Photoshop 16-bit image with original dimensions. Then do all required resizing/sharpening/editing stuff and after all done, convert the image to sRGB color space an into 8-bit RGB and 'Save As' jpeg file. Hope there will no difference between Lightroom, Photoshop and WEB.
     
  19. So emailed bludomain the host of the site, I know they have a rep but they respond very quickly to me, They told me they are using the last flash version, also told me to use the save for web feature. I sent them the 2 screen shots I cant wait for the reply.
     
  20. [​IMG][​IMG]Here is a screen shot with using the save to web feature. When using that I can see a major color loss in the preview. I do want to thank all posting. The png file is when I took the screen shot, saved to my desktop.
     
  21. What do you have as your system display profile?
     
  22. I see in your Save For Web screenshot you have... Preview:"Monitor Color" seen on the right in the drop down menu. Set it to "Document Color" and see what happens.
    Oh, and I'ld advise reducing the size of your images to around 150K ("High or Medium"in SFW) as viewed in the lower left hand corner of Save For Web before uploading here. Photo.net would like to keep images under 300K. Your images in this thread are around 1MB (read from Get Info on hard drive) and causing slow downloads here.
     
  23. So I set the Document Color under preview and this the screen shot it looks better.........[​IMG]
     
  24. System display is set to the calibration from when I used the eye-2 display that for the screen if that what your looking for?
     
  25. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    System display is set to the calibration from when I used the eye-2 display that for the screen if that what your looking for?​
    The display profile for your system is only used for previews within color managed applications and such app’s will automatically access and use it for previews. Don’t embed it into a doc or use Photoshop’s proof setup with that display profile. That’s not what you want to do (in Photoshop) at least in terms of setting the display profile for the document. Soft proofing with the display profile effectively makes Photoshop match a non color managed app. It may produce a match but its a wrong match. What Photoshop is showing you is correct. If you have the sRGB (or any working space) profile embedded, its previewing using that display profile to produce a proper preview of the RGB values. In Save for Web you should be embedding sRGB. And it may not match on the web (again, it depends on if the entire system handling your web images is fully color managed). IF you open the sRGB embedded doc in Safari by using File Open, it should match Photoshop. What happens when you then post the image to a site, running Flash or some other system is where you need to be looking at this preview disconnect.
     
  26. Using the file open under safari the image is the same as on photoshop..... I also added to flickr to check the color and does not have the desaturation of the website. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanlasek/4555447073/
     
  27. Is the name of your i1Display monitor profile "Monitor_4-15-10_1" as read from Display Preferences? What is the name of your system display profile as viewed in Display Preferences?
    Also you need to scroll up in the drop down menu of Color Setting's RGB Working Space in Photoshop and make sure that "Monitor RGB..." has the name you gave to the i1Display profile listed right after it. Does this say "Monitor_4-15-10_1"?
     
  28. Yes the monitor profile is _4-15-10_1, and under system preference>display>color its selected to "Monitor _4-15-10_1", under Color Setting in Photoshop > RGB is set to ProPhoto and scrolling up I do "Monitor _4-15-10_1"
     
  29. OK, then your color should be working just fine.
    A note about Save For Web, the Document Space will give the right preview as long as you keep converting your images to sRGB before exporting out of Lightroom as you've described here.
    A caveat about this type of workflow is if you ever decide to export out of Lightroom by not converting to sRGB and stay in ProPhotoRGB, when you launch SFW make sure you change to Windows Color Space instead of Document space because in SFW there is a "Convert To sRGB" setting in one of the drop down menu triangle icons. This needs to be selected if it isn't when in ProPhotoRGB or else it won't look correct on the web in nonCM browser. BUT if "Convert To sRGB" IS already selected Document Space will give an over saturated preview as if ASSIGNING ProPhotoRGB-(the original document space) to the sRGB converted data viewed in SFW's OPTIMIZED window pane.
    This is my workflow because it automatically reduces the file to 8 bit and converts to sRGB on the fly saving a lot of dialog boxes coming out of ACR making SFW pretty much a one step process as long as the settings are correct.
     
  30. Thanks for the quick response I felt so dumb with this all to find out I have a pretty good understanding of the color spaces. I have been thinking I have screwed something up so bad when the work flow and set up is just fine. I emailed a tech guy for bludomain which I using for the site, I asked him over and over about different things and he was talking about how I need to read up on color spaces and saving for the web. I told him all the info here SRGB and how the images are the same on photoshop and other site but not on website hosted by them. I asked about the Flash of the site and how that effects the images, and the reply was that many people host and do not have a problem so it has to be my setup. I then again respond and the reply is they cannot control FLASH and the Web. So its gotta be them and something I am just wondering if what the other people are doing to fix the problem.
     
  31. I think there's a bit of a misconception here about what colour profiles for monitors do - they do not ensure that you see the "correct" colours in some random, arbitrary sense, rather they ensure that, say, the colours you see in your monitor are the same as the colours appearing in some other device (i.e. printer or scanner). That is why you create a colour profile in your monitor - you don't create a colour profile so you see the colours "right" (or whatever).
    Second, I notice that you're jumping from one colour space to another - from AdobeRGB in camera to ProPhoto in Lightroom. You realise that this is not possible, right? ProPhoto is a larger colour space that AdobeRGB and you cannot expect the computer to somehow magically generate all those additional colours without some cost. It's good that you're shooting in the largest colour space your camera allows, but moving "up" to another colour space is useless. Also, you mention you export sRGB from LR - that is the most restrictive colour space and having the computer then interpolate in CS4 to reconvert to ProPhoto means even more problems. Guaranteed!
    Also, smart sharpen has a different effect when applied to a TIFF, a PSD and a JPEG image because, very simply, the pixels are arranged differently across the different formats. So, the same settings would produce different results across the same image in each of the three formats. And because smart sharpen also works on a micro-contrast level (in order to affect the "smart" part of the sharpening process), you may inadvertedly notice colour variations in JPEG images.
    Finally, each subsequent "save as JPEG" reduces both image quality (even if you set it at the highest image quality setting in CS4) and integrity and introduces, even if you never actively select it, colour adjustments to meet the lower compression standard. The various browsers afterwards are, in turn, rendering the colours they find in their own distinctive way - resulting in even larger discrepancies.
    If you want my humble opinion, stick with one image manipulation program - I'd go for LR as it can do everything you're doing with CS4 and then some - and one colour space right until the final export in sRGB for the web. Import, manipulate and then simply export directly through LR in sRGB, in the resolution you want and size you desire. That way you will have the best possible results.
    I hope this helped a bit.
     
  32. Thanks for the quick response I felt so dumb with this all to find out I have a pretty good understanding of the color spaces. I have been thinking I have screwed something up so bad when the work flow and set up is just fine. I emailed a tech guy for bludomain which I using for the site, I asked him over and over about different things and he was talking about how I need to read up on color spaces and saving for the web. I told him all the info here SRGB and how the images are the same on photoshop and other site but not on website hosted by them. I asked about the Flash of the site and how that effects the images, and the reply was that many people host and do not have a problem so it has to be my setup. I then again respond and the reply is they cannot control FLASH and the Web. So its gotta be them and something I am just wondering if what the other people are doing to fix the problem.
     
  33. I wish your response would help but it did not since I am aware of the color space changes. I am aware that CS4 is in Prophoto when opening the picture in CS4 I did not choose the working space color I left the image in the SRGB scheme. I have also try to load the image without sharpening and with sharpening same result.
     
  34. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I think there's a bit of a misconception here about what colour profiles for monitors do - they do not ensure that you see the "correct" colours in some random, arbitrary sense, rather they ensure that, say, the colours you see in your monitor are the same as the colours appearing in some other device (i.e. printer or scanner).​
    No, that’s not really what they do. They define the device behavior of the display. ICC aware applications then use the profile for previewing RGB values (or CMYK values converted to RGB values) based on this device behavior using an architecture called Display Using Monitor Compensation. Each display profile provides a unique tweak if you will, so that the same RGB values appear the same on dissimilar devices (that’s why we all have differing ICC display profiles). It takes TWO profiles for this to work; the display profile and the document profile. One profile by itself is like one hand clapping, it can’t do anything alone.
    Second, I notice that you're jumping from one colour space to another - from AdobeRGB in camera to ProPhoto in Lightroom.​
    He’s shooting raw so the camera setting is totally moot. There is no Adobe RGB camera color space in effect here.
    Also, you mention you export sRGB from LR - that is the most restrictive colour space and having the computer then interpolate in CS4 to reconvert to ProPhoto means even more problems.​
    True but at this point, all he wants to do is match what he see’s in Lightroom and Photoshop to a web preview. And he can export the same master image, that is in a ProPhoto variant into ProPhoto or any color space at any time. So for now, the issues are, why does the preview go south when he views the image on the web. Its pretty clear to me its the web host or something in how they are translating the sRGB image.
    So its gotta be them and something I am just wondering if what the other people are doing to fix the problem.​
    IF you get a match within Lightroom, Photoshop and opening directly into Photoshop (as an sRGB tagged image), then yes its them, no question.
     
  35. For whatever reason anytime I used the ProPhoto colorspace I got very de-saturated photos. I quit using it as I never could figure out the problem. I was using it in NX2, so not like you were, but it could be a clue.
     
  36. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    For whatever reason anytime I used the ProPhoto colorspace I got very de-saturated photos.​
    ONLY in applications that don’t understand color management. They have no idea the data is in ProPhoto, they have no idea of your display profile. They simply send the RGB values directly to the display, no Display Using Monitor Compensation as discussed above. In ICC aware app’s it looks fine (as it should).
     
  37. Thanks Andrew the whole color space issue is not the problem as you said you can set Lightroom, Photoshop to Prophoto and the camera to AdobeRGB largest color space. Shooting raw then imported in lightroom and export out in of lightroom as a srgb it can be worked on in photoshop if you have everything correctly setup up so that when you open a srgb embedded image in photoshop with the working space set as ProPhoto, you can select whether you want to work in the working space of prohoto or the embedded color space of the image that is being opened. I have been searching here I found one link that somewhat seems to be what happening here.
    http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00CMDi
    They do offer a html template which I might try to talk with them to change to hoping that it works but is just weird that so many use bludomain they must be doing something.
     
  38. It did not appear that the flash gallery was applying color management, even as viewed with Flash Player 10.
    I do not know if the fault lies with the author of the flash file for overriding the default or with somebody else for defaulting color correction support to off.
    The flash file could force color correction if it contained the line:
    stage.colorCorrection = ColorCorrection.ON;
    This link shows an example of working flash color management, near the bottom.
    http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/quickstart/color_correction_as3/
    For me, only "on" applies color correction. "Off" and "default" do not.
    I asked about the Flash of the site and how that effects the images, and the reply was that many people host and do not have a problem so it has to be my setup.​
    I suspect that most people have monitors much closer to sRGB and therefore cannot tell the difference. (I couldn't tell just by looking at it, and had to set my monitor profile to ProPhoto as a test)
     
  39. Well I will keep posting updates since I am sure this will come up again and I hope this is a good lesson in the future. I have been been passed through to some real tech guys on bludomain, they asked to see the image shots from the original and the image on the site. I also noticed that when I am on the admin page and uploading to the gallery there, on that admin page; matching the image side by side with photoshop color is spot. But when your viewing it as a webpage that's when the color problem comes in so we no where this is going I just hope they can track it down and fix the problem once again I wonder all the people that have not really crossed checked their images. I do notice a lot of photographers apply those lightroom typical cookie cutter preset so I tested them with bludomain and found that there is very very very small change to the good eye when use those presets.
     
  40. New Update on a email that I got from support:
    "we do export for the latest flash player however in order for color management to work the flash movie needs to be coded in ActionScript 3. our sites are coded in AS2 and recoding them would mean going through every line of code since unfortunately AS3 is very different."
     
  41. FWIW, I host with bludomain with two different domains and two different templates, and have always had similar desaturation issues on both sites. (Sofie and Freddy templates) I emailed examples of screenshots and everything. You got a lot farther with tech support than I ever did. This the first time I've ever heard any sort of techinical explanation from them.

    Basically, it sounds like we just have to live with it. Or create a web-only version of images and proofs that are hyper-saturated in order to compensate.

    I'd love to hear if there are any further updates.
     
  42. Interesting to know who engineered ActionScript 3 in Flash encoding and why they didn't make it backward compatible to prevent website adiministators from having to go through every line of code to get it work. And I hope that tech guy really is for sure certain this is the issue seeing how complicated this stuff has become.
    Couldn't the user create their own Flash slideshow gallery that's AS 3 encoded and upload it to the site? Don't know. I'm not a programmer.
    I just can't understand why Flash technology has so many issues just running a slideshow over the web.
    My "Image Pro" gallery provided by Photo.Net runs a Flash slideshow and I don't have any problems with and the color is spot on. At least I think the color looks OK. I may have to re-check going by the subtle differences seen in Ryan's gallery. But regardless, downloads and running of my gallery is pretty quick unlike Ryan's.
    Ryan, what file size (as read from Get Info off the hard drive) are your slideshow gallery images reduced to before preparing to upload to your host site? You know you don't have to reduce the dimensions, just the compression in Save For Web set at maybe 50 Compression will get it down pretty small. SFW will show in the preview any compression artifacts including color changes, which can happen, viewed at 100%, the zoom level of most browsers. SFW does a much better job at this over regular "Save As..." jpeg.
    I've gotten many 700 pixel on the long end images compressed below 200K (as read from Get Info) without much of a noticeable change. Sorry to drift off topic on this.
     
  43. My "Image Pro" gallery provided by Photo.Net runs a Flash slideshow and I don't have any problems with and the color is spot on. At least I think the color looks OK. I may have to re-check going by the subtle differences seen in Ryan's gallery.​
    I checked, and neither
    http://imagepro.photography.com/Tim_Lookingbill
    nor
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=734063
    are using color correction for me. I'm running Windows 7, Firefox 3.6 and Flash 10.
    Of the five web browsers I have installed, only Firefox is even color correcting http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=734063, since Safari will not color correct images which are not tagged with a color profile.
     
  44. So the newest update, sent a email with the same image above saved as jpeg. The goal was for them to compare the original and the image loaded on the site. They created a gallery called "Test" and said side by side it looks fine. So I check it out and garbage! No changes still desaturated, I ask them what it would take to get bludomain color managed for the use of FLASH. We will see the reply, I am not going to back down on this when you pay for a service you expect the good quality. I know they are probably going to come back with a typical we are not going rebuild the codes to have the current templates color managed. What I am thinking of, if this can not get worked out is try to switch to the HTML template they have hoping that doesn't have any issues with it. I bet all the new templates they build will have the proper action script 3 for color!
     
  45. Oh bye the way I would suggest all bludomain user to email them and share your story since this is not just once issue!
    zahari@blusupport.com
     
  46. Another email was sent to me saying how they do not see any differences, and sent me a screen shot I am getting so fed up with this.
     
  47. They should not see any differences unless they are both using color management and their monitor profile is significantly different from sRGB.
    The problem is that the Flash gallery is not changing the image.
    Here are two screenshots, each of the flash gallery and this forum page. The first one is with an sRGB monitor profile. The second is with a ProPhoto monitor profile (not ever a good idea, but it makes the difference easy to see).
    With the sRGB monitor profile, both images have identical colors, since the Flash gallery is uncorrected and the color correction does nothing to the forum page either.
    With the ProPhoto monitor profile, the Flash gallery does not change, but the forum page changes because Firefox now thinks the monitor has extremely saturated primary colors. Since that isn't true, the image on the right looks wrong.
    The simplest solution would be to switch from a Flash gallery to an HTML gallery (and make sure to tag the images as sRGB). Of course, if I were in the business of providing Flash based slideshows, like BluDomain or Photo.net, I would already be porting my Flash code to ActionScript 3.
    00WNNY-241003584.jpg
     
  48. One photo per post, I guess.
    00WNNZ-241003684.jpg
     
  49. New update, Got emailed again. I sent them another screen shot comparing the actual and the image on the site. They came back saying they checked my screen shot on 5 monitors and do not see the difference. Also, stated that my monitor must not be correct. If they are seeing it right then clients will also see it right. Thousands of photographers use them and no one has contacted them on this issue. Being that its me thats wrong not them they say. After they said they are not using action script 3 for flash which is color managed, its my fault. I see the same difference in color on monitors not calibrated. There is no way in heck that the screen shot I sent shows the same color on their monitor they have to be color blind this is a lost cause!
     
  50. BluDomain does not appear to understand the problem. Their monitors are likely not profiled, and likely similar to sRGB even if they are profiled, so there will be no way for them to see the problem just by looking at their monitors. Instead they would need to run a test with a different monitor profile and compare the flash gallery against other software known to be color managed, for example, Photoshop.
    Your monitor profile does appear to have unusually desaturated primary colors, but the entire point of color management is to correct for any primary colors. You might try double checking that your monitor profile really is correct, but that is a completely unrelated issue.
    Since the best solution would be color managed Flash and they see too little demand to make that worthwhile to them, your next best option would be to use HTML instead of Flash (actually some people might argue that HTML is a better choice for an image gallery than Flash anyway).
     
  51. Thats what I have been thinking is to just switch to HTML, I have talked with them again about switching. Looks like they are in currently making html templates for the each flash page they have. The one thing that is weird about the whole thing. Comparing the actual image, the image on flickr, on another site, and then on bludomain with my current mac which is calibrated with EYE-ONE I only see the difference on the lack on the bludomain site. I went to the public library to check the color on a normal computer comparing the same sites side by side with flickr and bludomain there does not seem to be any change. If anyone has the eye one display, maybe I could be doing something wrong but I thought I was setting up correct.
     
  52. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Their monitors are likely not profiled, and likely similar to sRGB even if they are profiled, so there will be no way for them to see the problem just by looking at their monitors.​
    Agreed. They are blowing smoke up the OP’s behind and dodging the issue. Their site isn’t honoring the embedded profile or working with ICC aware browsers.
     
  53. "Looks like they are in currently making html templates for the each flash page they have"​
    Not to derail the thread, but where did you hear about this and what details do you have? will those run along side templates that are already live? like livebooks site do?
    Thanks
     
  54. Ummm support told me this, All I was told was that right now they are currently making HTML versions to templates they have now. Should see them popping up with in the month, So for example I use oscar Flash soon you will be able to select oscar flash or oscar html when you first buy the template. They only have one site now that is html think its betsy
     
  55. If anyone has the eye one display, maybe I could be doing something wrong but I thought I was setting up correct.​
    The fact that the colors are different between Flash and Photoshop means that the color profile is working correctly. Also, from what I read about MacBooks their display gamut tends to be fairly small, so your display profile seems to make sense.
     
  56. So when I just check with another monitor that has not been calibrated the images are fine. Is it true to say that when I edit the image, using my calibrated mac in photoshop the colors are correct? and since they are not using the color management in the flash gallery the image will look very different on my monitor. Those who are not using calibrated monitors such as clients will see the correct color on the flash site? Because like I said the library computer and a computer at another location did not show the desaturation. In the long run I will be the first to switch to HTML when it come out for the template I am using.
     
  57. Using Photoshop on your profiled monitor the colors should be correct, yes.
    People not using profiled monitors will see the same colors on the flash site as they see in any other software. Since their monitor is not profiled, the colors may be correct or they may not, depending on the monitor.
     

Share This Page

1111