Help me with Photoshop Save for Web color issues.

[d2]

Greg - I know this post is really old now, but I was having this same problem and have an interesting test result to share with you and the others. I've been working with Photoshop for a long, long time and have been a web designer since about 1995! I always just assumed that JPEG images saved out of PS for the web were just duller and that there wasn't much I could do about it. Until... I bought iView MediaPro and began using it to generate HTML galleries. Even then, I didn't notice right anything right away. But this morning, I saved a few images right out of Photoshop using SfW that were destined for the home page of one of my sites. Those images were then linked into the gallery version created with iView. Go to the following site, check out either of the last two images and then click on them. Wow! iView seems to be doing a much better job. After that, check out the comparison page I created to.

 

http://www.chmoor.com/

 

http://www.chmoor.com/webcolor.html

 

There's a file size difference, but for something like photography or art where rich colors are important, I think I'll take the bigger file. I messed around in Photoshop quite a bit, and no matter what I did, the images are always duller in my browser. I don't know why iView does a better job, but they do.

 

Your thoughts?

Bob Delaney

[d2]

An update to my previous post. I realized I will want to fix the images on the home page so they are more saturated - so you may not see the difference on that first link suggestion. But the second link - the comparison page, I will leave up for the forseeable future. Thanks.

 

Bob

[greglyon]

Thanks for the post, Bob. I have never satisfied myself completely with these profile issues in Photoshop, so maybe it really is another program that's needed to solve the issue...

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Have you scrolled through the upper right triangle dropdown

menu next to the top of the preview window in SFW to see what

the document space or other profile assigns the preview is set

to?

 

Many overlook this small little detail. This is assuming the image

is actually in AdobeRGB or what ever space the RGB numbers in

the file are written to at the moment of capture or editing.

[greglyon]

Tim, yes I've done that. As I understand it, doing so only applies to the preview, though, and not to the file once it is saved. It would be great if the saved file looked like the preview did when set to the correct setting!

[d2]

Greg & Tim - what Greg says is my understanding as well and confirmed by my tests. Whatever I pick off that preview menu, the JPEG is still washed out in my browser. I've tried everything - converting to sRGB first, etc, etc, and the JPEG is always washed out. Yet going through iView MediaPro using "Convert Images", I get a nicely saturated image that closely matches the original PSD which iView is using to make the conversion. And there are very few settings to even mess with in iView - they just do it right. I am a big Photoshop fan and will certainly always be - but it is possible that they could just be doing something wrong here! I know it's hard to image they could mess up something as simple as saving out a JPEG, but the fact is iView just gets it right with "out of the box" settings. Even if I'm missing some small detail in a setting somewhere (which I doubt), fact is the process should not be so delicate or fragile. So my plan is to stop worrying about it. I'll use Photoshop to color correct PSD's any just about anything else I need to do - but when it's time for a web image, I will just use iView to convert the image. One other thing here... I'm pretty sure iView is using QuickTime to convert the images. Not sure why that matters, but that must be the difference.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Not to be argumentative, but what's been described here doesn't

make sense and isn't widespread among the millions of

Photoshop users and web designers.

 

You shouldn't require a third party software to do what millions

including myself have no problems with. It sounds like either a

bad display calibration session/corrupt monitor profile issue that

affects the original preview during capture, view and/ or editing of

said image or something isn't selected correctly within the

display control panel or loaded within the system for Photoshop

to access.

 

The source of when the image was first viewed can be affected

by a monitor profile. How do you know if the image is suppose to

look washed out or not. What was the first viewer software that

told you what you were seeing was correct?

 

If from a digital camera, just because you're told the data is

written to AdobeRGB or sRGB doesn't always mean it's so. The

image can get stripped of its EXIF data or the camera software

could write the data to a certain color space but afix a default

name of sRGB or AdobeRGB when it's not like with certain Nikon

software.

 

But I know you're probably tired of fighting this so I guess just go

with what works.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I'm sorry, I'm an idiot, that's what I get for not reading an entire

thread. This is a Safari/sRGB space issue. D-oh!

 

Forget my previous ranting. I know what this is about. It's a Safari

issue with how it previews tagged images through it's color

management settings. You have to check Colorsync Control

Panel settings which Safari references. It may be set to the

monitor space or some other 1.8 gamma display profile or CM

could be turned off all together in Safari.

 

Or something like that. I don't have Safari so I'm not that familiar

with it. This has been discussed on the web before.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

I just duplicated the Safari effect seen in one of the screeshots

posted in this thread in Photoshop to show it's a profile

assigning issue within Safari:

[d2]

Tim - thanks for your input on this and your experiments. No worry about coming across argumentive, I didn't take it that way at all. Basically I was not fully understanding things and out of frustration was suggesting that Photoshop could just be handling something wrong. I'm a long-time PS user and as big a fan as anyone. But before I move on to my new take on this, I also want to say that for me and for Greg (the original poster), the issue wasn't anything to do with Safari specifically. A couple of other participants turned the post into that for quite some time - not that there was anything wrong with that, heck they even realized it and apologized at one point in the thread. But it's fine, that was productive evolution I think.

 

So after letting this soak in more, doing a bit more reading and experimenting, I think I might be seeing the light! I still stand by the fact that iView MediaPro is pretty cool in the sense that it's taking my PSD file that uses Adobe RGB and is color corrected for output on my Epson R800 (which I'm using for archival quality print and am extremely impressed with by the way), and it's converting it to a smaller JPEG for the web and matching what my image looks like in Photoshop quite nicely - and with very little in the way of options or choices to be made.

 

However, I now realize this is a case of Photoshop being SOOO powerful as to be giving FULL control over the image - how it appears on screen, in print, etc, by using different color spaces and/or profiles. While impressive, it's also a bit overwhelming. But the key is that because Photoshop gives you full control, it will not make any assumptions for you when saving for the web - meaning it won't shift the actual pixels. I now think that iView (or the QuickTime converter being used) is smart enough to know that it will need to compensate for loss of saturation and it is correcting the actual pixels when I convert the image. This is confirmed by opening the resulting JPEG in Photoshop to find that it had actually become MORE saturated that my original PSD was! So the key in Photoshop, as mentioned early in this thread, is the 'proof setup' under the View menu. Mine was set to 'Working CMYK'. When I changed it to 'monitor RGB', I found myself looking at the same saturation level in PS that I was ending up with after using Save for Web. At Photoshop's own recommendation in their help docs, if you want to save for web and are seeing a loss of saturation, they say to save a copy of the file, convert to sRGB, change your proof setup to monitor rgb, make the tonal corrections, and save. This is very powerful now that I understand it better. But the funny thing is still that rather than go through all that, iView seems to be doing basically the same thing for me behind the scene without giving me the power or options along the way. They must have decided to keep that function simple knowing that their users are mostly photographers and that if they're converting to JPEG, it's most often because they are posting images to the web. So they are probably increasing the saturation automatically when converting - the way you'd have to do yourself in Photoshop to compensate for the ultimate display of the image in a browser that can't read profiles.

 

Yikes, what post! It's been a learning experience for me and I thank all the partipants for helping.

 

Bob

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Bob,

 

From reading your last post I can see how Photoshop has truly

confused with all it's embedded CM tools. I wasn't aware about

Soft Proof being set to CMYK in the previous postings. CMYK

shows a preview if you CONVERTED your AdobeRGB image to

that space while MonitorRGB shows if you ASSIGNED your

monitor profile to your AdobeRGB image which would go dull. It

wouldn't change much if you previously converted to sRGB which

is close to most monitor profiles.

 

"Photoshop...will not make any assumptions for you when

saving for the web - meaning it won't shift the actual pixels."

 

True, SFW only changes the preview by assigning whatever is

selected in the preview settings in the upper right dropdown

triangle menu. Pixels stay the same even on a save.

 

..."I now think that iView (or the QuickTime converter being used)

is smart enough to know that it will need to compensate for loss

of saturation and it is correcting the actual pixels when I convert

the image. This is confirmed by opening the resulting JPEG in

Photoshop to find that it had actually become MORE saturated

that my original PSD was!"...

 

If iView is converting the AdobeRGB JPEG=changing the RGB

numbers to make them more saturated for monitor/web view, is

it leaving the profile tag in place or is it stripped when reopened

in Photoshop? If stripped, Photoshop will ASSIGN=(change the

preview only), its working space=AdobeRGB? by default or

whatever you have your RGB working space set to in Color

Settings. You should get a dialog box that prompts you to choose

which working space upon opening.

 

To confirm take the original AdobeRGB file and the converted

iView JPEG and compare the RGB numbers using the info

palette in Photoshop. If a conversion in iView really took place

the numbers will be different. Example 190,45,45 AdobeRGB red

will convert to 222,42,42 sRGB, an increase in saturation.

 

"At Photoshop's own recommendation in their help docs, if you

want to save for web and are seeing a loss of saturation, they

say to save a copy of the file, convert to sRGB, change your proof

setup to monitor rgb, make the tonal corrections, and save."

 

Converting to sRGB is all that's required. Further edits are

unnecessary. And using MonitorRGB preview to edit with will only

create another file you'll have to manage that will only look

correct on your own monitor. Changes in previews after

converting to sRGB and turning on MonitorRGB should be hardly

noticeable unless your custom monitor profile was made with a

1.8 gamma correction curve. If so, the image would lighten from

its 2.2 gamma sRGB color space.

 

I don't know what iView does but IMO you're adding confusion on

top of confusion in terms of establishing a simplified workflow

dealing with one apps version of color against Photoshop's

where a chicken or egg source issue is bound to create more

problems.

 

Keep two things in mind about color management and profiles:

 

Preview and data.

 

Previews can be manipulated by the video card and image

editing tools. The tools can also change the data in the file.

 

Photoshop uses CM profile tags to manipulate the video card,

not the data, to show what the data REALLY means so your edits

will be shown to the next device converted to as intended. You

strip the profile, the video card can't be manipulated and the

meaning-(preview) of the edits or what a digicam or other device

captured are lost.

 

Assigning a profile changes the video card only, not the data, i.e.

MonitorRGB in Soft Proof is a simulated assign effect without

actually assigning a profile. Leave it on and perform edits-you've

just changed the meaning of the data without retaining the profile

since it's only a temporary simulation. Too confusing. Don't use

it.

 

Converting changes the data but retains the original

manipulation of the video card defined by the source profile tag

converted from. Strip this tag, video manipulation is lost.

 

Converting to sRGB numbers represents the majority of display

monitors on the market so the video card won't need

manipulating. All monitors are slightly different so editing with

this preview is a waste of time.

 

I hope I haven't further confused the issue.

[kori_b]

I have had the same problem for a few weeks now. Very frustrated, I have googled and googled and googled. Just now, I found a page (http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bc105eb) that said to make sure my gamma was set to 2.2 I just changed it to that and it seems to be working like it used to. I honestly dont know if this is really a fix or perhaps some kind of fluke or ... well, i dont know. I just hope it continues to work properly.

[kori_b]

UGH. NO! It didn't fix it. NOW, my images are coming out DARKER than in PS

 

GRRR

[adamholtrop]

<p>amazing to see this post going back to 2006<br>

a few years later i finally found this discussion, and even though i feel like a color specialist after reading it, i dont think it's been solved in any 'easy' way?<br>

my solution is to hit Apple Y on my mac, see the vomit inducing desaturated image shown in Monitor RGB proof, tweak vibrance/saturance/levels/curves until the cows come home. upload to a test directory on my website, view the image on TWO other computers on either side of my work machine, then adjust my original image in photoshop somewhere inbetween. and repeat the test process until it looks good on all screens. +- 30 minutes work on each image.<br>

i've boiled my blood over this for so long i dont even expect an answer, just hoping someone out there is doing the same thing and smiles at the idoicricy of it all</p>

[azucena_de_verde]

<p>Yes, today there is no a satisfactory answer.<br>

Well, here you have an explanation that may be useful to somebody: <a href="http://tonysleep.co.uk/blog/the-photoshop-srgb-mystery">http://tonysleep.co.uk/blog/the-photoshop-srgb-mystery</a><br>

This endless colour issue just sucks. I think all the problems come with Photoshop. The Colour MAnagement Chapter in Photoshop Help is OK in theory but It just doesn´t work in practice. I am sure Photoshop (CS4 in my case) is doing something wrong with the monitor profile.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks for the HREF to the Tony Sleep article, Azucena! It is hard to believe that a $1000 piece of software could get the basics so wrong.

[dan_siney]

<p>Seeing as this post is half a decade old and I'm suddenly struck with the same dilemma I thought I'd sign up and see if anyone is still out there. I've picked through about half the posts and they've been educational, but I'm still stuck. My own situation is similar, except for a few bizarre complications. I'm hoping I'm just not savvy enough to be picking up on some simple problems concerning color spaces and management. Here's what I'm doing:<br>

- When my image is resized and sharpened I "convert to profile" from argb to srgb. The image looks good after the conversion.<br>

- I save for web.<br>

- I upload the image to my website and it looks desaturated.<br>

To further complicate things, when I reopen the SFW version of my image to PS it does not ask me how I want to color manage, and the image is suddenly OVER saturated. When I reopen the pre-SFW argb version it looks correct. I tried saving and reopening an srgb (not SFW) version. If I choose to "use the embeded profile" or "convert... to working space" they look the same, but if I "discard embeded/... don't color manage" it has the same kind of over saturation I'm getting when reopening my SFW versions. <br>

This is especially confusing because it means I don't know what my SFW versions even look like, since they close automatically when saved. Of note however, in the SFW window: 2up: both images look desaturated.<br>

I am using a mac and running CS2. If anyone has any updates or suggestions I would be very grateful, as I am utterly lost. Thank you, and thanks to all the previous contributors too...</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>1. Have you hardware calibrated/profiled your display? A must now due to varying hue/saturation characteristics among a wide range of LCD models.</p>

<p>2. Is the new custom display profile that has a unique name you gave it show up in "Monitor RGB-XXX" found by scrolling up within the RGB Working Space menu in Photoshop's Color Settings dialog box? The XXX should read the name of your custom display profile.</p>

<p>3. Set Color Settings top dropdown menu to US Prepress v2 and click OK to confirm the new settings by exiting out of Color Settings. What this new setting does is turn on all embedded profile prompts when opening images.</p>

<p>4. After that open a new <strong>unedited</strong><strong> jpg</strong> image containing a lot of various colors (no snow scenes) from your camera and make sure it has an embedded profile. If it was shot with incamera settings color space set to AdobeRGB (and you know this for sure) it should open without a dialog box prompt. And if this is the case the preview should look as intended=(not over or under saturated). If you shot the image with incamera settings set to sRGB then you should get a dialog box when opening in PS and its preview should look as intended also.</p>

<p>5. Make sure in SFW the ICC Profile check box has a check and you are viewing in the Optimize window pane, not the one that says Original.</p>

[dan_siney]

<p>Hi Tim, thanks very much for your response. I've never submitted to one of these things before and I'm sort of astounded somemone wrote back. Your advice seems to have done the trick for the most part - so I am much obliged -- but I don't quite understand how: </p>

<p>- I'm shooting 35mm negative film and scanning. The color profile the Nikon software applies is "Nikon Apple RGB 4.0.0.3000" If I convert or use the embedded profile the result is very similar.</p>

<p>- When I open one of my first SFW attempts now I'm prompted to color manage. "Leave as is" (this is the default option) and "Assign working RGB" both give me over-saturated images. If I choose "Assign profile" and select SRGB (since that's what I saved it in) it looks fine.<br>

>><strong>Why was I not being asked to color manage before, since the SFW file should be out of sync with the working space? And Why do I now have to assign the file a color profile if I converted and saved it as SRGB?</strong></p>

<p>- I made a new SFW file, ticking the ICC box (what is this?) and viewing in the optimized window. The image still looks desaturated in the window, but when reopened selecting "Use embedded..." looks fine. (Very slightly but perceptibly off; cooler and maybe more saturated. Color sampling confirms this.) I uploaded this image to the web and the web image is almost exactly the same again. Only very slightly different. So for the most part, problem solved!<br>

>><strong>Why, since my first SFW files and my new ones are ostensibly the same when opened in SRGB, do they look different from each other when uploaded to the web? And why when opened do they prompt two completely different color management windows if they're both SRGB? Is this the doing of the ICC box?</strong></p>

<p>I have been having similar troubles over the last year. I will reopen an old file I had spent a long time color correcting in the working space - and which I would have saved and reopened several times in the process - and suddenly it will be over saturated. Only choosing "Discard embedded..." changes that, but I can't be sure if what I'm looking at then is the same as how I originally saved it. How am I supposed to know what my images look like if they are constantly changing on me like this? I get paranoid that I'm loosing hours of work and that the files I send away to people/magazines are mutating into whatever they want.</p>

<p>I noticed in the color settings window there is an icon in the top left of a fractured color wheel/target and a warning that says "Unsynchronized. Your Creative Suite applications are not synchronized for consistent color." Could this be the culprit? I do bring images in from Bridge. Could there also be complications when using iPhoto? I use that application quite a bit for squencing and often drag a file into PS directly from there.</p>

<p>I realize this is a lot of information but I thought I'd throw it out there. I think this has solved my immediate problems, so thanks again for your help. If you do have any further wisdom to share it would be much appreciated.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The color profile the Nikon software applies is "Nikon Apple RGB 4.0.0.3000" If I convert or use the embedded profile the result is very similar.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon scan software complicates things. We'll have to take this one step at a time to sort this out. I can't answer all of your questions until we nail down how Nikon scans are color managed.</p>

<p>I'll have to assume the "Nikon Apple RGB" profile is the output space in the scan software and if it is then when you open that scan in Photoshop you should get the dialog box prompt saying...</p>

<p>"The document has an embedded profile that doesn't match your RGB Working Space... Embedded: "Nikon Apple RGB". If it doesn't say "Nikon Apple RGB" you have a problem. If it does, then you should make sure the first button that says..."Use the embedded profile" is selected and open the image.</p>

<p>If the preview doesn't match what you saw in Nikon Scan, then again you have a problem with Nikon Scan color management setup and you need to fix that first by reading up on how it deals with color managed previews. All of your edits performed in that software may be bogus.</p>

<p>An alternative fix that involves the least amount of editing is to force a Nikon scan preview match in CS2 by <strong>assigning</strong> a profile of choice in CS2 (after opening and retaining the embedded profile shown in the prompt dialog box) that gives you a match and convert to your output for web space (sRGB) and then open in SFW or convert to your Working Space of choice for further editing.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with Nikon software. Once you sort that out then everything else will work fine in CS2 and SFW.</p>

[dan_siney]

<p>Thanks again Tim.</p>

<p>The dialogue box is as you describe it should be when I opened a file in CS2. I do all my scans with no adjustment either during the scan or afterwards and I have never had a problem with color shifts when opening a new Nikon file into CS2. Also as I mentioned the difference between the Nikon space and ARGB 1998 is only a very slight shift in hue. </p>

<p>Since making the changes to color settings there is a new dialogue box concerning color profiles. The new one says "The document XXX does not have an embedded RGB profile" -- as opposed to the one I'm used to getting, which says, "The document has an embedded profile that doesn't match your RGB Working Space... Embedded: "Nikon Apple RGB...") I am getting one or the other depending on the file; but for what reason I don't understand. I have tried opening various files and it appears to be totally random as to whether it recognizes the Nikon color space.</p>

<p>I also tried opening a few versions of an image (saved as tiff's, jpg's, worked on and not) that have been acting erratic. I discovered that if I choose to "assign profile: Nikon RGB..." or "discard the embeded profile (don't color manage)" (depending on the dialogue box) they come out looking the way they should. This seems inconsistent also.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Since making the changes to color settings there is a new dialogue box concerning color profiles. The new one says "The document XXX does not have an embedded RGB profile" -- as opposed to the one I'm used to getting, which says, "The document has an embedded profile that doesn't match your RGB Working Space... Embedded: "Nikon Apple RGB...")</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This means that Nikon scan software is not embedding your output profile (Nikon Apple RGB) after saving the image to disk. You now must assign this profile after you open in CS2 which should show up in the "Assign Profile" dialog box accessed in CS2's "Edit" menu. </p>

<p>Again, when you do this you should get a preview that matches in both Nikon Scan and CS2. If not a match, then you need to sort out Nikon Scan software color management policies. Nikon Scan could be using the wrong custom calibrated monitor profile that CS2 uses to generate your previews and/or you have something turned on/off in Nikon Scan software.</p>

<p>You need to confirm all of this before we continue.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I also tried opening a few versions of an image (saved as tiff's, jpg's, worked on and not) that have been acting erratic. I discovered that if I choose to "assign profile: Nikon RGB..." or "discard the embeded profile (don't color manage)" (depending on the dialogue box) they come out looking the way they should. This seems inconsistent also.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's first confirm color matches with newly scanned unedited images from Nikon Scan matching CS2 previews under the new Color Settings fix and making sure embedded scan profiles are being honored/detected in CS2. It's the only way to fix this.</p>

<p>What you just said above indicates you've been working/editing in a botched color managed workflow setup and unfortunately to fix this you're going to have to re-edit or rescan some images.</p>