sRGB *still* looks washed out on web

[jesse_whittle_utter]

Hello,

 

I know the question of how best to prepare files for the web has been reiterated

and answered countless times, and I did my due diligence by searching the

boards, HOWEVER...

 

When I convert my files (RAW format, shot in adobe 1998 RGB)to Jpegs and convert

their color profiles to sRGB (using the batch Image Processor in PS3), and then

post them on the web, they *still* look *significantly* more washed out than

they do when viewed either in Adobe Bridge, Photoshop, or even the plain old Mac

Preview application. (Of course, any pics with the Adobe RGB profile look even

worse.)

 

I know for a fact that web browsers do not doom photographs to visual dullness -

I see rich colors in photos posted on Flickr, on blogs, and on this site. So

why can't I get my pics, which start out with dazzlingly vibrant colors, to

retain them on the web?

 

(I'm using a MacBook Pro, Mac OSX 10.4, Firefox Browser, Adobe PS3 and Bridge,

and shoot with either a Nikon D200 in RAW, Adobe RGB format or a Sony Cybershot

in JPegs, sRGB format).

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated - I just can't seem to figure this out.

Thanks,

[emre]

Use Safari or upgrade Firefox to 3.0. No color management support, no nice colors. How do you know that those "rich colored" pictures are not dull in comparison with their originals?

[jesse_whittle_utter]

Thanks - I'll try that. Though I'm pretty sure I recently updated Firefox and am working with the latest version.

 

While it's true that I can't know for sure whether the vibrant pics I'm seeing on the web are dull relative to their originals, it seems unlikely - given what I'm seeing, the originals would have to be oversaturated, florid and ugly in order to produce such a good "washed out" web version.

 

Or, to put it another way, I can't conceive of a way that my pics could start out any stronger when it comes to color...

[rffffffff]

sometimes the background matters a lot...

try "digitally matting" your pictures with a big black border, or present them on a black screen instead of white.

 

If you are posting them on a white background currently, that may help.

[eric friedemann]

Particularly when I'm using the "Save For Web" pshop feature, I'll add some saturation to a color image- usually +20. When you take a 15+ megabyte RAW file, knock it down to a few hundred pixels by a few hundrew pixels and a fraction of a megabyte, then further reduce the file size for emailing or quick web loading, the color may wash out a bit.

[emre]

Firefox 3.0 is in beta right now, so you probably are not using it. I upgraded to beta 5 and it is stable enough for daily use. You also have to remember to embed your pictures with an ICC profile.

 

A lack of color management does not strictly mean the colors will lose saturation, but they will lose accuracy.

[jacopo_brembati]

Post an image, so everyone can report.

 

Jacopo

[jesse_whittle_utter]

Thanks everyone. I've looked at the pictures I posted from a few different computers/browsers, and on some of them they look ok. I guess that with the web you only have so much control over what others perceive...

[ronald_moravec1]

I never use save for web, Just resize, make 100 ppi, sharpen, and save.

[digitaldog]

Note that while I'd agree you should use one of the ONLY two ICC aware web browsers (Safari

or the beta of FireFox), Flash is NOT color managed. If you build a web gallery in Flash, even

in such browsers, the images may not match.

[michael_darnton1]

It's not what browser YOU use, unless you only care how the pictures look to you, only. You have to do something for the multitudes of people who aren't going to follow your rules to look at your pictures, because they really don't care about what you're going to tell them to do. I finally centered on using "save for web" as being the most successful way for my photos to appear on multiple browsers in different systems with the minimum of surprises.

 

There are a whole lot of people out there who, when they see "looks best on" will figure you're too high maintenance for them to bother with, and will just move on to the next site, and a whole lot of people out there in the real world feel the same about Flash as well.

[joshua daniels]

You need to tag the JPEG with sRGB. Many times, people leave the file tagged with Adobe 1998, which looks washed out on the web.

[tom_myler]

I agree with Michael Darnton -- you must do something for the multitudes of people

who are going to be using whatever browser they use, period. Most people use IE

and it's not color-managed. I have been struggling with this whole situation for a few

weeks and here's what I'm settling on:

 

Saving from Photoshop with Color Management TURNED OFF. This means no

attached or embedded color profile, period. The image will look the same from a

color managed browser (like Safari or Firefox 3 Beta) or a non-color-managed

browser (like Firefox 2 or IE).

 

I know this goes AGAINST THE GRAIN -- most people say to embed a color profile.

To me, though, this just ensures that your photo will look different in different

browsers. And like someone else mentioned, Flash does not respect any color

profiles. So, if you use Flickr, the slideshows -- even if played in a color-managed

browser -- will ignore the color profile.

 

I notice that a fair number of photographers on Flickr post their excellent photos

WITHOUT embedded color profiles.

 

Thoughts?