Help please with Photoshop vs. Windows colours

[C Wills]

--But the O.P. Andrew was asking about export to the web, and the
un-colormanaged browser still rules the land as of today.

Yes it does and that is why if someone is not already working in srgb throughout the whole post-processing process, they should Convert to srgb prior to uploading to the web. I totally agree with that and do that myself.

The examples in my 2nd post were for demonstration purposes only to show what can happen if you don't also embed the profile into the image. It's just something to be aware of.

As you know, people post photos in the Retouch forum all the time asking for people to work on them. Some know to convert to srgb first (or it's already in srgb per their workflow), others don't know and they upload Argb images and I have even seen one uploaded with Prophoto profile embedded.

If the image has the profile embedded atleast you can open it in PS and see what they intended for you to see, and go from there. If they do not embed the profile and you open it in PS, you have to guess what color space the image is in and if you guess wrong, the examples show what happens.

What if half the web is using a color managed browser, and half not, what will you do? I will still be trying to put out pictures that look good on everyone's monitor.

• I will keep my own monitor calibrated.
• I will Convert to srgb prior to uploading to the web and will embed the profile into the image.

I am not aware of anything else beyond these two things that I can do to make my images look better on someone elses monitor? I have no control over that end of things.

Are you saying that if I leave the profile off the image, then others will see my images more accurately? Or is that a work around for the op to try to get his own monitor to view the image the same in Window Viewer as PS?

I, personally, view my own images in a CM program (Lightroom) and I use a CM browser to view images on the web. Therefore, I don't know how others will see your images, but atleast I should be seeing your photos the way you intend for me to see them.

--
Chandra

 

[Patrick_C]

Andrew -

When you soft proof to monitor space, you're showing what the image will look like on YOUR monitor in an un-aware application.

With your working space in Photoshop set to sRGB, open a tagged sRGB file, then soft proof to monitor space, if that looks the same as when you preview the same file in one of your un-aware apps, you're seeing the difference between actual sRGB and your monitor's native space which will not be exactly sRGB. The next person that views it MAY have a monitor that has a native space that is closer to sRGB and it will look fine, or maybe not.

Converting to sRGB for web destined images is only a "get it close" method of color management. For web images, you convert to sRGB because sRGB will be the closest space to most monitor's native space (key word here is "closest"). Converting to sRGB and then viewing in an un-aware application is NO substitute for previewing the tagged image in an ICC aware application on a properly characterized display.

Patrick

 

[Patrick_C]

This is a shot showing one of my laptop's native space and actual sRGB.

Patrick

 

[ajchunt]

Thanks to everyone who's posted with help on this.

Patrick (poetstock), I tried opening the file, removing the profile and saving again - same result. Shame, as your problem sounded very similar to mine.

I've not had a chance to experiment with shooting RAW vs. JPEG sRGB but will do so asap.

Thanks again - I'll keep you posted.

--
Andrew

 

[frteskesc]

My monitor is a HP LP2275w - I don't believe this is a specially wide
gamut monitor - calibrated with a Spyder2.

I just quickly googled the specs for your monitor. The specs say that this monitor has a color gamut of 92% NTSC. ( http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13133_na/13133_na.html )

An average sRGB monitor will display around 70 to 75 % of the NTSC gamut.

It seems you are having a wide gamut monitor here, which would actually explain why you are seeing oversaturated colors on non-colormanaged applications.

With such a monitor you have to be careful which application you use to view your images. A color space aware/color managed application is almost a must.

Frank

 

[C Wills]

Hey Patrick_C,

I'm glad to see you dropped in. Once again, I think you do a nice job of explaining what is going on (in fact, I put a link to one of your old posts earlier in this thread).

So, I guess the next logical question would be: Is there something that can be done about it?

I read somewhere that you have two choices in regards to this: Either use Color Managed programs and web browsers OR buy a new monitor that's closer to an actual srgb workspace. (I use option one).

From what I've read of your info (now and previously), that pretty much seems to sum it up. Is that correct? Or do you know of any other options?

Patrick (poetstock) seems to have a work around that works for his monitor. Do you have any info on doing that kind of thing (ie, untagging the srgb image when saving it)?

Thanks.

--
Chandra

 

[C Wills]

Thanks Frank for your info! I was unaware of the range on an average srgb monitor. Good to know that. I don't know what # my monitor has, but I do know it also has the "red problem" in non-CM programs. So I don't use them.

I also use to compensate for the redness, by desaturating the reds, prior to uploading an image to the web (thinking that everyone else would see my images look red on the web also....). Then, I learned that this problem had to do with my monitor, and other wide gamut monitors, and not all monitors. Therefore, I concluded, that if I desaturate the reds, it might look better on some monitors, but then look even worse on average srgb monitors. So, I quit doing that. Is my conclusion right, or am I missing something?

My monitor is a HP LP2275w - I don't believe this is a specially wide
gamut monitor - calibrated with a Spyder2.

I just quickly googled the specs for your monitor. The specs say that
this monitor has a color gamut of 92% NTSC.
( http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/13133_na/13133_na.html )

An average sRGB monitor will display around 70 to 75 % of the NTSC
gamut.

It seems you are having a wide gamut monitor here, which would
actually explain why you are seeing oversaturated colors on
non-colormanaged applications.

With such a monitor you have to be careful which application you use
to view your images. A color space aware/color managed application is
almost a must.

Frank

--
Chandra

 

[C Wills]

Patrick (Poetstock),

I tried this and like the op, it did not work on my monitor. (I am on Windows XP and CS3). But, I need clarification on how you do this.

The method I used is: I went to Save As, and just unchecked the ICC profile box. I saved it as a copy so as to not affect the image showing in PS. I opened it in Windows Viewer next to the PS image and it was just as red as saving it with the srgb profile embedded. (Note: I opened that image into PS and it does show that it is untagged).

If you will clarify your directions, I will try it again and let you know the results.

When I go to Edit> The options are Color Settings, Convert to Profile, or Assign Profile. There is not an Edit> Color Profile so I'm not sure which one you are using. If, it is Convert to Profile, I don't see an option in there to choose "no profile".

By the way Andrew: I am first using edit> color profile> no profile on
a COPY destined for the web. Then Save as> jpeg. I am NOT using save
for the web from the file menu.
As far as I know, this workaround is only for CS3 on Windows XP.
-Patrick

--
Chandra

 

[C Wills]

Oops, I just noticed I accidentally put the other link twice, instead of the link to your post that I meant to put. Here it is if anyone would like to read it. It is a very good explanation, imo.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1006&message=28802893

Hey Patrick_C,
..... I put a link to one of your old posts earlier in this thread.

--
Chandra

 

[Patrick_C]

I always embed the proper profile with any of my files, if NOT embedding the file is making it look OK, I'd want to point the finger at the folks writing the software. I want to say that I read something about some non-aware browser choking on tagged files but it was a LONG time ago and I wouldn't want to bet much on my recollection. I've been using Safari for the last 5+ years and it has been aware all along.

Patrick

 

[Patrick_C]

Compared to soft proofing to monitor space, did you try soft proofing to Windows RGB?

When mixing aware applications with non-aware applications while using a wide gamut monitor you have to aware of the native space of the monitor.

Patrick

 

[Patrick_C]

Hey Chandra,

How are you doing? I haven't been dropping in on the forum that often lately.

I had forgotten about that post you refer to. For too many Photoshop/Photogs, color management doesn't go much further than "convert it to sRGB", monitor compensation is a key when comparing previews of aware and non-apps.

Patrick

 

[jdoo]

Patrick Stated..

When you soft proof to monitor space, you're showing what the image will look like on YOUR monitor in an un-aware application. ...

I haven't ever heard this before. I always have used soft proofing in Photoshop for only one thing. That is - checking what the image I am working on, is going to look like when it goes to a printer. In fact, I have never used a monitor profile in that dialogue. Can you point to an article, etc.. that has more detail about using soft proofing for monitor color validation? thx
--
Joe

Old Acct: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjigihivhdif

 

[frteskesc]

I also use to compensate for the redness, by desaturating the reds, prior to uploading an image to the web (thinking that everyone else would see my images look red on the web also....). Then, I learned that this problem had to do with my monitor, and other wide gamut monitors, and not all monitors. Therefore, I concluded, that if I desaturate the reds, it might look better on some monitors, but then look even worse on average srgb monitors. So, I quit doing that. Is my conclusion right, or am I missing something?

Your conclusion is correct.

If you have a wide gamut monitor then its native color space is different to the sRGB color space and hence differences seen in color managed/non-colormanaged applications are more pronounced. Whoever owns such a monitor should be aware that.

I think it is still appropriate to assume sRGB as most compatible color space for web, so converting is a must before putting your pictures on the web. You should trust your color managed application, there is no need for further compensation. You cannot account for each and every monitor and application out there.

Frank

 

[ajchunt]

Thanks Frank for your investigation and convincing explanation. I'm also glad to hear mention of the 'red' issue with these monitors - sounds exactly like what I'm experiencing.

I think I'm happy now to assume that I can ignore colours in all but my colour-managed apps.

More distressing though is that it looks like my website management company are stripping out the colour profile (it's a flash site), as I'm seeing the red hues even through Firefox 3 with colour management enabled... Guess I just need to take solace in the fact that most of my clients won't have a wide gamut monitor.

--
Andrew

 

[frteskesc]

More distressing though is that it looks like my website management company are stripping out the colour profile (it's a flash site), as I'm seeing the red hues even through Firefox 3 with colour management enabled... Guess I just need to take solace in the fact that most of my clients won't have a wide gamut monitor.

Hhmm, I guess there are two problems involved with what you describe above.

1.) Since it is a flash site, color management needs to be supported by the flash movie/flash player.

2.) Let's say, it wasn't a flash site and the browser is getting untagged image. The browser could handle it in two ways. Either don't color manage or use a default color space (e.g. sRGB, some applications allow to configure this).

I don't know exactly how Adobe's Flashplayer supports color management nor do I know how Firefox deals with untagged images. So, maybe somebody else can give a definate answer on that.

Frank

 

[Poetstock]

With your working space in Photoshop set to sRGB, open a tagged sRGB file, then soft proof to monitor space, if that looks the same as when you preview the same file in one of your un-aware apps, you're seeing the difference between actual sRGB and your monitor's native space which will not be exactly sRGB. The next person that views it MAY have a monitor that has a native space that is closer to sRGB and it will look fine, or maybe not.

When I read this I realized that I had it wrong. There is no problem with CS3 and Windows XP. I apologize for misleading anyone.

My misunderstanding as Patrick C says, is a result of the fact that Photoshop is using a hardware calibrated version of sRGB and the color unaware applications XnView, Windows Picture viewer, Internet Explorer, are using different versions of a formula for sRGB. To put it simply: Photoshop sRGB will probably not look like sRGB from any program that is not using hardware color management.

I found a recent discussion about this very issue in the Irfanview forums. http://en.irfanview-forum.de/vb/showthread.php?t=3120 Open that PDF in message #1 for a clear illustration of the issue. After some back and forth don't miss message #25, just as Patrick C said, a simple method for soft proofing what others will see in a non-colormanaged browser on the web. And to be honest that is still how most of the world will see our work.

I'm hoping this info helps someone, and in part makes up for my earlier incorrect post.
-Patrick

 

[Poetstock]

If I am softproofing my image for a non-colormanaged world, and it looks a bit dark out there, about a third of a stop or so, which also makes it more a bit more saturated, should I then be making a slight gray slider levels adjustment to the image to compensate? Or what would be the ideal way to lighten slightly, so that my sRGB tagged web copy, in a color blind browser, matches my Photoshop color managed copy?

I understand that most monitors just come home from the store, get plugged in and maybe adjusted for brightness and away they go. A lot of people are looking at the web on 6 bit TN laptop screens. Color managed browsers are not a burning issue outside of photography forums. Still, I'm looking to steer a course up the middle, and hit as close to what my original looks like on as many monitors as possible.

I could stand on a box in the park waving a copy of the 'Photoshop Bible', and rant as long as I want, most people are not going to calibrate their monitors. But I love them anyway.
-Patrick

 

[C Wills]

Joe,

Soft-proofing with Monitor RGB is just a short-cut to having to go thru the Save As dialog box, save the image, go find the image in exporer and open it in a Windows Viewer just to see what it now looks like. (Instead, you can just go View> Proof setup> Monitor RGB and take a quick look).

I read somewhere that when you might want to use this is say you are wanting to use a picture as your desktop image and you want to make sure it will look good on your monitor when it is no longer in a CM'd enviroment.

I can't think of any other reason to use it, other than when you get a new monitor, it will give you a quick way to check how srgb images in non-CMs programs will now look on your new monitor, compared to what you see in CM programs.

Patrick Stated..

When you soft proof to monitor space, you're showing what the image will look like on YOUR monitor in an un-aware application. ...

I haven't ever heard this before. I always have used soft proofing in Photoshop for only one thing. That is - checking what the image I am working on, is going to look like when it goes to a printer. In fact, I have never used a monitor profile in that dialogue. Can you point to an article, etc.. that has more detail about using soft proofing for monitor color validation? thx
--
Joe

Old Acct: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hjigihivhdif

--
Chandra

 

[C Wills]

Compared to soft proofing to monitor space, did you try soft proofing to Windows RGB?

I have not proofed with this before, but I just tried it.

Result: I don't see any difference between my non-proofed Srgb image and when it's proofed in Windows RGB.

My understanding is this lack of change would be expected. The image is already in srgb, and proofing with Windows RGB is to show what an image will look like in a non-CM program on any monitor that is actually "average srgb" (correct term?).

When I try this with an image that is in Adobe RGB (aRGB), there is a drastic change in color and it looks flatter and duller. This would be expected also. The proofing is again showing what this image is going to look like if say you post it to the web (while it is still in argb) and people view it in a non-CM browser on an average srgb monitor. It shows why it is important to Convert to srgb prior to uploading to the web, and what it will look like if you don't.

--
Chandra