Windows Explorer (along with most other non-pro applications that can display images) doesn’t manage color display with any accuracy, and that’s why your images probably don’t look the way you might expect or want them to.
Please read the following, and follow the links:
Mathias Vejerslev, "Color doesn’t look right in Photoshop or after rebooting computer." #1, 28 Sep 2000 6:35 am </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>
Hi,
Thank you for the links. A little background: My 30" HP monitor is calibrated with the Spyder 2.2 HW device, and I would say that it is accurately set to display color as well as B&W. The probolem is that what is an accurate B&W rendering in Photoshop CS2 and CS3 will come out as a too dark rendering when displayed on the Web. And interestingly, it also comes out at the same 10% too dark level when displayed in Adope Bridge CS3, so even Adobe is inconsistent between Photoshop and Bridge.
I think my main question is: Should I save my scans in a format that is too light in Photoshop and correct when displayed at the Web? Or should I optimize for best view in Photoshop, assuming that is the most "correct" rendering I can have for my saved scans?
All suggestions appreciated!
Yours,
Rolf J
Stockholm, Sweden
It certainly sounds as though you need to profile again from scratch.
The Bridge thing is probably a red herring. Make sure you have updated to Bridge 2.1 and set the Preferences to show High Quality Thumnails. You may have to Purge the Cache to get existing thumbnails to update.
Thanks for jumping in Chris.
As I’ve only just recently upgraded from PS 7 to PS CS2, the Bridge is something I’m not fully dialed in on yet. In fact, I ought to take a more focused look for any display discrepancies between what I’m seeing in Bridge compared to document display in CS2. It must be pretty close or I would have taken offhand notice by now.
Also see what happens when you convert to sRGB before saving it for the web (in the Edit menu).
Rob
Color in Bridge in CS2 was broken and did not get fixed until Bridge 2.1(CS3)
Spyders arn’t the best calibrators that could be part of the problem.
Thank you for the input. I am running Bridge 2.1.0.100 (i.e the latest available version).
I am not sure that I agree that recalibration will make any major difference. The screen is as said calibrated with Spyder and gives correct apperance of pictures in Photoshop, Photoshop Album and other display programs. The problem is related to how pictures are rendered within Photoshop and Bridge for CS2 as compared to how they are rendered by Internet Explorer, Windows and CS3 Bridge (2.1). The exact same picture file (jpg) is displayed differently by Photoshop and IEX on the very same screen. Can that really have anything to do with calibration?
Nothing to do with calibration. IE and most web browsers have no colour management at all so it’s pretty much pot luck what you will see on the other side. remebmer that the majority of people won’t have calibrated monitors too.
Some colour management is comming to the main stream apps but it will be slow and prob badly implimented for a while.
I’ve been having an argument with a web dev at work for a while who insists on having his screen brightness pummped to the max, he insists that if he uses "web safe colours" there isn’t a problem but I dont see how you can design on a monitor which isn’t a good base. crap in crap out…
I take the approach be conservitave in the dynamic range you use, but start with an accurate base. sRBG is a smaller space to work in but generally better for web, which remindes me are you embedding your colour space in the docs? what space are you using for output?
"a web dev at work
he insists that if he uses web safe colours
"
(Ignoring for a minute his penchant for carbon-arc monitor brightness…) I suppose he has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and assumes thisas the lowest common denominator for his intended audienceis worth his color prudency?
Show him some recent web metrics regarding monitor size, resolution, and color depth, and chide him for living about 10 years in the past.
Once again thanks for the input. I have done some experimenting myself and think I have found a solution to my B&W lightness problems between PS and IEX: When saving a TIFF-file as a jpeg in PS, Photoshop shows a first dialoue box with (also for B&W files)says: "Color: ICC Profile: Dot Gain 15%". If I check that box when saving the TIFF (which displayed correctly in PS and in CS3 Bridge) the corresponding jpeg gets the same lightness as the original TIFF of PS also in IEX!
A corollary: If I look at the original TIFF file, the converted jpeg without dot gain and the one with dot gain in Bridge CS2 they all look identical. If I look upon them in CS3 Bridge the TIFF one and the one with dot-gain have the same lightness. The non dot gain one is 10% or so darker.
I am using the AdobeRGB(1998) space for all my color work, but this is B&W so I do not think that should matter. I am not quite sure if I embedd something in my B&W jpegs as default, but when I chose the 15% dot gain I assume something is embedded.
So additional expert comments still seem needed!
Yours
Rolf J
Even though AdobeRGB and sRGB are both nominally 2.2 gamma, there is a slight difference in the sRGB gamma curve. You are only masking your problem by using 15% dot gain for your graycale images. That is, in effect, providing the needed compensation in your non-color managed applications – your browser, among others. The defactor web standard is sRGB, and even though that won’t guarantee absolute uniformity in viewiing, it is an average of typical monitor response. Any difference you are seeing in you images between color managed and non color managed applications is really just the difference between your monitor and whatever color space the images happen to be in. If your images are in sRGB and they look different in Exporer than Ps, it’s because Exporer can only show you "monitor rgb" and you monitor is not calibrated to the sRGB specification.
The ONLY way for you to get an exact match on your system, and your system only, is to convert all of your images to "Monitor RGB" in the Convert to Profile dialog box. Your images will absolutely match, but only on your computer and using Monitor RGB can lead to all sorts of problems down the road.
Thank you Peter for a good explanation. I do understand that sRGB is the agreed standard color space for web images, so I suspected that the AdobeRGB standard in my system might be part of my problem. Nevertheless I wanted to stay within AdobeRGB in Photoshop and related applications since both my 48 bit capable scanner and my RAW capable digital camera can support it and I have standardised on it by now.
Nevertheless your explanation provided a good answer to why my nicely rendered pictures in Photoshop came out to dark on the web – I was working in AdobeRGB and IEX and Windows expected sRGB. Nevertheless, I have found a workaround as discribed: By assignng an ICC profile with "15% dot gain" to every JPEG before letting Photoshop creating the web gallery, I get (almost) identical lightness between what i have under AdobeRGB in Photoshop and what is displayed by a web browser.
Your workaround, as it is, only works for grayscale images, and only on your monitor. You’re still much better off converting all of your images destined for the web to sRGB. Of course, I mean convert a copy and maintain the original. If, for some reason, you need to post Adobe RGB images to the web, it’s better to put them on an ftp site where they can simply be downloaded and subsequently viewed in Ps.
Remember also that there are substantial saturation differences between AdobeRGB and sRGB as well as the very minor gamma difference. AdobeRGB images viewed in a non-color managed browser or other application will appear quite different than the same images viewed in Ps. Also remember that virtually all monitors (with only a couple exceptions) can only display basically sRGB or something very close to that, so no matter what color space your images are actually in, you can’t see any of the colors outside of what the monitor is capable of displaying anyway.
Hi again. All pictures are in RGB color mode without any color profile when made into a web gallery by Photoshop. So once again I believe my workaround works quite nicely. Also this is a trick for B&W, color seems to be working OK without any manipulation.
* B&W pictures are scanned in 16 bit grayscale and TIFF and enter my Photoshop application which is using AdobeRGB as default color space. No ICC profile is assigned.
* If I convert the TIFF file to jpeg with the "save as" command the resulting jpeg looks to dark when viewed by Windows or IEX. The same darkness is maintained also when I let Photoshop generate a web gallery which is then viewed by IEX.
* If I embed the color profile "15% dot gain" with the TIFF file (or with the converted jpeg file) and save it, it maintains the same level of lightness when viewed buy Windows as in Photoshop.
* When I create the web gallery with this color profiled B&W JPEG file, Photoshop removes any color profile and sets the color mode to RGB for the generated image. However, Photoshop, obviously in some way interprests the 15% dot gain in this conversion to the web, so the pictures come out lighter (i.e. consistent with the original TIFF) when viewed by IEX. And that is true for other monitors than my own one, I have checked.
Rolf,
Have you tried to convert your images to sRGB, like I suggested in my reply, an as Peter Figen did too?
When I follow your steps (including ignoring the conversion) I get the same differences.
Rob
Rolf,
Once again, you have stumbled on to something that seems to work, but is not actually the right way to go about it. When you are scanning you 16 bit grayscales images, what grayscale space are you scanning them into? You say that you are opening them into Adobe RGB, but that’s an RGB space, not a grayscale. You’re really opening them into whatever your default Grayscale working space is unless you scanning software is able to embed either your scanner profile or convert to a destination grayscale. It sounds like it doesn’t. You are basically assigning a false profile to compensate for your image not being right in the first place – not a bad idea if you understand what you’re doing, but when you’re just guessing, you end up with something you think is right because it happens to look okay – without really understanding how you got there or why! But hey, if you’re happy, then I"m happy too.
First a few clarifications on the settings within my Photoshop CS3 itself: Under "Edit" "Color settings" i use a "Settings" called "070525 Adobe Europe" making me have all my applications in the CS3 suite synchronized to the following values:
"Working spaces"
"RGB": Adobe RGB (1998)
"CMYK": Europe ISO Coated FOGRA27
"Gray": Dot gain 15%
"Spot": Dot gain 15%
"Color Management Profiles": RGB, CMYK, Gray – Preserve embeded profile (for all of them)
When the photos are scanned into Photoshop they appear as TIFF files: Bit depth 16, Color Mode: B&W. When looking into the option of Edit, Convert profile they are set as: "Source space: Profile Dot gain 15%".
It is this file that I convert to JPEG, and it then appears too dark when viewed over the web if I loose the color profile. However, if I assign the 15% dot gain profile to the JPEG, and then ask Photoshop make a web gallery out of the jpeg, the picture come out with the correct lightness, also when viewed on the web.
I can agree with you Peter that this is maybe fiddling around with a lot of things I do nor know very well, but it obviously solved my problem. And to be honest, is it not often so that we do not fully know what is going on in our computer applications?
Thank you for sparring me into this exercise finding out more about how ICC profiles are embedded in JPEG:s amd how they affect the picture apperance!
Yours,
Rolf J
Phos\
(Ignoring for a minute his penchant for carbon-arc monitor brightness…) I suppose he has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and assumes thisas the lowest common denominator for his intended audienceis worth his color prudency?
I’d agree if this was the case but the vast majority of the work being done is CSS webpages with heavygraphic elements and Flash projects which are using images and design elements sourced from me (which is prob why it bugs me so much). If it was a matter of only using "web safe colours" I’d agree but by the time you put 1 image on the page your WAY out of that realm.
As for the other discussion regarding the B&W images, easiest way to see what is going on Rolf is to go, do the images both ways, load them onto a page side by side and look at it on at least 4 different machines outside your work space. Use a library, mates place whatever. Check it out and see which is giving you the results you want.
BRETT
Hi,
I have made some additional experimenting according to Bretts suggestion, i.e I created a small web with various profiles embedden in the B&W pictures. I then checked them out at various monitors, including both 15", a notebook and others. As expected the pictures came out somewhat different, but on most of the monitors there is not a visible difference at all between the original TIFF file, the JPEG without color profile and the one with 15% dot gain. So I do not think I have to worry too much about the brightness problem.
You can check yourselves and see if you can see the differénces at:
<
http://www.hal1.se/Rolfs_web/Prov/index.htm>
All the best from Stockholm,
Rolf J
