Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Colour issue driving me crazy. Please help!  (Read 27730 times)
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« on: May 19, 2009, 12:52:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi everyone, I'm having a mini colour crisis here as my normal workflow seems to work sometimes and not others. For example, yesterday with this beauty shot I noticed it was very saturated on the web, despite doing everything I normally do. My Photoshop settings are set to the standard setup which all colour guides recommend, and my screen is calibrated (though the fact that I am having colour issues on the same monitor would seem to rule out any monitor variation from the equation).

Ok, here is a file in Photoshop, in Adobe RGB colour space, on the left. I used 'save for web' including the convert to sRGB option and 'embed profile', and opened that in Safari in the background (a colour-managed browser). Here you can see the two together on the same screen:



(btw, it looks the same in Firefox with colour management switched on).

Any idea what's going on? I need to really desaturate the Phtooshop file to make it look good in the browser. What is even weirder is that I have always had very consistent results going from Photoshop to my print shop (using a large format Epson - excellent printer btw).

So I seem to need two different versions of the file. One for AdobeRGB printing, and another desaturated version for conversion to web.

Another puzzling thing is why the 'save for web' window looks like this, with very different saturations in the 2 windows:



To make things worse, this seems to happen with some images and not others. Oh btw, it doesn't help if I convert to sRGB in Photoshop outside the 'save for web' function first.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 12:55:03 PM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
geotzo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2009, 01:14:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Graham,
what you are facing is typical "save for web" color trouble. When that happens I just change saturation and color till I get what I want, on the saved file. It has to do with specific color range of some images and no other trick seems to work on all occasions. You may find this helpful: http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysteriou...eb-color-shift/
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2009, 01:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: geotzo
Graham,
what you are facing is typical "save for web" color trouble. When that happens I just change saturation and color till I get what I want, on the saved file. It has to do with specific color range of some images and no other trick seems to work on all occasions. You may find this helpful: http://www.viget.com/inspire/the-mysteriou...eb-color-shift/

Yes, I have had it happen from time to time, and it drives me crazy!

I've heard of many others with the same problem, and never a solution, but I'll see if anyone here can crack the problem. I don't like that article's suggestion very much, unfortunately.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 01:36:52 PM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
geotzo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2009, 03:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I might be wrong, but I don't think there is any better solution than re-correcting images after saving. Internet explorers don't understand monitor calibration, not to mention that in the end, you never know who will be viewing your images (meaning monitor setup etc). But lets see what others think.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2009, 03:36:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Graham:

What version of Safari are you running?  I don't use save-for-web (for this reason) but had this exact same issue with Safari, but then a few revisions back it got fixed.  What really sucks, is you will probably find your image looks fine -- meaning both look identical -- in a NON-CM'd browser!  (FWIW, I can confirm the latest Safari 4.0 public beta seems very stable and is a lot faster than the predecessors.)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 03:39:14 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2009, 03:38:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: foto-z
Yes, I have had it happen from time to time, and it drives me crazy!
Graham, did you try to save the JPG not with the "safe for web" tool but with the regular command "safe as" -> JPG? What is going on if you do this?
Did you also check the desaturation in the colour settings (advanced) of Photoshop? And your softproof settings?
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2009, 04:33:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
Graham, did you try to save the JPG not with the "safe for web" tool but with the regular command "safe as" -> JPG? What is going on if you do this?
Did you also check the desaturation in the colour settings (advanced) of Photoshop? And your softproof settings?

This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.

(Firefox looks the same as Safari).



So I have two colour managed programs showing the same file on the same monitor very differently.

One possibility - Photoshop uses a different sRGB profile to the rest of the world?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 04:36:10 PM by foto-z » Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2009, 04:35:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jack Flesher
Graham:

What version of Safari are you running?  I don't use save-for-web (for this reason) but had this exact same issue with Safari, but then a few revisions back it got fixed.  What really sucks, is you will probably find your image looks fine -- meaning both look identical -- in a NON-CM'd browser!  (FWIW, I can confirm the latest Safari 4.0 public beta seems very stable and is a lot faster than the predecessors.)

I'm using 3.2.3, but I usually use Firefox. Anyway, the image appears the same way in both browsers.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2009, 04:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

tho_mas, desaturation is deselected in PS settings. Proofing is also switched off but makes no difference when I toggle it.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2009, 04:54:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: foto-z
This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.
(...)
One possibility - Photoshop uses a different sRGB profile to the rest of the world?
I've downloaded the file frotm the "recent works"-thread. here the image looks like your Safari screenshot... in Photoshop, in Firefox, in Safari, in the Mac Preview... everywhere.
So I think there is something wrong with your monitor profile in Photoshop for some reason.
Does the monitor profile show up correctly in the colour setting (menu "working spaces... scroll up to "Monitor RGB")?

Quote
Proofing is also switched off but makes no difference when I toggle it.
when you toggle to what? To monitor RGB or to your preferred proof colour?
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2009, 05:10:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
I've downloaded the file frotm the "recent works"-thread. here the image looks like your Safari screenshot... in Photoshop, in Firefox, in Safari, in the Mac Preview... everywhere.
So I think there is something wrong with your monitor profile in Photoshop for some reason.

Interesting...

Quote from: tho_mas
Does the monitor profile show up correctly in the colour setting (menu "working spaces... scroll up to "Monitor RGB")?

Yes, it's there.

Quote from: tho_mas
when you toggle to what? To monitor RGB or to your preferred proof colour?

If I toggle 'Proof Colors' (I'm using CS4 in case that makes a difference)
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2009, 05:50:09 PM »
ReplyReply

The recipe I've been using for creating website images is as follows (and I made an Action of it);

Flatten image
Resize
Convert Mode (from 16 to 8-bit depth)
Convert to Profile sRGB, Rel Col Intent with Black Point Compensation With Dither.
Export using Save for Web in JPEG format at Quality 60, With Optimized, With 1 Pass.

This whole process preserves the original file intacy, happens in a jiffy and produces what seems to me an acceptable approximation of the original - very much less deviation than what is illustrated in the previous posts.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2009, 05:58:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Graham,

I convert for the web in the same manner as you, in CS4, using the save for web devices menu, but with some additional steps plus converting the color profile from adobe to sRGB prior to sending it to web devices menu. The reason for this is that I can't control how Save for Web & Devices converts the profile and for the most part I have no color issues with browsers working this way.

After working the image and saving the psd file, still in Adobe RGB:

1- Convert image size to desired web size using Bicubic.

2- Sharpen web sized image.

3- Edit<Convert to Profile<Destination Space: Working RGB-sRGB IEC6196-2.1< Conversion Options<Engine: Adobe (ACE)<Intent: Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual, which ever gives better results. Click Use Black Point Compensation and Flatten Image to Preserve Appearance.  

IGNORE Preview, its going to look off both here and when you Save to Web & Devices!





4- Then, once I see the converted image I Save for Web & Devices. I found that Relative Colorimetric works perfectly most of the time and Perceptual when Relative doesn't work.





Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2009, 06:01:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: foto-z
Interesting...
don't know yet :-)
Quote
Yes, it's there.
good.
Honestly have no idea at the moment... everything seams to be set the right way.
Nevertheless in this case my read is that the problem is the conversion to the monitor profile in Photoshop (exceptionally!).

Quote from: MarkDS
With Dither.
what for? To increase noise?
Actually Dither may be helpful when you convert from a certain colour space to a bigger colour space. But one have to see if Dither is really the way to go.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2009, 06:11:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
I found that Relative Colorimetric works perfectly most of the time and Perceptual when Relative doesn't work.
There is no way to do perceptual conversion to sRGB. If the target profile is a TRC Matrix profile (such as sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB and others) the sole rendering intend available is relative colormetric as Matrix profiles have no table for perceptual RI.
see myth #21: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_21-25
Only LUT profiles, such as printer profiles (mostly with a big file size while Matrix profiles are small like 4KB) contain tables for perceptual RI (or better: they may contain a percaptual table).
It's somewhat irritating as Photoshop offers the option for all the profiles... but Matrix profile provide only colormetric RI.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6983


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2009, 06:16:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Dither is on by default - this particular setting doesn't seem to matter much one way or another in anything I've done. The important thing is the major process steps and their order, making sure BPC is on for "convert to Profile".  "ddk" is doing pretty much what I do, also with satisfactory results.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2009, 06:30:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
"ddk" is doing pretty much what I do, also with satisfactory results.
yes. But Graham did it right as well...

@Graham:
here a screenshot from my display. Took the downloaded file from the other thread that is in sRGB
Left: MAC Preview
Foreground: Photoshop
Right/Background: your triptych from above

So on my display it's somewhere in the middle. But your Photoshop display view is less saturated and tends to green (while Safari is a bit oversaturated).

[attachment=13795:screen.jpg]
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 06:36:05 PM by tho_mas » Logged
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2009, 06:31:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure that you have embedded the profile, not just assigned it? This looks a lot like the examples given here Northlight Images when the profile was not embedded.
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2009, 06:35:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
Are you sure that you have embedded the profile, not just assigned it?
see:
Quote from: foto-z
This is what happens if I convert to sRGB and JPG normally. First window is original. Second is sRGB JPG open in PS. Third is sRGB JPG open in Safari.



Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2009, 06:42:41 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW,  I pulled it into CS off the other forum and it appears identical to the posted version there viewed in Safari 4 side-by side -- and it looked pretty good to me as a stand-alone. For reference, that in turn looks more similar to the most saturated on your triptic, but not as red and slightly less saturated, yet warmer and more saturated than your less saturated samples (which do appear to lean slightly to green on her shoulders) if that makes sense.  Weird.   IMHO -- and admittedly I did not see this model in person -- the large version as posted in that forum looks darn good to me on skin, eyes, hair and lips...
« Last Edit: May 19, 2009, 06:58:38 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad