PS 'Save For Web' Color Shift Question

[jujubee]

Okay, I figured out I'd ask here since most of you are the best experts around.

I have an image rendered out and adjusted in PS. When I go to 'Save for Web' the colors always comes out super saturated even at 100% quality.

My monitor is calibrated to 2.2 Gamma and I'm using a Spyder Calibrator.

If I go to the top menu of PS, \view\proof setup\:

1) Macintosh RGB = Desaturated
2) Windows RGB = Seems perfectly adjusted (my desired target)
3) Monitor RGB = Super Saturated

When I save for web, it seems to almost always want to save for 'Monitor RGB' colors (#3 above) which has an overpowering/super saturated RGB.

What is the 'proper way' to work with files when saving to web? I don't think I had this problem when using CS2 or previous versions... Please help.

[jujubee]

Well, short of reinstalling the entire OS I'm gonna remove all my drivers and profiles - see if that somehow does some magic. The late nVidia drivers kinda fuzzed my Cintiq display too so I'll go back a version.

[plastic_]

with spyder, the correct workflow is this:

make sure that there is only 1 profile attached to the monitor (in the windows device/color settings), it should be the spyder profile, nothing else.


don't use "proof colors" in ps, it's just a simulation, if you want to preview other color spaces.

in the ps color settings use the spyder profile as working space. (don't use the monitor profile, even if it's the same, but browse for the spyder.icc one, in advanced settings, otherwise some options will be disabled).

now everything should be right, if you load a photo with icc data into ps (any digicam pic), the colors should be correctly calibrated.

if you load a bitmap without icc profile attached (3dsmax render), you have to use "assign profile" in ps, to asign the spyder profile to it. then it looks like it how it came out of max, with the correct profile embedded.

don't use "convert profile", since it will assume then, that the bitmap is in srgb space. colors will be wrong.

now, if you want to export the bitmap from photoshop, this step are important to ensure that the color space comes out as intended, and that other systems will respect it (even uncalibrated ones, to some degree):

in photoshop "save to web" (or just save):
-) enable "embed color profile"
-) disable(!!) "convert to sRGB"


that's it.

the bitmap will look fine in color managed apps (lightroom, windows image view) and it will look the same way in unmanaged apps (firefox, picasa, 3dsmax).
embedding the profile ensures that it will look fine with other systems too, especially with printing.

tell me how it works for you. i'm always open for an easier workflow, but that's how i'm doing it right now, and it seems to work, even with some clients obscure monitors or lcd beamers, the colors look fine.

the drawback is the hassle with all this icc profile nonsense.

[jujubee]

So this seems to 'fix' things but I'm not 100% if it is the proper method. My main problem is that I always try to calibrate my monitors with both software and hardware (custom profile), then when I edit in PS things go crazy due to different settings.

I'm going to run down my list of tests and troubleshooting steps I did below. Hopefully this helps others.

1) Uninstall all unnecessary software and drivers (including Wacom and Spyder.)
2) Remove monitors and hidden monitors (\right-click My Computer\Properties\Hardware\Device Manager\ (click \view\show hidden devices)
3) Remove all Windows color profiles (\settings\advanced\color management\)
4) Reinstall Main Graphics Driver
5) Reboot
6) Reinstall Spyder Software/Driver with latest update from 5/02/09
7) Test problem image.

Testing/Finalizing Image for Proper Output:
1. First thing I noticed is PS assigned 'Color Settings' with the new Spyder profile created from fresh install. Working Space is now 'RGB: Monitor RGB - Plug and Play Monitor-1' (which is my main Dell monitor custom profiled.)
2. Rest is left default.
3. If you import an image, it will ask 'What would you like to do?' If you 'Assign working RGB: Plug and Play Monitor-1' (middle choice), the end result will match your render output from Vray. For EXR and HDR, you will want to import then adjust \exposure\gamma to .5 to obtain similar results for matching non floating point images.
4. WARNING: Do not try to 'Proof' the colors while in 32 bit working space (HDR or EXR.) Most of the colors will come out extremely dark. Make sure if you 'Proof Colors' that you have already converted image down to 8 bit. The 'Proofing' shows you what your image will likely look like (for the Web) on a Mac RGB, Windows RGB, and on your Monitor RGB. In fact, I think you shouldn't 'Proof' your colors for the web here as it may just add to the confusion. I am leaving 'Proof Colors' unchecked as I just want to work in my current Windows gamut.
5. 'Save for Web.' I usually look at 4-up. 4-up or 2-up doesn't really matter. Just note your 'Original' preview in CS4 has an option for 'Preview:.' If you select 'Monitor Color', this should calibrate to what you see on screen outside of PS. And if you have your 'Color Settings' (step #1 above) set to 'RGB: Monitor RGB - Plug and Play Monitor-1' in the drop-down, then these should match almost exactly to what you see outside of the 'Save for Web' window.

Your image 'will probably' look a lot different if you have your 'Color Settings' prefernces set to something else such as 'AdobeRGB' or 'sRGB' - especially if you made and assigned your own custom calibration profile. You obviously don't want this. The goal is to match your Custom Profile/Gamut/Calibration outside of PS (your real working space) to what you will present your client.

So ideally, you should have selected the 'Original' 'Save for Web' preview, leave sRGB unchecked, and under 'Preview' drop-down choose 'Monitor Color' or 'Use Document Profile.' This will give you the most accurate original image to reference.

In reality, the 'Save for Web' 'Preview' is only a preview, and doesn't itself embed color information into the output. Trying to adjust for the 'Windows' or 'Macintosh' preview here will only make you go further crazy - I'd ignore these.

'Optimized' and 'Embed Color Profile' Doesn't seem to make much difference. Only the latest browsers can read Embedded profiles. It's probably wise to just leave both of these checked.

If you check 'convert to sRGB', your colors will look very saturated in the 'Save for Web' preview. It will also look blown out either way if you view the image with 'Windows Picture and Fax Viewer.' Windows Picture and Fax Viewer is garbage. However, with 'convert to sRGB' unchecked and saved, it will look like the original (correct) in browsers. With it checked and saved, it will look saturated (incorrect) in browsers.

I checked these results across multiple browsers, monitors, and computers. My recommendation for this method is to not rely on Windows Picture and Fax viewer, as well as leaving sRGB OFF (unchecked) upon saving to get matching results.

Method 2:
1. Open image.
2. 'Assign Profile: sRGB IEC31966-2.1'
3. '\Image\Adjust\Exposure\Gamma Correction: .5 if loading a HDR or EXR
4. Colors will look Desaturated slightly - not original Vray output (incorrect.)
4. 'Image\Mode\8 Bits Channel\'
5. 'Save for Web'
6. Select image to save with 'sRGB' unchecked. Image previews as same in working view as well as browsers however it remains desaturated (incorrect.) Image looks same as above method (appears saturated) in 'Windows Picture and Fax Viewer' (which I said before is garbage.)
7. Select image to save with 'sRGB' checked. Image previews as same in working view as well as browsers however is correct to original non-floating point Vray output. It is similar to the 'proper' results above. However, the working view and end results do NOT match up by assigning this color profile upon opening document.

I am not recommending this method due to working and final differences.

Method 3:
1. Open image.
2. 'Assign Profile: sRGB IEC31966-2.1' with 'and then convert document to working RGB' checked.
3. '\Image\Adjust\Exposure\Gamma Correction: .5 if loading a HDR or EXR
4. Colors will look Desaturated slightly - not original Vray output (incorrect.)
4. 'Image\Mode\8 Bits Channel\'
5. 'Save for Web'
6. Select image to save with 'sRGB' unchecked. Image previews as same in working view as well as browsers however it remains desaturated (incorrect.) Image looks OVERLY SATURATED in 'Windows Picture and Fax Viewer' now.
7. Select image to save with 'sRGB' checked. Image previews as same in working view as well as browsers however is OVERLY SATURATED in both (incorrect.)

I don't recommend this workflow. You're not working in the proper color space and it tends to saturate all results.

Method 4:
1. Color Space Preferences reset to North America General Purpose 2 (RGB: sRGB...)
2. Open Image. No Warnings by default.
3. Color is desaturated compared to Vray output.
4. 'Save for Web'
5. Note now that the original 'Preview: Monitor Color' and 'Use Document Profile' are now different.
6. 'Convert to sRGB' button makes no difference because we are already in this working space.
7. Whenever you export any image in this mode, the images will come out looking saturated compared to working view.

I don't recommend this method if your monitor is custom calibrated because you're working view will always look very incorrect compared to what you save for the web. They will not match up.

Summary:
This is assuming your monitor is custom calibrated with a custom color profile.

I tried other methods using sRGB with document opening warnings enabled - each option I chose, none of the working views matched up with output. From my experiments so far, I don't recommend sRGB.

The only method which seems to be most accurate and reliable so far is Method 1 with sRGB unchecked.

I may try to give this a run through with AdobeRGB later. Your feedback is appreciated.

[jujubee]

LOL Plastic. I wish I read your response before I went through all this experimentation.

But basically, I came to the same conclusion but your wording is much better - simple and straightforward.

However, when I do calibrate my spyder it asks me the name of the profile i want to save and I just use default - monitor 1 blah blah. I don't get the option for the name you mentioned above. I just assume now that they are the same thing as thats the profile Spyder is making.

Thanks man for the feedback. It's good to know now that sRGB and Windows Fax/Picture viewer is messed up and not to rely on either one of those.

The only problem is trying to convince my clients not to use Windows Fax/Picture Viewer - you have any solutions for that???

[Da_elf]

ok, ive always wondered. if your doing a digital medium for the web, why the heck would you have your monitor calibrated to something other than what every other person would have as standard. your work will never be shown to others the way you want it to be.

[jujubee]

Well, if I calibrate my colors on my monitor it does provide a best fit scenario. If I calibrate several monitors of my own, the images start matching more accurately across my systems. On top of getting all this to match, when I go to print on photo paper, what I see printed is a lot closer than without it.

At companies, I've seen monitors so bad that I couldn't adjust them anymore. Alot of times hardware calibrators can go beyond adjustments normally available.

Adjusting your gamma and colors is an important step for linear workflow. When an interor designer tells me she wants a wall to be a specific color or Pantone, I can guarantee I can match it and it looks the same onscreen as the physical sample I've held in my hands. I've had to do this dozens of times.

I would also probably highly doubt any major animation or effects studio would work without calibrating their systems with one another.

I mean if you really think about it, why do people even bother adjusting brightness, contrast, and rgb at all? Why not just say screw it and never bother?

[simmsimaging]

I skip the save for web option and just save out a lo-res jpg of the file manually so that working files and RGB web output files are at least in the same colour space. Alternatively you can turn off the 'convert to srgb' button and choose 'document space' and it should save your web version with a matching profile. This will not eliminate the problem of your image looking different from monitor to monitor, but will at least ensure both versions are the same on most monitors.

I calibrate my monitors with the eye1 but don't use that profile in photoshop. I use AdobeRGB as my standard. Most web sites appear to use sRGB, which is a more desaturated space, so for me if things do mismatch on screen due to profile changing then the colours tend to actually show up safer, and not more over-saturated and punchy (tends to be less of a problem and also tends to match CMYK final product a bit better - which is important for me).

Just my method, works for me anyway.

b

[jujubee]

I skip the save for web option and just save out a lo-res jpg of the file manually so that working files and RGB web output files are at least in the same colour space. Alternatively you can turn off the 'convert to srgb' button and choose 'document space' and it should save your web version with a matching profile. This will not eliminate the problem of your image looking different from monitor to monitor, but will at least ensure both versions are the same on most monitors.

I think that's pretty much what Plastic said and what I came to understand.

I calibrate my monitors with the eye1 but don't use that profile in photoshop. I use AdobeRGB as my standard.

That is my next test/comparison. Although I wish I had a Mac to test it on as well... I want to figure out something that will appear 'safe' in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer (as well as IE) because I speculate most people using Windows use these two things to view pictures - both of which do not manage colors.

Most web sites appear to use sRGB

Technically, everyone should be shooting for sRGB Gamut but honestly, it looks horrible. Even a lot of cameras shooting JPGs use sRGB for compatibility.

I came across this article from Adobe earlier which some of you might find interesting in your spare time:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdf...p_colspace.pdf

[jujubee]

@Da_elf - I do understand your point but I probably should add that I encountered a situation which is not typical because I do use a colorimeter - loading up the 'wrong' profile caused one of my scenes to appear freakishly ugly and I needed to sort that out with this thread.

Normally it's not that bad and somewhat tolerable - but this image came out terrible.

[jujubee]

Updated Testing with Adobe RGB:

Method 1:
1. Set PS 'Color Settings RGB' to 'Adobe RGB (199'
2. Load .exr image into PS.
3. 'Use the embedded profile (instead of the working space)

[color=blue]It's interesting to note here that the 'Embedded Profile and Working Profile' are both 'AdobeRGB (199.'

4. '\Image\Adjustments\Exposure\Gamma Correction\ set to .5
5. Image looks very similar to using my custom Hardware/Colorimeter ICC/Profile settings. It also matches the output directly from VrayFB (reference image was saved as a .jpg at time of creation.)
6. 'Save for web' sRGB unchecked. Previews in browsers look very similar to actual/matching output.
7. Preview in Windows Fax and Picture viewer still looks overly saturated.

Method 2:
1. Set PS 'Color Settings RGB' to 'Adobe RGB (199'
2. Load .exr image into PS.
3. 'Convert document's colors to the working space.'

Again, it's interesting to note here that the 'Embedded Profile and Working Profile' are both 'AdobeRGB (199.'

4. The image opens perfectly fine in PS. There's no need to adjust the exposure gamma here. It's the only time I've seen an .exr or .hdr behave this way. Why is that??? This matches precisely with VrayFB output.
5. 'Save for web' sRGB unchecked. Previews in browsers look very similar to actual/matching output.
6. Preview in 'Windows Fax and Picture Viewer.' Colors still shift and saturate. They are not as accurate as the direct .jpg output directly from VrayFB but they are closest to the original so far.

Conclusion:
I think the best web/Internet color workflow to use presently is to set PS Color Settings to 'Adobe RGB (199.' When importing, always choose the middle option which is to convert a document to current working space. When saving, never check sRGB.

I'm open to other people's suggestions and advice. But after two days of testing, this seems the way to work presently.

[simmsimaging]

I think that's pretty much what Plastic said and what I came to understand.


Technically, everyone should be shooting for sRGB Gamut but honestly, it looks horrible. Even a lot of cameras shooting JPGs use sRGB for compatibility.

I came across this article from Adobe earlier which some of you might find interesting in your spare time:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdf...p_colspace.pdf

I disagree - that's sort of a lowest-common-denominator approach. I think a broader colour space is a what people should be working in, and then down-shifting only as necessary for specific outputs. To each his own though.

Thanks for the link - familiar stuff but I have always found that colour calibration information just doesn't like to stick with me... all the details just slip away and becomes a handful of working rules that I just blindly adhere to

b

[simmsimaging]

Method 2 is more workable. By choosing method one you basically scrap any point in having a preset working space in Photoshop. In this case you have AdobeRGB in both, but if it's an hdr or exr it's probably 32bit, and that seems to be a different working space than than 8bit version.

Windows picture viewer is not the best way to view images - I don't think there is any gamma correction. I always tell my clients to use Photoshop or something like Picassa / IrfanView or I can't be held responsible for what they see.

b

[jujubee]

I'm agreeing with you on all these points after testing AdobeRGB. I'd like to know if anyone out there has a better workflow/working method for image editing.

Interestingly enough, I just opened Method 2 output on a different, uncalibrated monitor/computer with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and it looked fine. WP by the way does not read color profiles.

The problem I was concerned with is that clients are going to use it to preview images regardless of what software I have to recommend. I suppose at that point there is nothing we can really do about it.

I think I'm about to install Picasa or Irfanview for quick previews - this way I won't go crazy thinking about it.

[plastic_]

ok, ive always wondered. if your doing a digital medium for the web, why the heck would you have your monitor calibrated to something other than what every other person would have as standard. your work will never be shown to others the way you want it to be.

i'd agree, but there is one problem: those new wide gamut LCD panels.
i got one (samsung 30"), and since then everything is messed up.
the problem is that these wide gamut displays are no longer close to srgb space (as most other monitors and CRT's), but closer to adobeRGB instead.
so they over-saturate everything, when not color calibrated.

if you create something on an uncalibrated wide-gamut display, then the output will look dull on every srgb device, and print, since srgb is the standard.

other problem (can't be fixed easily though with calibration, because of hardware limits) are many notebook displays...they have limited color range, dark greys get clipped to black and light grays to white, undersaturate everything etc.
it's hard/impossible to create balanced images on those displays.