I am getting more and more appalled at the inability to translate the careful nuances of color from a Prophoto 16 bit TIFF to this forum (and others). My last image (yet to be posted) of a waterfall in the Columbia River Gorge and all its beautiful variety of greens shifted so badly that drastic measures had to be applied to get it even in the ballpark (but not at all spot on). I went from 16 bit Prophoto TIFF to SRGB, then to 8 bit (and at this point it looked great in PS) then to "Save for Web." It is the "Save for Web" (or even just a "save as") that really kills it. Believe it or not I had to go to Hue/Saturation and (in Color Mode) shift greens 30pts toward yellow, and then master color 25pts down in saturation to try to compensate for the hue shifting and drastic boost in saturation!!! Is there a better way to get great results? I'm no Photoshop dummy and even teach it, but this is one issue I have yet to nail.
In response to your private email request to comment on this thread, Mark, it's actually hard for me to speak with any authority on this subject. I still work in Adobe RGB or Ekta Space PS 5, J Holmes when editing my images in Photoshop, which seems to convert adequately to sRGB for web applications like the forums and galleries on NPN. However, in reading over your workflow, my suggestion might be to maybe first convert to the 16-bit Prophoto color space to one of these smaller spaces (Adobe RGB or Ekta Space PS 5, J Holmes) since they seem to convert well to sRGB, at least in my experience. Prophoto is a very large color space so converting it to sRGB seems like a huge step down, so I'm not surprised that you're getting conversion issues. Maybe the intermediate-sized color space would be a better stepping stone to the smaller sRGB space. Just some thoughts, though. I've not experimented with Prophoto, and am not familiar with its behavior.
I work in Prophoto color space, 16 bit TIFF (LR3 then CS5) as well Mark and am absolutely not very familiar with all the ins and oust of PS. I have had the same issue though. I have posted some horrific color shifted images that I immediately deleted, reworked then reposted. I usually use my iPhone as a to see how badly my new post has shifted. What I have found that works for me is to flatten the image, convert to 8 bit, convert profile to sRGB and save as a JPEG. I then sharpen using TK's actions, Save for web with convert to sRGB (again) checked "view with document profile". This seems to work for me. To check, I use my iPhone and at least 2 other computers in the house (our general house computer (Firefox browser) and my husband's Mac Book Pro (Safari browser)) to check the color. BTW - It is not just NPN. I have also noticed this issue with Deviantart, Flickr, Redbubble and y own website on Zenfolio.
What is really weird is that the conversion from Prophoto to SRGB looks fine (and there is a conversion). It is going from the SRGB Tiff to SRGB Jpeg that gets all screwy. I'll try Tony's idea (and thought of that) but I question if it will help because of where the bad change happens. Thanks anyone contributing. My specific photo is not out on the forum (but soon should be) so I dont yet want to show it, but I might soon do a screen shot of the two side by side.
Mark, what Browser are you using? This can make a huge difference... for example I use Chrome which makes the colors look awful, so if I want to see it look accurate I have to check it in Safari
There isn't a monitor produced today that can accurately 'see' the large color gamut of ProPhoto. Saving your 'digital negatives' in that color space makes sense for the futurewhen monitors and printers might be able to use PP, but not editing with it. In fact, it's almost pointless. I know that doesn't solve your problem, Mark. Just thought I'd mention it.
I also work in AdobeRGB and have had no issues whatsoever with color shifting when converting from ARGB TIF to sRGB JPEG for Web viewing using the 'Save As..' dialog (..never 'Save for Web').
My experience is the same as John's. My master files are in AdobeRGB-tiff. I make a dupe, flatten, convert to 8-bit and then convert to sRGB. After resizing and USM I do use Save for the Web and make sure 'Use Embedded Profile' is checked. I have no color shifts.
If you are working in Lightroom do an export to the target size in JPG format and the sRGB color space with sharpening for screen. If you are working in Photoshop reduce the image to the output size, reduce the bit depth to 8, then use Edit>Convert to Profile to go to the sRGB color space. Do not use the "Assign to Profile command. That will mess up the color badly. After downsizing in Photoshop you will need to sharpen to compensate for resizing losses. USM 60/10/0 usually works to restore local contrast. If you want to play with the numbers change the middle one.
FWIW I never use "Save for Web". I control the output size using the compression. I don't know if "Save for Web" does anything to the color or not. I don't use it because it strips out almost all the EXIF data. I do know that some images appear slightly darker overall in a browser than in Photoshop but following the above I have not seen any significant shifts of hue.
Mark - Just to be clear. Are you saying that a TIFF in PS looks fine, but if you do a "Save As" and create a JPG it looks bad in PS? Because that simply shouldn't be happening.
Once you get the image into the sRGB space looking good, you should be over the biggest hurdle. Saving in 8-bit and as a JPG should not shift things (except for potentially very minor differences due to color posterization or JPG compression).
If it looks bad in a browser, what browser are you using? Most aren't color managed, and as Luke pointed out, can make colors look wonky depending on where your monitor profile lies.
The issue is when the file goes from SRGB Tiff (which looks great) to JPEG in PS (not ProPhoto to SRGB) it still looks great when I do a "save as" but, even still, when it gets posted to the forum it changed drastically. Also the "save for web" preview (when I use it) shows a very different version (almost identical to what it looks like when posted for web). I like "save for web" because it can get rid of your meta data automatically.
As far as sharpening and all that I have some very advanced ways of doing that and it is irrelevant here.
John I agree. I am often using ARGB for the prints now too, but again that is a side issue.
I am using Explorer 9
SRGB is embedded
The issue is how they appear on this forum. In photoshop they look perfect.
If they look fine in PS, then the issue isn't with the file. I use "save for web" because it lets you see the output size before saving, automatically converts to sRGB, and strips the meta data. I have not had any issues with that process noticeably changing the colors.
What browser are you using? As noted by others, unless you're using firefox with color management turned on or safari, you're not going to see the same thing as you do in PS. Greens are particularly susceptible to shifts.
I compared my recent image, Eva's Falls-Sonora Pass with the jpeg image opened in PSCS5, and using IE9 to open the image in the Landscape Gallery. There is, indeed, a slight shift in the greens in the water: The greens are more saturated and a little brighter, but not overly so. The other hues and tonal values are identical, as near as I can tell.
Mark, can you use a different computer, with the same version of PS installed and use the same workflow to see if it happens on that machine? Also, does this happen with all images, or is it just the one file?
If this is only happening to one file, and the shifts are as extreme as you say, I would be led to believe that the file is corrupted in some way. If these shifts are happening to all your images, this points to something systemic.
Your problem is that IE9 isn't really color managed. Microsoft added some new color management capability, but essentially what it does is filter things through sRGB, so if your monitor is close to that, it will look close. Otherwise, who knows what you'll get.
And if you adjust it to make it look good to you in IE9 on your monitor with your monitor profile, who knows what anyone else will see... it will depend on their monitor and its calibration (or lack of calibration).
Preston mentioned what he sees on his image in IE9, as compared to PS. But since IE9 doesn't handle things correctly, others could see things differently for his image.
The best thing to do is still to convert to sRGB, leave the profile embedded, and post it. People with calibrated monitors will see things correctly, or close to it. Others will at least see things in a color space their monitor can handle, so it should be close. Beyond that, it's a crap shoot.
As for the Save for Web preview in PS... I'm pretty sure that that's not properly color managed either, so it's probably something like the shift that some users may see.
I downloaded Firefox and BAM it looks perfect! It is IE9. WTF? Since it was a Columbia river gorge shot and had a massive variety of greens the greens got WAY out of whack!
So, I need to use Firefox or Safari now?
Also, what about those viewing the image in IE that say "that's over saturated" or "that's over processed" or "those greens aren't right!"
Or what about me giving a critique on my good and calibrated monitor, but through IE all these months (or years). Doesn't that make a lot of peoples feedback almost irrelevant?
For what it's worth, I continually have the same issues you do, and I think there is some sort of additional color adjustment that occurs in the 'save for web' command. Perhaps we are changing the colorspace TWICE as we go from a TIFF sRGB to JPG sRGB with the 'save for web' conversion? I always find the 'save for web command' creates a shift toward magenta and cyan, regardless of the web browser. I always spend an additional 45 minutes of color space management when I take my 'perfect' TIFF Adobe RGB printing file through the process of sRGB and JPG conversion. I'll be curious to hear any additional responses to this thread.
Mike, I really am humiliated about this. I have given you, Marc A and almost everyone else on the Landscape forum sometimes careful critique of various color or hue nuances and now I know that a lot (or most) of what I was seeing was not even what you posted! I just wrote a major thread about this at:
David - Save for Web preview is color managed, but you have to select the appropriate preview option (document profile).
I've hardly ever had any significant troubles with Save for Web, but note that when converting between profiles there are different algorithms you can use. If you're using a profile that has a gamut that is wider than your monitor (ie. Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) it's possible that the conversion to sRGB will give you unexpected and slightly different results depending on the algorithm used. I don't know how to specify the engine in Save for Web, but perhaps if you're experiencing trouble in that conversion you should try manually converting the profile using edit>convert to profile and test out the different algorithms? I use relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but I find there's hardly any noticeable difference really. The bigger problem I find is that the fine level sharpening most of us use these days can have drastic effects on contrast and saturation, so I often need to adjust the saturation levels and even sometimes curves to offset the effects of side effects of sharpening.
Perhaps the more disturbing pill to swallow is that even as a print, your colors will hardly ever be viewed as intended out "in the wild". The colors and contrasts you see in a print are heavily determined by the lighting used to illuminate a print, and most people are not going to go through the trouble of installing 5000k bulbs spotlighting their wall art at the right angles.
"The bigger problem I find is that the fine level sharpening most of us use these days can have drastic effects on contrast and saturation, so I often need to adjust the saturation levels and even sometimes curves to offset the effects of side effects of sharpening. "
Excellent point Floris and I too have often had to do the same.
As far as prints, you are right. But I have to say a lot of mine I have sold I have helped the clients with their home setups. When they pay as much as they do with the higher end approach they are often wanting to really make the photo stand out in their home as a display piece. But those small $150 dollar photos... I doubt they would go to the trouble.
With regard to sharpening and color shifts, I have found a method that gets away from this.
After flattening the image and you are aready to sharpen, try this:
Create a new empty layer.
Type Shift+Ctrl+Alt+E
(This will populate the new layer with your image)
Set the blending mode of this layer to 'Luminosity'
Use your normal sharpening routine on this layer. (I use USM or Smart Sharpen in PS)
Flatten the image and save using Save As... or Save for the Web.
I have found that this method does not alter the color. If there is a change in contrast, one can create a curves (or levels) adjustment layer to adjust the contrast after applying USM.
The image rendering in browsers conundrum is indeed a can of worms (not to mention the other variables of monitors and system config). It would certainly be a good thing if all the browsers used a standardized rendering engine, but, competition being what it is.... The same is true for the way browsers render CSS and HTML. That can of worms is even more slippery!
Quick Note: If you are using CS5 Save for Web, there is a 'Preview' button on the bottom of the window. This preview will open your image in a browser window. If you have more than one browser installed, you can select the one you want via the dropdown just to the right of the preview button. I don't recall if earlier versions of PS have this.
Preston - I always use the luminosity blend mode for sharpening, but it still has big effects on saturation and contrast. The saturation changes come because you're shifting your tones away from the midtones and more towards the whites and blacks (that's what sharpening does), so the saturation doesn't have the same quality as with the original.
I go a small step further and use LAB L sharpening for web, and take this about as far as Web Sharpening can go (and is a very convoluted approach - which I love) and it is true there is often a lot of tonal changes in the image (needing further fine tuning as a last step). Colors may not "change" as in Hue shifting or Saturation boost but the colors do get lighter and darker, changing tonality.
Preston, thanks about your "conundrum/can of worms" comment. On my other thread ("I Am Truly Disturbed") some apparently think this is not to be concerned about.
Discussion
21 repliesI am getting more and more appalled at the inability to translate the careful nuances of color from a Prophoto 16 bit TIFF to this forum (and others). My last image (yet to be posted) of a waterfall in the Columbia River Gorge and all its beautiful variety of greens shifted so badly that drastic measures had to be applied to get it even in the ballpark (but not at all spot on). I went from 16 bit Prophoto TIFF to SRGB, then to 8 bit (and at this point it looked great in PS) then to "Save for Web." It is the "Save for Web" (or even just a "save as") that really kills it. Believe it or not I had to go to Hue/Saturation and (in Color Mode) shift greens 30pts toward yellow, and then master color 25pts down in saturation to try to compensate for the hue shifting and drastic boost in saturation!!! Is there a better way to get great results? I'm no Photoshop dummy and even teach it, but this is one issue I have yet to nail.
Thanks for any suggestions.
What is really weird is that the conversion from Prophoto to SRGB looks fine (and there is a conversion). It is going from the SRGB Tiff to SRGB Jpeg that gets all screwy. I'll try Tony's idea (and thought of that) but I question if it will help because of where the bad change happens. Thanks anyone contributing. My specific photo is not out on the forum (but soon should be) so I dont yet want to show it, but I might soon do a screen shot of the two side by side.
I also work in AdobeRGB and have had no issues whatsoever with color shifting when converting from ARGB TIF to sRGB JPEG for Web viewing using the 'Save As..' dialog (..never 'Save for Web').
--P
FWIW I never use "Save for Web". I control the output size using the compression. I don't know if "Save for Web" does anything to the color or not. I don't use it because it strips out almost all the EXIF data. I do know that some images appear slightly darker overall in a browser than in Photoshop but following the above I have not seen any significant shifts of hue.
Once you get the image into the sRGB space looking good, you should be over the biggest hurdle. Saving in 8-bit and as a JPG should not shift things (except for potentially very minor differences due to color posterization or JPG compression).
If it looks bad in a browser, what browser are you using? Most aren't color managed, and as Luke pointed out, can make colors look wonky depending on where your monitor profile lies.
The issue is when the file goes from SRGB Tiff (which looks great) to JPEG in PS (not ProPhoto to SRGB) it still looks great when I do a "save as" but, even still, when it gets posted to the forum it changed drastically. Also the "save for web" preview (when I use it) shows a very different version (almost identical to what it looks like when posted for web). I like "save for web" because it can get rid of your meta data automatically.
As far as sharpening and all that I have some very advanced ways of doing that and it is irrelevant here.
John I agree. I am often using ARGB for the prints now too, but again that is a side issue.
I am using Explorer 9
SRGB is embedded
The issue is how they appear on this forum. In photoshop they look perfect.
Maybe my eye is getting too trained!
What browser are you using? As noted by others, unless you're using firefox with color management turned on or safari, you're not going to see the same thing as you do in PS. Greens are particularly susceptible to shifts.
Mark, can you use a different computer, with the same version of PS installed and use the same workflow to see if it happens on that machine? Also, does this happen with all images, or is it just the one file?
If this is only happening to one file, and the shifts are as extreme as you say, I would be led to believe that the file is corrupted in some way. If these shifts are happening to all your images, this points to something systemic.
--P
And if you adjust it to make it look good to you in IE9 on your monitor with your monitor profile, who knows what anyone else will see... it will depend on their monitor and its calibration (or lack of calibration).
Preston mentioned what he sees on his image in IE9, as compared to PS. But since IE9 doesn't handle things correctly, others could see things differently for his image.
The best thing to do is still to convert to sRGB, leave the profile embedded, and post it. People with calibrated monitors will see things correctly, or close to it. Others will at least see things in a color space their monitor can handle, so it should be close. Beyond that, it's a crap shoot.
As for the Save for Web preview in PS... I'm pretty sure that that's not properly color managed either, so it's probably something like the shift that some users may see.
So, I need to use Firefox or Safari now?
Also, what about those viewing the image in IE that say "that's over saturated" or "that's over processed" or "those greens aren't right!"
Or what about me giving a critique on my good and calibrated monitor, but through IE all these months (or years). Doesn't that make a lot of peoples feedback almost irrelevant?
Jeeze what a can of worms!
This is very disturbing.
For what it's worth, I continually have the same issues you do, and I think there is some sort of additional color adjustment that occurs in the 'save for web' command. Perhaps we are changing the colorspace TWICE as we go from a TIFF sRGB to JPG sRGB with the 'save for web' conversion? I always find the 'save for web command' creates a shift toward magenta and cyan, regardless of the web browser. I always spend an additional 45 minutes of color space management when I take my 'perfect' TIFF Adobe RGB printing file through the process of sRGB and JPG conversion. I'll be curious to hear any additional responses to this thread.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=65486&CGISESSID=bcf802cc6a81c811f3773281887f6421&u=17336
Entitled: I am truly disturbed!!!
Sorry.
I've hardly ever had any significant troubles with Save for Web, but note that when converting between profiles there are different algorithms you can use. If you're using a profile that has a gamut that is wider than your monitor (ie. Adobe RGB or ProPhoto) it's possible that the conversion to sRGB will give you unexpected and slightly different results depending on the algorithm used. I don't know how to specify the engine in Save for Web, but perhaps if you're experiencing trouble in that conversion you should try manually converting the profile using edit>convert to profile and test out the different algorithms? I use relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but I find there's hardly any noticeable difference really. The bigger problem I find is that the fine level sharpening most of us use these days can have drastic effects on contrast and saturation, so I often need to adjust the saturation levels and even sometimes curves to offset the effects of side effects of sharpening.
Perhaps the more disturbing pill to swallow is that even as a print, your colors will hardly ever be viewed as intended out "in the wild". The colors and contrasts you see in a print are heavily determined by the lighting used to illuminate a print, and most people are not going to go through the trouble of installing 5000k bulbs spotlighting their wall art at the right angles.
Excellent point Floris and I too have often had to do the same.
As far as prints, you are right. But I have to say a lot of mine I have sold I have helped the clients with their home setups. When they pay as much as they do with the higher end approach they are often wanting to really make the photo stand out in their home as a display piece. But those small $150 dollar photos... I doubt they would go to the trouble.
After flattening the image and you are aready to sharpen, try this:
Create a new empty layer.
Type Shift+Ctrl+Alt+E
(This will populate the new layer with your image)
Set the blending mode of this layer to 'Luminosity'
Use your normal sharpening routine on this layer. (I use USM or Smart Sharpen in PS)
Flatten the image and save using Save As... or Save for the Web.
I have found that this method does not alter the color. If there is a change in contrast, one can create a curves (or levels) adjustment layer to adjust the contrast after applying USM.
The image rendering in browsers conundrum is indeed a can of worms (not to mention the other variables of monitors and system config). It would certainly be a good thing if all the browsers used a standardized rendering engine, but, competition being what it is.... The same is true for the way browsers render CSS and HTML. That can of worms is even more slippery!
Quick Note: If you are using CS5 Save for Web, there is a 'Preview' button on the bottom of the window. This preview will open your image in a browser window. If you have more than one browser installed, you can select the one you want via the dropdown just to the right of the preview button. I don't recall if earlier versions of PS have this.
Mark, I hope you can get this sorted out!
--P
Preston, thanks about your "conundrum/can of worms" comment. On my other thread ("I Am Truly Disturbed") some apparently think this is not to be concerned about.
The visual comparison is there...