Photoshop "save for web" color ??

[learjet035]

I have been email some of my pics to friends, and even posting here. One thing I can't seem to figure out is how to save for web and keep the original color profile. Anyone have any suggestions? I have tried to "convert color profile" back from srgb to adobe web98 but the color looks unchanged. I am shooting in Adobe98 and it looks great in PS, but once I save for web the colors all fade a bit. Thanks in advance!

[CyberDyneSystems]

You would need to convert to SRGB before saving for web.

[tubs]

Shoot in AdobeRGB.
Work in AdobeRGB colour space.
Do your post-processing.
Then do 'Apply profile' (I think its under 'Mode') and select sRBG. Colours will now appear flat in Photoshop.
Do 'Save for Web'. The image will be untagged (which is fine) unless you specifically tag the box that says 'ICC profile'. This will tag the image with sRGB and will give it a fractionally larger file size. If the image is only going to the web then I don't see any reason to tag it with a profile. Maybe Mac users will disagree.

The jpg image you've saved will always look flat in an AdobeRGB working space, but will look as you want when viewed in Windows or with a web browser.

Cheers,

Tubs.

[tim]

You would need to convert to SRGB before saving for web.

Tubs method is more complex than you need. Just use Image -> Convert profile, choose sRgb, then use "Save for web".

[PacAce]

Shoot in AdobeRGB.
Work in AdobeRGB colour space.
Do your post-processing.
Then do 'Apply profile' (I think its under 'Mode') and select sRBG. Colours will now appear flat in Photoshop.
Do 'Save for Web'. The image will be untagged (which is fine) unless you specifically tag the box that says 'ICC profile'. This will tag the image with sRGB and will give it a fractionally larger file size. If the image is only going to the web then I don't see any reason to tag it with a profile. Maybe Mac users will disagree.

The jpg image you've saved will always look flat in an AdobeRGB working space, but will look as you want when viewed in Windows or with a web browser.

Cheers,

Tubs.
Tubs, I think you meant to say "Convert Profile" as there is no such thing as "Apply Profile" (at least not in PS 7 and above). It's either "Convert Profile" or "Assign Profile" and you definitely don't want to "Assign Profile".

[scottbergerphoto]

It's either "Convert Profile" or "Assign Profile" and you definitely don't want to "Assign Profile".
xactly!

[learjet035]

Thanks everyone! I was messing around and saved for web and checked the ICC box then saved it. It seemed to keep the color correct. I posted a few pics here and they looked correct on both my mac and PC. Is there a downside to using this technique, it seems to be super easy.. which I like =)

[ekie]

Thanks everyone! I was messing around and saved for web and checked the ICC box then saved it. It seemed to keep the color correct. I posted a few pics here and they looked correct on both my mac and PC. Is there a downside to using this technique, it seems to be super easy.. which I like =)

hey. im having same problems you had. tried the things mentioned in here but still cant get it to be displayed properly outside of 'photoshop'. could you give me the steps you did? what color management settings do you have selected within photoshop? :)

oh and when converting to sRGB, what settings are used?

[learjet035]

ok, first let me warn you that my settings are just from reading so they may not be correct @ all. But they seem to be working for me ok since I have been checking the ICC box in save for web. I have my Color Settings on my camera set to Adobe1998 and on PS I have selected North American Prepress 2 which auto selects adobe 1998. Then if you want to post here or email someone I "save for web" / Check the box that says ICC profile and do your thing. Like I said, that has been working for me but I'm not sure that it is the "correct" way. You will get warnings when you open a non 1998 pic, you may fix this by opening Color Settings again and in the RGB dropdown select "convert to working RGB" and uncheck the box below that says "ask when opening" Hope that helps, and if anyone disagrees, lemme know so we can fix it right.

[tubs]

Leo & Scott,

You've raised an issue I wrestled with some time ago and I really thought I'd sorted out. You're right that 'Apply Profile' was a mistake (my poor memory). I did however mean to say 'Assign Profile'. Whilst I have always found the naming counter-intuitive, this command achieves the outcome whereas 'Convert Profile' seems to do something completely different. From my experimentation 'Assign Profile' discards the existing profile and re-tags the image with the new profile. That makes the colours look different in the working space, but correct in the destination space. I use this regularly to prepare images for the web. If however I were to use 'Convert Profile' then it changes the colours as well as the profile, so the image looks the same in the working space, but wrong in the destination space.

Any comments ?

[learjet035]

LOL, my head hurts! =) Wish you could just take a pic and print/post it, that would be wonderful huh? Yes though, it's quite confusing, I try to stay away from setting most of the time.

[PacAce]

Leo & Scott,

You've raised an issue I wrestled with some time ago and I really thought I'd sorted out. You're right that 'Apply Profile' was a mistake (my poor memory). I did however mean to say 'Assign Profile'. Whilst I have always found the naming counter-intuitive, this command achieves the outcome whereas 'Convert Profile' seems to do something completely different. From my experimentation 'Assign Profile' discards the existing profile and re-tags the image with the new profile. That makes the colours look different in the working space, but correct in the destination space. I use this regularly to prepare images for the web. If however I were to use 'Convert Profile' then it changes the colours as well as the profile, so the image looks the same in the working space, but wrong in the destination space.

Any comments ?
Tubs, do you have your monitor calibrated and profiled? I assume you do but I thought I'd ask just to make sure.

When you say "destination space", what exactly is that referring to? sRGB? Am I correct in assuming that the images are being viewed via a web browser?

And lastly, what web browser are you using?

Oops! I lied. One more... do you have samples of the same image that's been shot and edited in ARGB and then converted to sRGB and another that's been assign to sRGB?

[tim]

Assign profile changes just the marker in the image that declares its profile. Convert profile converts an image from one color space to another (eg adobe rgb to srgb). If you assign an incorrect profile the colors will look wrong, if you convert and it doesn't actually need to be converted I assume the operation won't cause any problems. To be safe, use convert profile. Also, read this (http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc007.html) (free registration is necessary and worthwhile).

[tubs]

Hmmmmmm... the literature suggests you guys are right. I'll need to revisit this. Thanks for the reference Tim.

To answer your Qs Leo:
I calibrate my monitor (Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 93SB 19") using a Pantone Colorvision Spyder Pro about every six months. Photographic work is only part-time for me so I haven't felt the need to do it more often. You also use the term 'profiled'. I'm not aware that this is a separate step. The calibration process generates an ICC profile for the monitor. Am I missing anything ?

When I say 'destination space' I mean the space the image will be finally viewed in. For the web I always assume this to be sRGB. (As far as I'm aware the sRGB space is supposed to represent the average uncalibrated monitor.)

I usually shoot in AdobeRGB because of the larger colour space (just in case I need those colours) but after reading the Shootsmarter reference I might go back to sRBG, since I don't have any clients who want AdobeRGB.

My usual workflow involves doing the post work in AdobeRGB working space and then 'Assign Profile' to sRBG. The colours then go flat in PS. I then 'Save for Web' and then check them using the standard 'Windows Fax & Picture Viewer' where the colours look fine.

Do you have any bad news for me ?

Tubs.

[PacAce]

Hmmmmmm... the literature suggests you guys are right. I'll need to revisit this. Thanks for the reference Tim.

To answer your Qs Leo:
I calibrate my monitor (Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 93SB 19") using a Pantone Colorvision Spyder Pro about every six months. Photographic work is only part-time for me so I haven't felt the need to do it more often. You also use the term 'profiled'. I'm not aware that this is a separate step. The calibration process generates an ICC profile for the monitor. Am I missing anything ?

When I say 'destination space' I mean the space the image will be finally viewed in. For the web I always assume this to be sRGB. (As far as I'm aware the sRGB space is supposed to represent the average uncalibrated monitor.)

I usually shoot in AdobeRGB because of the larger colour space (just in case I need those colours) but after reading the Shootsmarter reference I might go back to sRBG, since I don't have any clients who want AdobeRGB.

My usual workflow involves doing the post work in AdobeRGB working space and then 'Assign Profile' to sRBG. The colours then go flat in PS. I then 'Save for Web' and then check them using the standard 'Windows Fax & Picture Viewer' where the colours look fine.

Do you have any bad news for me ?

Tubs.
When I do what you do, my images come out flat even in Windows Fax and Picture Viewer. I guess the best way for you to compare the two methods (convert and assign) is to create an image using each method and the open both of them with WFPV. If you have an image with lots of red or even a golden-tan-skinned person in it, you'll be able to see the difference right away and an Adobe RGB image with an sRGB tag doesn't look very pleasing compared to an Adobe RGB image with the Adobe RGB tag or one that's been converted to sRGB.

[tubs]

Great, I'll try it tonight.

[scottbergerphoto]

When preparing images for the web, the Check box for saving the ICC profile is irrelevant. Web based applications ignore ICC profiles and treat them as sRGB. The key to preparing images for the web is as already mentioned to Convert to sRGB before resizing for the web if the iamge is in any other color space.
1. Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB (CS not CS2)
2. File>Save For Web
3. Quality>Med-High, Size-widest side = 800 (ICC box is unchecked).

[PacAce]

When preparing images for the web, the Check box for saving the ICC profile is irrelevant. Web based applications ignore ICC profiles and treat them as sRGB. The key to preparing images for the web is as already mentioned to Convert to sRGB before resizing for the web if the iamge is in any other color space.
1. Image>Mode>Convert to Profile>sRGB (CS not CS2)
2. File>Save For Web
3. Quality>Med-High, Size-widest side = 800 (ICC box is unchecked).
I just wanted to add that if you care about how most everybody sees your images (i.e. Windows and Mac users, whether using IE, Firefox, Safari, Windows Fax and Image Viewer, Finder Previewer, etc.), then it helps to include the ICC tag along with the image. It adds about another 3K to the overall size of the file but the ICC tag will ensure that images are viewed as they were intended to be viewed, independent of the platform or application being used.

I never bothered with ICC tags before but have started to tag all my web images.

[tubs]

Ok, I need to reconcile something. The literature seems to agree with the three of you, but my results contradict. I tried it again last night and have some images to show. The filenames indicate what I did.

The image was shot and post-processed in AdobeRGB working space. I applied one colour management option to each (listed below) and then viewed the saved jpg using Windows Fax and Picture Viewer.

option 1: leave profile as AdobeRGB
option 2: convert to profile sRGB
option 3: convert to monitor profile
option 4: assign profile sRGB

The results:

options 1, 2 and 3 look way too red.
option 4 looks exactly as it did in PS.

I've just tried to post the images and it seems you don't get to see the filenames. I'll try to put them here so you can see what I mean.

[tubs]

Hey now hey now hey now !! These don't look the same on the web as they do in Windows Fax and Picture Viewer. Its not clear which is which above, so I've posted all four on a private page: http://science-it.newcastle.edu.au/~cjrf622/
You can see which is which from the filenames. Now three look normal and just the 'Convert to sRGB' looks red. Still doesn't make sense.

Any thoughts ? Particularly on why the web browser (IE6) looks different to WPFV.

Comments are much appreciated.

Tubs.

[PacAce]

All the images you posted look almost identical (and, yes, a little on the reddish side) except for the "assign_sRGB", which is on the dull side compared to the other images. Were these as shot or did you adjust the colors of the images before you saved them?

Re the IE and WPFV differences, IE does not honor the ICC tag so it will display all images, whether tagged or not, as sRGBs. WFPV, on the other hand, does recognize ICC tags and will display the images appropriately as specified by the ICC tag, if present.

Have you checked to make sure that Windows has the monitor profile that you created when you calibrated the monitor loaded and isn't using a default profile?

[tubs]

Thanks for your comments Leo. I assume you looked at the images using the web browser. I want to refrain from making judgements using my (uncalibrated) monitor here at work, so before I say anything more I'll wait until I can get home and check them, using the browser (which I haven't done) and also check that Windows is using the correct monitor profile.

Tubs.

[blue_max]

I am late to this, but what is the difference between Photoshop changing the AdobeRGB file to SRGB and the monitor (as it can't actually display AdobeRGB). I would have thought it would be the same - more or less.

Graham

[PacAce]

I am late to this, but what is the difference between Photoshop changing the AdobeRGB file to SRGB and the monitor (as it can't actually display AdobeRGB). I would have thought it would be the same - more or less.

Graham
If I understand your question correctly, firstly, most modern monitors (assuming we're not talking basement bargain monitors here) can display colors that are beyond those defined by sRGB. sRGB was set up sort of as a "minimum" requirement for monitors.

When Photoshop converts an image from one color space to another, it is actually making adjustments to the image data so that the converted colors are as identical as possible. When you display an image, assuming that no color management is being done by the app displaying the image, the colors are displayed as is, without any color space data conversion. Hence, an ARGB image converted to sRGB and then displayed will look fine, but an ARGB displayed as is will look dullish in color.

[PacAce]

This simplified illustration might make this color space thing a little easier to understand. The attached image is my attempt at trying to illustrate the Adobe RGB and the sRGB color space profiles. The more to the right you go, the more saturated the color (in this case, RED) is supposed to be. Unfortunately, the image doesn't show that very well so just keep that in the back of your mind. :) And the darker the color, the less saturated.

All images represent colors with values from 0 to 255 (for 8-bit images) whether the image is in the Adobe RGB color space or the sRGB color space. What's different is what colors these numbers represent. Since ARGB has a wider color gamut than sRGB, the 256 values of ARGB has to represent more colors than the sRGB color space does. This is represented in the attached illustration where the color represented by the value of 128 in the ARGB color space is roughly equivalent to the color represented by the valueof 255 in the sRGB color space. This is just for illustration purposes only so these numbers and colors are not really accurate.

If you have an image in ARGB with a value of 255, which is supposed to be a very saturated RED in the illustration, and convert it to sRGB, what happens is that there is no equivalent color in sRGB so the color gets converted but the color it gets converted to depends on the rendering intent used. I'm not going to get into rendering intent here but suffice it to say that the color will not match the original ARGB color no matter which rendering intent is used because that color simply doesn't exist in the sRGB color space.

If the ARGB color has a value of, say, 128 which just so happens to be the same color as the one represented by the value of 255 in the sRGB color space (again, this is just made up for illustration purposes), then one of two things can happen, depending on whether the image is converted or not.

If the image is converted to sRGB, then the value of 128 is converted to a value of 255 since they are equivalent colors in the two color spaces. Then when you view the image in a web browser, the image will look almost identical to the the original ARGB image.

However, instead of converting the image to sRGB, if the ICC tag is dropped so that the image is assumed to be sRGB, or if the sRGB profile is assigned to the image, then no conversion of color values takes place. The color of 128 in the ARGB image remains as 128 in the sRGB image. So, looking at the color represented by the value of 128 in the illustration, we see that color changes and becomes less saturated than the original image.

And that explains why ARGB images that aren't converted to sRGB but viewed with an app that assumes that they're sRGB look dull and lacking in saturation.

You can go the other way, too. You can take an sRGB image and assign it an Adobe RGB color profile. In that case, you'll notice that when you view the image in PS or any other color-space aware app, the colors of the image become seemingly oversaturated in color.
.

[learjet035]

Just curious --Pic 1 is with ICC checked -Pic 2 is ICC off in save for web. No srgb conversions, do they look the same to you all? This is Adobe98 set in my camera, Adobe98 workspace in CS2 and then direct to "save for web"

[learjet035]

Wow, big diff on my monitor here. Un-calibrated mac powerbook.

[blue_max]

I find the top one quite a lot warmer on my calibrated mac lcd monitor.

Here is a screen shot, downsized. It might show the difference as it's quite subjective.

Graham

[learjet035]

But now that I am on my windoh!'s computer they look identical??? I just don't know anymore. So if I want to email a pic to a friend that is small will it have to look dull? Or do I have to work in srgb and bump up the saturation in all my pics, then save for web? Uhhhh, I'm just gonna get into painting I think! =)

[blue_max]

If I understand your question correctly, firstly, most modern monitors (assuming we're not talking basement bargain monitors here) can display colors that are beyond those defined by sRGB. sRGB was set up sort of as a "minimum" requirement for monitors.

When Photoshop converts an image from one color space to another, it is actually making adjustments to the image data so that the converted colors are as identical as possible. When you display an image, assuming that no color management is being done by the app displaying the image, the colors are displayed as is, without any color space data conversion. Hence, an ARGB image converted to sRGB and then displayed will look fine, but an ARGB displayed as is will look dullish in color.

I was just wondering why bother to convert to sRGB. If one leaves it as AdobeRGB, then if the monitor is up to it, it will display in full glorious colour and if it is not capable, will look close to if you converted to sRGB. My question is why convert at all?

Graham
(if you have answered in your long post, I don't have time to digest it yet, but will certainly go through it)

[PacAce]

I was just wondering why bother to convert to sRGB. If one leaves it as AdobeRGB, then if the monitor is up to it, it will display in full glorious colour and if it is not capable, will look close to if you converted to sRGB. My question is why convert at all?

Graham
(if you have answered in your long post, I don't have time to digest it yet, but will certainly go through it)
The reason is because, if you don't, the colors are not the way they're supposed to be. I'm not sure if a different type of analogy is in order. Let's say you want to paint your room RED. So you go to Home Depot and ask for some RED paint. The guys there asks you what the color code is that you want. So you say, I want the #10 RED. Now, you're a Glidden fan so of course the number you just gave is for a Glidden RED paint. The guys comes back and hands you a can of #10 RED and you go home and paint your room. Then you curse under your breath because, after finishing the room, you realize that the color doesn't match the RED in the rest of the house. You look at the can to see if the guy gave you the right RED color. Yup, the can says #10 RED. But, when you look more closely, you realize that it's the #10 RED of the Behr brand, not Glidden. And now you're steaming 'cuz you wanted Glidden, not Behr! :evil:

That's how it is with monitors, too, and image editors/viewers in general.

[PacAce]

Now, to get the room painted in all the same colors, if Home Depot doesn't have a Glidden #10 RED paint, then they'd have to look up the equivalant color for the Behr paint. Let's say the same color paint for the Behr brand is #25 RED. You take the #25 RED home and paint your room and you're happy because the match is so close that you can't even tell that the room was painted with Behr #25 RED instead of Glidden #10 RED. :)

In short, Adobe RGB, sRGB and even the monitor use different sets of numbers to represent the same set of colors that are common to each. To get the correct color, you have to make sure you use the appropriate color codes for the color space that you are working with. If you don't, then the colors will not match.

[learjet035]

good example Pac! I am leavning my house whatever color it comes out, and if anybody dont like it... too bad! =) JK, but I think I'm just going to not convert, and hold the true colorful beauty of my pics for people who come over to see them. Thanks for all this info/input, this forum rules!

[scottbergerphoto]

Great set of explanations Leo. If you post a thread Assign vs. Convert to sRGB and do a little copy and paste of your explanations, we can add it to the Sticky.

[PacAce]

But now that I am on my windoh!'s computer they look identical??? I just don't know anymore. So if I want to email a pic to a friend that is small will it have to look dull? Or do I have to work in srgb and bump up the saturation in all my pics, then save for web? Uhhhh, I'm just gonna get into painting I think! =)
On your Mac, if you use Firefox or any other browser that is not color-space aware, then the two images will look identical (and flat). However, if you view them in Safari, Finder Previewer or any other color-space aware app, then the one with the ARGB tag will look colorful but the one without it will not because the image will be shown using your monitor color space which may or may not be close to the sRGB color space (but it definitely won't be like ARGB).

On your Windows system, most any browser will show both images in the same drabby colors since Windows browsers are not color-space aware. Import the two images into PS and tell PS to assign the one without the ICC tag the ARGB profile and it'll look just fine because it really is an ARGB profiled image. However, tell it to assign it an sRGB profile and the same image in PS will look dull compared to the original ARGB image.

BTW, if you want your friends to see the image with the saturated colors the way the original image is, all you have to do is, for PSCS, Image > Mode > Convert Profile from ARGB to sRGB, or for PSCS2, Edit > Convert Profile from ARGB to sRGB. Then do Save for Web. You should NOT have to mess with the colors just to have it display correctly in sRGB. And, for the benefit of your Mac user friends, you might want to also check the "attach ICC profile" box, too. :)

[tubs]

Excellent explanations Leo; very clear.
I do feel that I understand the concepts, but I'm still trying to pin down the best methodology. My workflow seems to work (with regard to 'Assign Profile' vs 'Convert to Profile') but from what you say it shouldn't. I've now checked my example images (http://science-it.newcastle.edu.au/~cjrf622/) on the calibrated monitor at home, using both the browser and with WFPV. I've also confirmed that Windows is using the correct monitor profile. Results:

Reminder: The images were shot with 20D in ARGB and basic colour mods done in ARGB working space using PSCS. Used 'Save As' (not Save for Web) in four ways; a) left tagged as ARGB, b) 'Assign sRGB', c) 'Convert to sRGB', d) 'Convert to monitor profile'. Filenames show which is which.

In Windows Fax & Picture Viewer:
Three of them look (practically) identical and all too red.
Only 'Assign sRGB' looks as it did in PS.
[This is what I do in my workflow.]

In Internet Explorer:
Three of them look (practically) identical and these look good (as they do in PS)
Only 'Convert to sRGB' looks too red.
This latter observation confuses me, because if IE cant read the profile, then why does the ARGB image look the same in IE as it does in PS ?

Leo, I'm not sure what platform you're using, but your observations (presumably on the web) seem to match my observations for WPFV. Could you possibly clarify the platform for me ?

If anybody else could spare the time to have a quick look at the four images I posted, and tell me if their observations match mine, that would be great.

Cheers all.

Tubs. (Currently considering an Avatar)

[PacAce]

Excellent explanations Leo; very clear.
I do feel that I understand the concepts, but I'm still trying to pin down the best methodology. My workflow seems to work (with regard to 'Assign Profile' vs 'Convert to Profile') but from what you say it shouldn't. I've now checked my example images (http://science-it.newcastle.edu.au/~cjrf622/) on the calibrated monitor at home, using both the browser and with WFPV. I've also confirmed that Windows is using the correct monitor profile. Results:

Reminder: The images were shot with 20D in ARGB and basic colour mods done in ARGB working space using PSCS. Used 'Save As' (not Save for Web) in four ways; a) left tagged as ARGB, b) 'Assign sRGB', c) 'Convert to sRGB', d) 'Convert to monitor profile'. Filenames show which is which.

In Windows Fax & Picture Viewer:
Three of them look (practically) identical and all too red.
Only 'Assign sRGB' looks as it did in PS.
[This is what I do in my workflow.]

In Internet Explorer:
Three of them look (practically) identical and these look good (as they do in PS)
Only 'Convert to sRGB' looks too red.
This latter observation confuses me, because if IE cant read the profile, then why does the ARGB image look the same in IE as it does in PS ?

Leo, I'm not sure what platform you're using, but your observations (presumably on the web) seem to match my observations for WPFV. Could you possibly clarify the platform for me ?

If anybody else could spare the time to have a quick look at the four images I posted, and tell me if their observations match mine, that would be great.

Cheers all.

Tubs. (Currently considering an Avatar)
Tubs,

I viewed your images on both my Windows XP machine and my Mac OSX machine and all the images displayed as I would have expected them to.

With any non-color-aware app, like IE or Firefox, all the images look dull except for the one that was converted to sRGB which, as you say, looks more reddish than the others.

With any color-aware app, such as WVPV or Safari, all the images look, as you again described it, reddish but the one that had "assigned to sRGB" looked dull. And this, btw, is also true when I view them in PSCS on my Mac or PC.

So, it looks like everything that I'm seeing is in accordance with what you are seeing with the exception of one thing. What you see in PSCS is NOT what I'm seeing in mine. I recall another person who had a similar problem with his PS. We went around and around trying to figure out what it was. And he assured me that his monitor profile was up to snuff and was being loaded by windows. in the end, it turned out that the profile that was being loaded by windows was the default profile and not the one that he had created when he calibrated the monitor. I'll see if I can find that thread.

[tubs]

Hmmmmm. Yes. If I assume the red versions are "correct" then it all matches the theory. I can't see where my calibration procedure could have gone wrong, but I guess I'll just have to dig deeper.

If you could find that thread then that would be great.

Tubs.

[tubs]

Leo,

I did a search for the thread but as you can guess, there are a large number of colour management threads. I'll be away from my desk for four days now. If you come across the particular thread that would be great, but if not then I should take the opportunity now to thank you for the time you've spent on my problem.

Best regards,

Chris (aka Tubs)

[learjet035]

Thank Pac- awesome explanation, I'm off to work but will post my pic with that conversion later today and see how it turns out.

[PacAce]

Leo,

I did a search for the thread but as you can guess, there are a large number of colour management threads. I'll be away from my desk for four days now. If you come across the particular thread that would be great, but if not then I should take the opportunity now to thank you for the time you've spent on my problem.

Best regards,

Chris (aka Tubs)
Chris, I found the thread I was thinking about but after reading through it, it wasn't about a monitor profile problem as i had originally thought. It was, instead, about a problem caused by the sRGB profile being clobbered accidently. So that monitor profile problem must have been in another thread. Anyway, if you have the time and care to read through that clobbered profile thread, here's the link for it. You might find it interesting as the symptons are just like yours.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=65218&highlight=calibration

[PacAce]

Thank Pac- awesome explanation, I'm off to work but will post my pic with that conversion later today and see how it turns out.
You're welcome. Let me know how the conversion turns out. :)

[RRMM]

Hi, I'm new here but I'm just wanted to mention something that really helped me with some color problems in Save to Web.

In the Save for Web window, there is a little triangle button to the top left of the save button. In there you can select "Use Document Color Profile" -- I had had it on something else before and my color was never matching and it was driving me nuts!

If I'm totally missing the boat on this, please forgive me! Thanks so much.

[GSHodg]

In CS2 you can use the File > Scripts > Image Processor to convert a whole folder of images. In the dialogue you can choose whether to convert to sRGB - and to answer you question you would leave this unticked to leave your images in your working colour space. Then in the Preferences area you would tick the "Include ICC Profile" tickbox to ensure the colour profile is saved with them

Other nice features of this script:

1.easy to resize the images to a maximum size of pixels on the long side - regardless of whether in portrait or landscape format.
2. the File > File Info information (description, keywords etc) stays with the saved images - something that seems to get removed when I use 'save for web'.

Cheers

Gordon