Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 30 Jan 2012 (Monday) 14:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Colors on my monitor! helppppppp

 
punkerz123
Senior Member
Avatar
328 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jan 30, 2012 14:04 |  #1

I have this very strange problem.

All my pictures that I view in lightroom and photoshop have this very warm look to them.

However, when I upload the finished product onto flickr or facebook, they lose all that warmth and display a much "cooler" photo. Why??? It makes it really difficult to edit knowing that the final product is going to look different once uploaded.

Another oddity, when I go to "save for web" in photoshop, the preview in that preview window displays the cooler picture. But in the main photoshop editing screen, it is warm. Why??? help me pleaseeeee, its kind of annoying!


Olympus OM-D E-M5 | 25mm f/1.4
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
punkerz123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
328 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jan 30, 2012 14:19 |  #2

I've been googling and this problem appears to be called the "save for web color shift"

Will report back if I find out how to fix it


Olympus OM-D E-M5 | 25mm f/1.4
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 14:56 |  #3

You should set both LIghtroom and Photoshop to output in the sRGB color space for the Web and other "public" viewing uses.

In Lightroom you do this in the Export dialog box. In Photoshop you can use the Save for the Web dialog, or you would use the Edit/Convert to Profile function.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfcRebel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,252 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Austin, TX
     
Jan 30, 2012 15:01 |  #4

Yep, make sure convert to sRGB color space for web display. Oh, embed your ICC profile to the image too.


Fee

Canon | SIGMA | TAMRON | Kenko | Amvona

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 15:13 |  #5

cfcRebel wrote in post #13795662 (external link)
Yep, make sure convert to sRGB color space for web display. Oh, embed your ICC profile to the image too.

Umm, I wouldn't advise that!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfcRebel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,252 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Austin, TX
     
Jan 30, 2012 15:28 |  #6

tonylong wrote in post #13795723 (external link)
Umm, I wouldn't advise that!

Why not? If OP has a calibrated system, shouldn't he/she embed the profile to the image when converting to sRGB jpeg, so that when viewing thru Color-Managed application the colors come out more accurate?


Fee

Canon | SIGMA | TAMRON | Kenko | Amvona

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
punkerz123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
328 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jan 30, 2012 15:31 as a reply to  @ tonylong's post |  #7

http://www.viget.com …save-for-web-color-shift/ (external link)

This site has a fix which seems to let me edit to how pictures are actually displayed in browsers. But now photoshop looks different than lightroom.


Olympus OM-D E-M5 | 25mm f/1.4
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 569
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 16:39 |  #8

cfcRebel wrote in post #13795815 (external link)
Why not? If OP has a calibrated system, shouldn't he/she embed the profile to the image when converting to sRGB jpeg, so that when viewing thru Color-Managed application the colors come out more accurate?

Well, a color-managed app can use the monitor profile, for sure, but it gets it from the system, either by default (like Photoshop and Lightroom) or by you setting it to, like DPP.

Embedding the monitor profile into the jpeg could cause, well, think of what would happen if you put that on the Web and other people viewed it using color-managed software!

Besides, Photoshop doesn't have an "Embed to Profile" function that I'm aware of, just either "Convert to Profile" or "Assign Profile", which you don't want to use unless you know what it's for and what you are doing. Convert to Profile is where you use sRGB (if you don't do it in Save for Web).


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 18:52 |  #9

When you save an image in Photoshop, you can choose to embed the profile in the image data. The embedded profile will be what instructs color-aware applications in terms of rendering the colors correctly, according to the embedded color space. So, the embedded profile tells the color-aware application how to interpret the RGB values in the file - how those actually get displayed on YOUR display is a function of your display calibration and profile. But, at least, an embedded profile will tell everyone's system to display the RGB numbers according to, for example, sRGB. Your specific display calibration and profile can make those values look different, potentially, than someone else's if your display (or theirs) is set for different display characteristics or has a bad display profile.

For example, if the embedded sRGB profile told all color aware browsers to display 180R, 130G, 77B as Candy Apple Red, all color-aware applications would know to display Candy Apple Red, as opposed to Fire Engine Red. However, even if your color-aware browser knows to display Candy Apple Red, your version on your display may look different than Joe's version on Joe's display because Joe has his display calibrated and profiled to different white point target, luminance, etc.

If you do not embed any profile, then roll the dice. I suppose most applications and systems will interpret the RGB numbers close to something like sRGB - so in this respect, the numbers will be rendered the same, regardless of the color space in which they were created or meant to be seen. But hypothetically, one application might interpret 180R, 130G, 77B as Candy Apple Red, while another might interpret it as Fire Engine Red, and another might interpret it as Fire Ball Red - all on the same system. This is a problem, dramatized here for effect, but you get the idea.

This is commonly seen when someone posts an image here in AdobeRGB with an embedded profile, but viewed on non-color-aware browsers. The color-aware browsers know how to interpret the RGB numbers and display the image colors as intended by the embedded profile instructions - non-color aware browsers do not and assume the color model, often times incorrectly. If the same image were posted with RGB numbers intended for Adobe RGB and NO profile was embedded, this would also cause non-intended changes, but likely more uniform for all viewers because there would not be such an explicit difference between the browsers that know what the artist wanted (the color ware browsers that can honor an embedded profile) and the browsers that do not know what the artist wanted.

I know even less about web color, so I will leave commenting on the mysterious "save for web" shift.

kirk


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 20:35 |  #10

Here is an example:

This color block originated in aRGB (Photoshop > New, with aRGB 8 bit). I filled the block with the color 224, 54, 54 - reddish.

The first attached image is the result (1).

This is the "reference." I have embedded an AdobeRGB profile so color aware applications will display aRGB 224, 54, 54.

The next attached image is the same as (1) but with no profile embedded.

THese blocks should look different, unless your browser defaults to displaying things in aRGB - IF THESE TWO BLOCKS LOOK IDENTICAL, your browser is likely not color aware, or your browser uses your display profile which may be close to aRGB for some reason.

CONTINUED....


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 20:37 |  #11

Now, here is the same experiment, but with the same RGB numbers originating in sRGB (Photoshop > New, sRGB, 8 bit).

THe first image is the sRGB version of 224, 54, 54 with the sRGB profile embedded, the second image is the same thing with no embedded profile. If these two blocks look the same, then your browser defaults to displaying unembedded content in sRGB.

For example, I am using a Mac - on Safari, the two color blocks below look different. In Firefox they look identical. I can assume that Firefox defaults to sRGB for unembedded color, at least how ever I have it configured. Safari apparently uses my display profile for untagged images, so, as you can see, untagged images get arbitrarily rendered.

CONTINUED...


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 20:45 |  #12

Notice above that aRGB 224, 54, 54 is different than sRGB 224, 54, 54 - as expected. However, notice that when you do not embed a profile, telling your browser how to interpret the RGB numbers, the results are identical - that is the aRGB and sRGB versions WITHOUT embedded profiles are identical - as expected, since neither have explicit instructions on how to interpret the RGB numbers, so the system or application default is used - below are the two unembedded blocks side by side.

So, that is great, right? This would be ideal because no matter what browser or app you use, the color will look the same! (assuming the apps default to the same generic interpretation). Problem is, neither of the color blocks without an embedded profile looks like the intended color in the specified color space. How do you know how individual applications or systems will display unembedded color? That is a huge problem.

CONTINUED....


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 20:46 |  #13

how do you get your aRGB red to looks intended when you prep the image for web in sRGB? You use CONVERT TO PROFILE in Photoshop to map the aRGB 224, 54, 54 into the sRGB that matches, as close as possible, the original aRGB appearance. You can mess with the rendering intent to see if something like Perceptual gives you a better match than Relative Colormetric, etc. Mostly these intents have to do with how out of gamut colors are scaled or translated from the original color space into the destination color space.

The below comparison is close, is it close enough? Probably for most applications.

(These two samples should look practically identical on your display if your browser is color aware).


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 20:50 |  #14

Here is a comparison between the aRGB 224, 54, 54 converted to sRGB using CONVERT TO PROFILE versus the original sRGB 224, 54, 54 - just so you can see how different the two are, with the converted aRGB to sRGB being more like the original aRGB and not like the original sRGB.

The problem with all of this, at least as near as I can appreciate for web designers, is that while the above comparisons make sense on a single display, the colors I see on my display may vary drastically from someone else's display due to the variation in calibration (or lack thereof) and color profiling (or lack thereof) across all displays on which web content may be viewed.

/nerdage.

kirk


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
6,587 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1522
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jan 30, 2012 21:17 |  #15

I am sure I have misstated something here, so color gurus chime in and correct me please. René?

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,386 views & 0 likes for this thread, 6 members have posted to it.
Colors on my monitor! helppppppp
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is robertsaucier
702 guests, 186 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.