photoshop CS2 experts need your help!

I admit I'm new to CS and all of it's options so I'm confused and would love for someone to set me straight. I'm working in 16bit RAW within the photoshop Raw editor and then opening directly in CS2. My purposes for these files are for sending to my family members through email. I also work on them in 18bit in CS2 as well. Since I'm sending them as jpegs at about 80 quality should I be working on them in 8bit mode? The problem I'm having is after I save the file as a jpeg at 80 quality the colors seem much weaker then when I viewed the Raw file in CS2. Is the reason that the saved jpeg looks much weaker in color because I was working in 16bit mode before transfering to jpeg? If I work in 8 bit will it be a more true rendition of the file after it gets saved as a jpeg? I really apreciate your imput because it's driving me crazy when I view the saved jpeg with the much weaker color and saturation.

Color saturation should be the same in 8bit and 16bit mode.

You're probably having a problem with color managment. Try the following:

1. Set your output color space to sRGB when developing/converting your RAW file to JPEG (or TIFF).

2. Set your working color space in CS2 to sRGB (Edit > Color Settings > Working Spaces/RGB -> sRGB).

That should give you a final image in sRGB color space which should look OK when viewed outside of Photoshop. If not, you have a poorly calibrated monitor.

There are other approaches to a similar end, but keeping everything in sRGB should prevent headaches. See the following link for more info:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colou​r/ps8_1.htm

thanks for the info woody! When I'm working in adobe raw I have a choice of which color space. Should I choose sRGBIEC61966-1 ?
and if I choose that should I also choose that in the color management profile under color settings is CS2 ? My pictures come out looking perfect when I print. The only problem I'm having is when I use the save for web feature to save as a jpeg. If I do that, the pictures colors look much more subdued for some reason. But, if I save the file from the "save as" feature at full quality it comes out perfect.

thanks again, if anyone has some info please chime in!

Blessings

If you are printing your pictures at home, you want to stay in Adobe RGB. I wonder if the problems are resulting from how you resize before converting to jpeg. If I have an image I want to e-mail, I use the following sequence:

1. From ACR, save as 16-bit Adobe RGB (my default for everything).
2. Open in CS2 and complete any cropping.
3. Image - Image Size uncheck the resample image box, enter 72 in the resolution box, and click okay.
4. Image - Image Size check the resample image box, enter 800 in the larger of the height and width boxes, and click okay.
5. Do all editing.
6. Save for Web.

I've never experienced any color changes between the original and e-mailed image.

sRGB is an abbreviation for sRGBIEC61966-1

As noted - if you're going to do printing, you may want to edit in Adobe RGB color space and convert to sRGB when "publishing" images to the web.

If while saving for the web, you're pictures were originally in Adobe RGB (in Photoshop), then they will look desaturated on the web. You must first convert them to sRGB color space (edit > convert to profile -- not assign profile).

Frankly, it's easier to stay with sRGB from beginning to end (RAW conversion to final web image or print) - unless you fully understand when and how to manage color spaces. Adobe RGB has a larger gamut which some printers can display. Many desktop printers will accept an Adobe RGB tagged filed and internally do the proper color conversion to make a good print. On the other hand, sending an Adobe RGB image out to a commercial printing service can be very problematic since most are expecting images in sRGB color space.

The problem you're having has been discussed again and again - you're not alone with your frustrations.

Thanks guys you fixed it for me! It was the fact that I had the raw editor in adobeRGB ... When I was saving as a jpeg it was messing with the colors. I switched everything to SRGB and everything is coming out as expected.. I dont do any printing at home so this should be the way to go for me... I do have a question for Vjack? why do you change the resolution from 300 to 72 dpi and uncheck the resample box? what purposes does that serve for the web? does it just make the file have less size? Just wanting to pick your brain a little if you dont mind?

Blessings

Shifting from 300 dpi to 72 dpi reduces the file size, allows easier .jpeg conversion, and involves no loss since monitors cannot display more than 72 dpi anyway. The step of unchecking the resample box before lowering the dpi insures that PS won't try to automatically resize the picture.

About Adobe RGB and sRGB is it better to set your EOS to Adobe RGB or sRGB. Since I use CameraRAW in CS2 i've been taking them in Adobe RGB. Which one is better?

Can you provide evidence? Pretty please?

Dear vjack,
In step 1 you advised saving with the Adobe RGB profile embedded and in 16 bit mode, but you did not advise him as to JPG, TIF, PSD, etc.
Would you say that it does not matter?

Good point, Bob. Well, you can't save a 16-bit as a jpeg, so that leaves tiff and psd, and other than file size, I haven't heard of any impact, neg. or pos. I'd be interested to hear any testimonial on that aspect too.

I find it to be a moot point to work in 16bit if the picture in itself has very narrow dynamic. It is especially useless if the final work is for email purpose. I agree that the image size should be change to 72dpi but no more importantly the pixel should also be changed to fit the screen usually no more 1024 on the width and 800 on the height. Any more then that would require the viewer to scroll to see the whole picture. I usually reduce it to more then 800 on any given side. Better yet I usually upload my family gathering pictures to sites like winkflash and send out invites to view them. while they are there and if they want a print they can order it them self so I don't have to print it for them.

I was taught to respect image quality at every step of the workflow. Whether that is perceptable to a relative that gets a 4x6 print from winkflash doesn't concern me. I rarely take pictures with the purpose of emailing them; if that was the case, I'd have stuck with a point and shoot, and used a free image editor. I think that most that decide to work with raw fall in to the same category as myself, and therefore should be given all the info that will ensure top quality, even if others feel the difference is imperceptable. Don't take it the wrong way, it's one thing to make a compromise for simplicity or speed, but to do it because you don't know better is ignorance. Working in 16-bit mode, in a large color space such as Prophoto or Adobe RGB can be a little dangerous if you don't know what you are doing, but the results can be so much better. All that said, I can't see how you could go wrong saving as a 16-bit psd in sRGB, making non destructive edits, and outputting to an 8-bit jpeg.

I must agree with you on the point that working with 16bit color space will avail you with more info, but on the other hand the camera can only capture 12 bit color so 4bit goes to wayside. If the original picture has very limited color then working in 16bit will not make the picture any better or increase the colorspace anymore. To improve upon the workflow, the memory and processor will work faster and more efficiently, in this case, if the picture is worked on in 8bit mode. Working in 16bit mode w/ a low dynamic picture is like driving a Buggatti Veyron in a traffic jam, there is no doubt that there is 1000+hp behind the driver but useless if there is room to open the throttle.

Actually, it's 12-bits per channel, so you're tossing 12-bits out right off the bat by using 8-bit mode. I don't think the Bugatti analogy really works. It more like laying down a perfect double apex corner, and no one saw it, nor was I in a hurry. Anyway, your realistically hust as right, but I don't take any hit in performance or flexibility by working this way - I have a high performance pc that can handle the load. Furthermore, I'd suggest that a somewhat color compromised capture might benefit from editing and enhancement using 16-bit mode in a larger color space. Anyone have any thoughts on that?