Skip to main content
Participating Frequently
October 31, 2007
Question

Photoshop CS3 color management "Save for Web" problem

  • October 31, 2007
  • 680 replies
  • 62137 views
This problem is getting the best of me.......

After spending 3 full days researching this problem, I am no closer to finding an answer than when I started. I still cannot produce a usable image through the "Save for Web" feature of Photoshop CS3. I have read web page after web page of "Tips, Tricks and Recommendations" from dozens of experts, some from this forum, and still I have no solution... I am exhausted and frustrated to say the least. Here's the simple facts that I know at this point.

I have a web design project that was started in PS CS1. All artwork was created in photoshop and exported to JPG format by using "Save for Web". Every image displays correctly in these browsers (Safari, Camino, FireFox and even Internet Explorer on a PC).

I have recently upgraded to PS CS3 and now cannot get any newly JPG'd image to display correctly. My original settings in CS1 were of no concern to me at the time, because it always just worked, and so I do not know what they were. I have opened a few of my previous images in CS3 and found that sRGB-2.1 displays them more or less accurately. I am using sRGB 2.1 working space. Upon openning these previous image files, I get the "Missing Profile" message and of course I select "Leave as is. Do Not color manage". CS3 assumes sRGB-2.1 working space, opens the file, and all is well.

The problem is when I go to "Save for Web", the saturation goes up, and the colors change. The opposite of what most people are reporting. Here's another important point... new artwork created in CS3 does exactly the same thing, so it's not because of the older CS1 files.

I have tried every combination of "uncompensated color", "Convert to sRGB", "ICC Profile", etc. while saving. I have Converted to sRGB before saving, and my monitor is calibrated correctly.
I have tried setting the "Save for Web" page on 2-up and the "original" on the left is already color shifted before I even hit the "Save" button. Of course, the "Optimized" image on the right looks perfect because I am cheating by selecting the "Use Document Color Profile" item. Why do they even have this feature if doesn't work, or misleads you?

Does anyone have any ideas what could be happening here? Why is this all so screwed up?
CS1 worked fine out of the box.

Final note: I do have an image file I could send along that demonstrates how it is possible to display an image exactly the same in all 4 of the browsers I mentioned with no color differences. It is untagged RGB and somehow it just works.

I am very frustrated with all of this and any suggestions will be appreciated

Thanks,
Pete
    This topic has been closed for replies.

    680 replies

    November 23, 2007
    While Ramon relaxes in his cozy den of infinite superiority, I'll restate the following in hopes that I might receive some interesting comments or feedback:

    SFW is showing me the difference between sRGB and my monitor profile. (This is confirmed in tests using different monitor profiles.)
    This Dell monitor requires a significant shift away from sRGB in order to display accurately. (Again, using the sRGB monitor profile here produces horrible colours and overly bright shadows and is not an option.)
    That a monitor profile differing from sRGB is not in and of itself a bad thing.
    Therefore, seeing a colour shift in SFW does not necessarily mean I have a bad profile.

    A major point I'm making here is that SFW behaviour is probably not the best indication of a good or bad monitor profile. I have revised my understanding of the way that SFW works.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 23, 2007
    Participating Frequently
    November 23, 2007
    Double sigh!
    November 23, 2007
    <sigh>
    Participating Frequently
    November 23, 2007
    Opinions not answers!
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 23, 2007
    Raven,

    At this rate, you'll get up to 1,000 posts in a hurry.

    You have been given all the answers. Any further discussion with you is futile.
    November 22, 2007
    You've got to be kidding me Ramon. Why don't you drop the attitude. When you say "Sigh..." did you mean to say "Here's a possible reason your monitor could be very far off and still appear to look ok to you..." or did you mean to say "What an idiot, he thinks his monitor is fine!"

    Hey thanks for the help Ramon, yeah very helpful.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 22, 2007
    >It's very hard for me to believe that my monitor profile is sooo far off


    Sigh
    November 22, 2007
    It's very hard for me to believe that my monitor profile is sooo far off that it would account for the dramatic colour shift I see in SFW. It may be that my monitor profile is not exactly perfectly accurate, but I have a, let's call it a "real world" tolerance for small differences. That is to say, when using my test image as a reference, I am seeing about the right amount of detail in the shadows and highlights, and the colours are pretty close and not obviously green tinted or anything. Perhaps I have a higher tolerance than some others here, but I assert that my monitor profile is not horribly wrong.

    Here's what I now believe:

    SFW is showing me the difference between sRGB and my monitor profile.
    This Dell monitor requires a significant shift away from sRGB in order to display accurately. (Again, using the sRGB monitor profile here produces horrible colours and overly bright shadows and is not an option.)
    That a monitor profile differing from sRGB is not in and of itself a bad thing.
    Therefore, seeing a colour shift in SFW does not necessarily mean I have a bad profile.

    I think that if I was to use one of those recommended calibrators and achieved calibration perfection that I would still see a shift in SFW. (I don't think we've heard from anyone who has the same Dell monitor that has calibrated it and not had the SFW "problem".) There's no way for me to know because that's not going to happen...it's not a priority in this company, not when we are getting predictable results from our print jobs already.

    I am sorry for the angry tone I have taken, I prefer not to stoop to that level. Obviously this can be a very frustrating subject and I felt I was being insulted. Thanks Peter for trying to go in to more detail for me.
    Ramón G Castañeda
    Inspiring
    November 22, 2007
    >I will admit that I have not gone to the extreme lengths you've described.

    Those are b>far from "extreme lengths". They are the minimum norms.

    What Buko said: you have a bad monitor profile a crappy calibrator and a cheap monitor.