Photoshop CS3 color management "Save for Web" problem

[_Peter_Mars_]

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

[Guest]

The first Dell 2407WFP monitors that came out had a banding problem. The one that I bought is the second generation monitor and has no banding.

It looks like the 2007WFP has/had a banding problem but it looks like Dell has fixed it:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/26/dell-fesses-up-to-2007wfp-banding-problems/

Did someone say in an earlier post that their Dell 2407WFP was calibrated so that what you see on the monitor (CMYK Image) matched the the printed proof? I would never give up that monitor...

[Guest]

That dpreview thread seems like a recipe for disaster and a huge PITA.

Why don't they just adjust the hue and saturation on the front panel eyeballing an sRGB color target to get close to the intended look and recalibrate? These displays have a myriad of OSD options. They ought to use them.

Of course it looks oversaturated on AdobeRGB gamut LCD's, but how many LCD's are there on the web that are even close to that calibrated or not?

[Guest]

[OT] Tim... Kerrville, Texas. My wife had to fly there a few times last year for business meetings. I'll be in Fredricksburg on March 13th at the Nimitz museum for a plaque dedication. Nice little town...

[_Peter_Mars_]

>seems like a recipe for disaster and a huge PITA

Just wondered what they were up to with this approach. I love tips and tricks!

I can say that with my 2407wfp-HC, I have adjusted the OSD RGB menu to 80-85-90 and set brightness at 25, contrast at 85 and then calibrated... the color seems absolutely natural when photo editing... it's much better than on our white 2005 20" iMac (also calibrated)

The only problem i have with the monitor is the SFW issue... no banding, no ghosting, none of that stuff. It just cannot handle Photoshop saved sRGB files in unmanaged apps., which is amazing to me.

The future is coming and I believe it's going to be displayed on the new wide-gamut monitors and I'm just 2 days away from sending mine back. I hope I am doing the right thing. I'm tired of all the comments about buying a cheap, crappy monitor. I just don't see any other solution to this SFW problem.

[_Peter_Figen_]

" The only problem i have with the monitor is the SFW issue... no banding, no ghosting, none of that stuff. It just cannot handle Photoshop saved sRGB files in unmanaged apps., which is amazing to me. "

Why is this amazing? It's EXACTLY how is should be. You've got an untagged image that is really sRGB and you're viewing as if it was something different entirely. The ONLY thing that is going to fix this in the future is: 1. Everyone decides on a different internet color standard, or 2. Every image has an embedded profile and all browsers and other non color managed apps become color managed and automatically recognize the embedded profiles. In the meantime, if this bothers you, and it apparently does, make sure that whatever screen you buy is close to sRGB gamut.

[Guest]

"I'm just 2 days away from sending mine back"

...and if you do and get something else and you have the same problem... what will you do then? I would just figure out a workaround for now and buy a new monitor when LCD's are improved to your liking. You can get a different brand and have the same problem. In my view, monitors are the weak link in the whole graphic design process... unless you spend the big bucks... maybe.

[_Peter_Figen_]

"Did someone say in an earlier post that their Dell 2407WFP was calibrated so that what you see on the monitor (CMYK Image) matched the the printed proof? I would never give up that monitor..."

I'm not sure why this seems like such a special thing. I've been doing this for ten years now with hardware calibrated monitors starting with the venerable Radius Pressview combined with Linocolor CMYK profiles on through the Barco and Sony Artisan with custom ProfieMaker profiles. All you need to make this happen are good calibration, good profiles and good viewing conditions. It really is not hard to do.

[_Peter_Figen_]

"Tim... Kerrville, Texas. My wife had to fly there a few times last year for business meetings. I'll be in Fredricksburg on March 13th at the Nimitz museum for a plaque dedication. Nice little town... "

Try to get over to Luckenback while you're in Fredricksburg. It was made famous by Willie Nelson and Jerry Jeff Walker. I photographed Robert Earl Keen there in '94 and had a blast tripping around the hill country between Bandera, San Marcos and Luckenbach. Definitely armadillo country...

[Guest]

"I'm not sure why this seems like such a special thing."

Peter, you are saying that for CRT monitors. I never had a problem calibrating a CRT monitor to a match proof, and I did without any calibration device. LCD's are a different thing but I'm sure if you do it the right way there should be no problem. In the past I just worked in too many places doing pre press using their crappy monitors.

[Guest]

"Try to get over to Luckenback while you're in Fredricksburg"

I won't able to do that on this trip. I'm in charge of a bunch of WWII Vets in their 80's and 90's. They'll be wondering why we are taking a detour. I'll keep it in mind for the next time around 🙂

[_Peter_Mars_]

Never Mind

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Peter,

If the file is untagged, the colors are meaningless numbers. In order for a color managed application to display the colors properly it has to be told what "language" the numbers are in so they can be interpreted correctly.

To understand profiles, think of your image as text, and of the profile as a tag that indicates what language the text is in.

If you see text that says GIFT, you need to know whether it's in English or in German. If in German, the word means "poison", if in English, it means a present.

Other examples: ONCE means "eleven" in Spanish but "one time" in English.

MOST means "Bridge" in Russian but "greatest in amount, extent, or degree" in English and "fruit juice" in German.

If you change the language (profile) by ASSIGNING, you change the meaning of the text (appearance of the image). The numbers representing the colors in your image will remain the same, but the colors will change because the same numbers now mean something else (as the meaning of the text will change if you now read the same letters in a different language).

CONVERTING to a profile will preserve the colors while the numbers change, in the same manner as the text will retain its meaning if you TRANSLATE it into a different language, changing the letters but preserving the meaning.

If you don't tag an image file, it's bound to be misinterpreted. Period.

[_Peter_Figen_]

"Peter, you are saying that for CRT monitors. I never had a problem calibrating a CRT monitor to a match proof, and I did without any calibration device. LCD's are a different thing but I'm sure if you do it the right way there should be no problem. In the past I just worked in too many places doing pre press using their crappy monitors. "

CRTs, LCDs, it doesn't make a difference really. Good hardware calibration combined with good profiles and viewing conditions will give you the screen to print match you're looking for. Of course, the hardware, both monitor and calibration device can make a difference, but there's no inherent reason that you won't have similar results on either type of monitor.

[Lundberg02]

I very much doubt that Dell has managed to achieve Adobe RGB. Unless their new monitors have three color LED lights, still very expensive.
Could be, but I doubt it, and I think the author of that forum post is deluded. He needs to show the actual gamut.

[Guest]

Lundberg, or others...can you shed some light on this question: If most monitors, including these Dells, are not capable of displaying Adobe RGB, what are we seeing when we take an sRGB image and assign Adobe RGB? (The colours get a boost.) I don't mean this as a challenge, it is a genuine question.

[_Peter_Figen_]

You get a color boost because, the specific recipe of pixel values in sRGB represents a more saturated color in Adobe RGB. Same numbers, different color. That's why it's so important to know what the context of the numbers is - what profile is the right one that describes THAT color space.

[_Peter_Mars_]

>I very much doubt that Dell has managed to achieve Adobe RGB

My only proof, or indication that AdobeRGB may in fact be what the monitor is displaying is that when I rollover the gballard.net adobeRGB image test, I see virtually no change in color or saturation whatsoever. So minimum is the change that I could not honestly say whether it is more or less saturated. The sRGB rollover test causes a huge shift however, and Apple RGB cause a substantial shift as well.

I assumed that this means the monitor is displaying AdobeRGB natively. I also know that dpreview forums refer to this monitor as a "wide gamut" monitor.

[_Peter_Mars_]

Is there a test to determine Monitor as AdobeRGB ?

This would explain why untagged sRGB images get mapped to an oversaturated look... no?

sRGB mapped to AdobeRGB (MonitorRGB) produces oversaturated color right?

[_Peter_Figen_]

Compare gamut maps in the ColorSync Utility or preferably ColorThink, if you have it. If you email me your Dell profile, I'll pull it up in ColorThink and post a jpeg comparing that gamut to sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.

[_Peter_Mars_]

OK, I will do it... sounds great! Please explain a bit more about what you need and where I can find it.

[_Peter_Figen_]

The ColorSync Utility is kinda rudimentary compared to ColorThink, but it's free with OSX. If you can email the Dell monitor profile you made, I'll post a comparison from ColorThink. Click on my name to find the email.

[_Peter_Mars_]

Profile sent... thanks a lot!

[_Peter_Mars_]

I'm gonna guess that it's fairly close to AdobeRGB, but green may be off slightly because images appear to be just a bit too saturated in green areas.

[_Peter_Figen_]

Not seeing the email on my end. Which one did you send it to?