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

[_Mike_Ornellas_]

>the system should assume sRGB not MonitorRGB when displaying untagged images, IMO.

and what happens when the monitor - sum dumb dude -just bought - and it can't even represent sRGB color - what then?

What shall the happy monkeys do with the flying turds?

[_Peter_Mars_]

Why is it so hard for you to understand this... I should be able to use any monitor I please, and the results, by way of a calibrated profile, should be the exact same as anyone elses. Period! If Dell doesn't represent the essential PC model, what the heck does! So I bought a Dell Monitor that was Highly rated and refused to believe that photoshop and or a browser couldn't handle it. Now I give up... thanks for you concern.

No one twisted your arm to jump in here every 10 minutes either! You should have stopped reading this thread after post #29 if you were so annoyed! A few good folks stuck with it and I am for one am eternally grateful to them. Have you lost sleep over this, have you argued with your wife over this, have you walked in circles and cursed over this???? Well I have, for weeks!!! Go away then!

[_Craig_Cheatham_]

<So a different monitor will make all these troubles go away... well I guess my safest choice then would be an Apple Cinema Display? ><br /><br />Well your best bet would be a Sony Artisan, but since it isn't made anymore, in fact there are no CRT displays made today that are up to professional standards, so you have to go LCD.<br /><br />Check out Eizo Color Edge.<br /><br />Still, you should be able to find something affordable that gets you in the ballpark of sRGB.

[_Mike_Ornellas_]

> Why is it so hard for you to understand this... I should be able to use any monitor I please, and the results, by way of a calibrated profile, should be the exact same as anyone else. Period!

Clearly you have no concept that no one is on the same page for manufacturing standards.

[_Peter_Mars_]

Doesn't matter what I say at this point... a few have been kind and helpful, and a few have been loud and angry. That's just life I guess.

95% of the world is on cheap, uncalibrated PC monitors..... so, if I buy an Apple Cinema Display, it'll be the perfect match!

[_Peter_Mars_]

Thanks Craig, I'll check out the Eizo

[_Mike_Ornellas_]

Peter -

Apple makes bad monitors. Wake up.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Peter Mars,
>I should be able to use any monitor I please, and the results, by way of a calibrated profile, should be the exact same as anyone elses.

Absolute nonsense. It's obvious you haven't even begun to explore the subject. And you've never used a reference monitor either.

- - -

On the subject of untagged images, the embedded profile barely adds 4KB to the size of a file. At the very least, one should keep a tagged copy of any untagged files one feels compelled to send out or upload.

[_Peter_Mars_]

Mike-
Touche

It just didn't seem intuitive or necessary at the time to spend a fortune on an ACD when this 2407 had such high ratings, high resolution, 92% ntsc and was brand new tech.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... the color, and pop of this thing is truly awesome. With calibration the colors appear absolutely normal, and 4-color work is perfectly matched. It really is weird.

[_Peter_Mars_]

> I should be able to use any monitor I please, and the results, by way of a calibrated profile, should be the exact same as anyone elses.

I said should be... besides, I'm just exagerating here... Conveying subtle anger and frustration.

Why calibrate if nothing can ever match? "Should be" is good. I can want that!

[Guest]

Look at Apple refurbs. I got a Cinema HD 23" no complaints here. no dead pixels. and the refurbs have been gone over with a fine tooth comb. they are a bit cheaper than the brand new. Ezio will cost a chunk of cash.

[_Peter_Mars_]

Yes, an Apple Refurb is what I also am thinking. 23" would be good... I guarantee you the second I by one Apple will introduce the newly designed latest greatest 24" or 27"

Just for the record, I have replaced 3 sets of DIMMS and a Riser board in my new Mac Pro, and am still having ECC Errors... returned a 24" iMac aluminum because of the darker right side screen issue, of which I checked 3 local Apple stores and all the 24" display iMacs had the dark screen issue, and the one at the local Best Buy. That's why I got the Mac Pro, and of course I had to add 4 gigs of ram, x1900 card, 1.5 terabytes of HD.... so my budget and patience are stretched WAY beyond breaking... I got the 2407 monitor to try and keep costs under control. Time to ebay some more stuff out of the garage!

Money and the DIMM error problem have added to my inability to troubleshoot this whole issue. Maybe easy for you guys, not so easy for me. I am presently get freezes and crashes in photoshop when opening image files.... I hate this crap!!!! I need a beer!!!

[Lundberg02]

Did you ever get a decent calibrator. This topic is so boring I can't remember.
A Dell is as good as anything else if it's not defective.

[Guest]

Please pardon this lengthy post, once again I am striving to be as clear as I can. I may be repeating myself a bit, please bear with me.

Monitors, just like stereo equipment, come in a wide variety of prices and quality ranges. I have a cheapo BenQ lcd at home which I can honestly say is not good enough for graphics work. However, I believe that the Dell and Apple monitors should be suitable for graphics work, even if more expensive monitors are that much better. Let's say this legendary Sony Artisan is an uncompressed audio CD...then the Apple monitor is a high quality 192k MP3...and my BenQ is a paltry unlistenable 24k MP3. That 192k MP3, while truly being less than the uncompressed CD, still sounds pretty good and only an audiophile can (claim to) tell the difference.

Perhaps if I saw a "reference monitor" next to an Apple monitor, I might have a harder time going back to the Apple, just like I might struggle to enjoy my ordinary mid-range home stereo after listening to a $15,000 audiophile system. Nonetheless, I don't think the Apples and Dells are "crap". Thousands of users are getting acceptable use out of them, and getting predictable final product from the printshop.

The Dell I am using now at work is displaying accurate CMYK colours and I am satisfied in that regard. The problem is with RGB workflow. As I understand it, my Dell monitor as calibrated by Spyder Pro 2 displays untagged RGB images more colourfully than it (arguably) should. (It doesn't display acceptable CMYK colours in Photoshop using any built-in profile.) I have noticed some cases of Firefox-displayed images (not colour managed) appearing over-saturated to my tastes, whereas they display fine in Safari (colour managed), so yes I can agree my monitor profile has issues.

I remain convinced that there must be a way to get these Dells to behave properly. So the focus remains on calibration. Is there a way for me to create a profile which is closer to sRGB (so that it's useable for web work) AND is accurate for CMYK work, or colour work in general? Some have suggested that Spyder is crap. (I still need to email the Spyder folks to see if they have any useful feedback for me.) Do the higher end calibration systems calibrate to an sRGB standard, in addition to gamma and colour temperature? Is that it right there?

Note: I beg of you to please only offer constructive feedback and information, and yes, even opinions. Please try to phrase them in a polite way...there have been MANY disparaging words spoken here.

[Guest]

"A Dell is as good as anything else if it's not defective."

My Dell works fine after I figured out the best way to calibrate it 🙂

[_Peter_Mars_]

What model is your Dell?

[_Peter_Figen_]

"I remain convinced that there must be a way to get these Dells to behave properly. So the focus remains on calibration. Is there a way for me to create a profile which is closer to sRGB (so that it's useable for web work) AND is accurate for CMYK work, or colour work in general? Some have suggested that Spyder is crap. (I still need to email the Spyder folks to see if they have any useful feedback for me.) Do the higher end calibration systems calibrate to an sRGB standard, in addition to gamma and colour temperature? Is that it right there? "

A hardware calibration system is able to set the black point, white point, white point color temperature and gamma. It can't change the inherent limits of what colors the monitor can display. The reason that CRT displays are all very close to sRGB is that the phosphors uses in the tubes - the elements that actually cause the monitor to glow a certain color when hit with electrons - are all very close to one another, and in turn, almost exactly the same as what is in the sRGB specification. The colorants in the LCDs are not the same and even though you can set the same basic parameters, the pure red green and blue colorants that define the gamut of the display are what they are.

I'm pretty sure that all the calibrators will simply set the overall parameters and give you the full gamut available on the display. Remember that the profile only describes to applications that can use one the characteristics of the display. It HAS to describe the behaviour of YOUR monitor otherwise it wouldn't be good for anything. You choices are pretty much to convert you web bound image to sRGB in Photoshop while being color managed and not worry how they look untagged on THAT screen, or buy a small gamut LCD screen that is closer to sRGB. Either one will display CMYK with no problem, as long as you have the correct profiles and good calibration.

[Guest]

Wow! I finally got broadband-(at&t DSL), now I can make it to the end of lengthy threads like this. <br /> <br />Here's some visual evidence to show what everyone's been talking about concerning the quality of the display and how it can influence calibration and the gamut plot size and shape of the final monitor profile even compared to sRGB. <br /> <br />The following images are from several troubleshooting sessions in other forums I've conducted in the past on this very issue. <br /> <br />The first is a digital camera shot of a MacBrookPro showing an eyeball calibrator induced color error transform chart I made in the past converted to sRGB. The two pages on the screen of the MBP illustrate how the quality of electronics of a display can diminish the gamut of the final profile compared to even sRGB. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NOJd0p0ASzz8ed4OMKG9oY5CnBKw" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1NOJd0p0ASzz8ed4OMKG9oY5CnBKw_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />In that troubleshooting session long ago and far away I was convinced from the correct looking preview on the right Photoshop was providing reasonably accurate previews considering the quality of the final calibration and profile which made even sRGB look ugly in nonCM browsers. The MBP's panel electronics as with all laptops are made to conserve battery life and may play a role in messing with puck based calibration packages. <br /> <br />The second image is a screenshot of two final GretagMacbeth i1Match calibration gamut plot graphs from two different CRT's from another troubleshooting session long ago and far away. On the top my 21" Samsung 1100p bought for $50 at a thrift store which I still have and still displays decent accurate color as good as my 2004 G5 iMac. On the bottom an i1Match plot from someone with the same complaints posted here using an old Trinitron CRT ready for the recycle bend. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=15U1aJqWz4BwPxp8IpcLxqwPS6E6wa" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/15U1aJqWz4BwPxp8IpcLxqwPS6E6wa_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Conclusion...Get an LCD with an S-IPS panel like my 2004 iMac and the Dell 2007wfp which I recently calibrated with the Spyder2Pro with very good results. Search on the web for other brands that have this panel type because the manufacturers don't make this info readily available.

[Lundberg02]

take two monitors and call me in the morning.

[Guest]

"What model is your Dell?"

Dell 2407WFP

[Guest]

Thanks very much Peter Figen and Tim Lookingbill for your informative posts.

Tim...you've introduced something new to this topic with the panel types. You mentioned the Dell 2007WFP having the apparently better S-IPS panel type...shouldn't my problematic 2407WFP have the same type of panel? Does your 2007WFP not have the same colour boost in Monitor RGB applications that we are talking about here?

Dirk...you said "My Dell works fine after I figured out the best way to calibrate it." Do you mean to say you're not seeing a saturation boost when using SFW (with "convert to sRGB" checked)? How did you calibrate it?

Peter Figen...It seems like my calibrated profile is the only one that provides Photoshop with a description of the actual display characteristics on my monitor, so that it can then compensate accordingly to show accurate images. For example, when I am selecting monitor profiles, and I choose my calibrated profile, images in Photoshop are very colourful...then when I close the Display Preferences window, the colour snaps back to a normal colour appearance, suggesting Photoshop (or any colour-managed application) is making it's own corrections based on the profile info. I hold on to the dream that one should be able to create a monitor profile that is close to sRGB and yet have Photoshop still display accurately after compensating. I wish to have more control over non-colour managed display while still having accurate colour managed display.

[_Peter_Mars_]

>Dell 2407wfp

Mine is the newer version 2407wfp-HC... so obviously these 2 models do not use the same screen panel, and I should assume that an LCD model with S-IPS panel is the preferred way to go.

Why would Dell switch to an inferior panel with the newer model? I bought it because I assumed it would be even better than the previous version.

(edit: perhaps inferior is too strong... Maybe different is a better choice)

[_Peter_Mars_]

Would somebody check out this link (at dpreview) to an explanation of the how the 2407wfp-HC produces adobeRGB color space and how to change Windows to use this space.... there is some good info here but I'm sure exactly what it means.

Thanks

(first link is first page, containing link to second)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=25624499
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=24998798

[Guest]

I've been researching this panel type stuff for about several months and from what I've gathered there's not much control by the manufacturer either intentionally or by choice to keep the same panel even within the same model.

They'll introduce a new model with either a PVA, S-IPS or other type and then change it on the next revision with a lowered price. My guess is that they all flood the market with their newer, bigger model trying to satisfy everyone namely office, gamers and imaging types usually in that order of preference. Whatever group complains the most about screen speed in milliseconds as apposed to color accuracey gets the panel of choice on the next revision.

And of course they don't tell anyone about the change until they start getting returns after long troubleshooting sessions similar to this thread. Pretty stupid and inefficient way of doing business IMO.

From what I've researched the only way you can tell what panel type you got with the Dell 2007wfp-(don't know about the 2407wfp) is at the end of the serial number on the back if it had an "S" for Samsung it had the S-PVA, the only panel type Samsung uses in their LCD line. Or, if it had an "L" for LG-it had the S-IPS.

This I found out about a year ago so things may have improved with manufacturers letting customers know what panel type is included. The thing is you'll read customer feedback on the web that the S-PVA panels calibrate just as accurate as the S-IPS panels, but then no one knows how picky they are about color. No display is ever going to be perfect.

My iMac isn't but then I'm not trying to make sure FedEx purple doesn't look blue when I cut and paste their logo into a page layout program.

And just remember in advertising you've got about three seconds to grab someone's interest before they throw your carefully crafted brochure in the trash. Do you think they'll give a crap if you didn't nail that FedEx purple exactly.

[Guest]

Raven... I see a slight saturation boost when going to SFW, with the sRGB checked. But I believe "g ballard" said that was normal. What I see in the sfw preview window is what I get in the online browser. If I what my image to look the same as the original PSD, I just bring down the saturation -15 or -20 in H&S before going to sfw. I actually had it almost prefect before I re-calibrated the monitor. I need to go back and re-calibrated again. I used the Spyder2 Pro.