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]

Never ever use your monitor profile as your working space.

[_Mike_Ornellas_]

THE main problem with working in a monitor color space is the simple fact that monitor color spaces usually not linear like for example Adobe RGB. Therefore, when you make a color adjustment to an image with a curve or any other color tool, you may be over or under compensating the adjustment because the tools are linear.

Tancredi advice is awful not only for web work, but for everything else as well. This persons approach to color is to be blind.

[PeterK__]

>So unlike working with images, I just want to keep my colors consistent across all my sites web pages AND when I go to update the backgrounds in some future version of Photoshop I can be secure that the colors will not change.

By using your monitor profile, you ensure that there is no way anyone in the future will be able to duplicate the colour (even yourself, if you recalibrate, or your monitor drifts, or you get a new one with a new computer, etc).
Didn't we already have this discussion and didn't we already point out that that Tancredi website was giving bad advice?
Anyone know the song, "there's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza?"

[Guest]

can someone delete the link in post 523 I think. As it is really bad advice.

[Guest]

Thank you for removing it. it was in 522.

[Lundberg02]

Ramon, my monitor is fine, my prints match my monitor on 95 brightness copy paper, and I don't give a rat's patootie what web addicts see.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Lundberg02,

Likewise, I'm not concerned with the web in the least.

But the gray scales on both of my monitors are as neutral as can be, even tough I calibrate and profile to gamma 2.2, 6500ºK and a White Point of 95cd/m^2.

> I calibrate to 1.8 and 9300 on my 17" LCDS because the gray scale is brown at 3/4 if I don't.

I'd hate to see that on my monitors. Obviously yo hate it too, or you wouldn't correct for it.

My comment was only that the LCDs are somehow inherently brown if you're forced to calibrate to 1.8 gamma and 9300ºK to get a neutral scale.

[_paolobaillie_]

Bizarre bizarre bizarre

The replies of the techy elite and the removal of the link above by Adobe.

FACT - there is a problem that clearly exists for a large number of CS3 users. There is a fix, in language anyone can understand (rather than most of the jibberish posted here), by general consensus the fix works but rather than a constructive debate or conversation - a brick wall of arrogance.

How predictable.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Paolo,

The advice in that link was terrible AND dangerous.

It does not "fix" a problem at all, it just makes whatever crap you have there look OK to you on your particular monitor and NOWHERE ELSE.

Any user adopting that asinine method is going to end up with lots of ruined image files.

If you had read this entire thread, or if you had the most elementary knowledge of color management, you would know that.

The removal of that thread was a real service to other newbies like you who may have followed that terribly bad advice.

I don't know who deleted the link, but kudos to that person.

[_paolobaillie_]

The other thing Ramon and Lunberg is that the original post clearly refers to web users so why are you bothering to enter the debate at all.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Because the s.o.b. who tells me where to post hasn't been born, Paolo.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

To put it in other terms: not being concerned with the web does not remotely mean not being aware of the process of saving images for the web and, most especially, color management in general.

[_paolobaillie_]

And on that sad note I shall leave the Adobe community to you and the moderators and go and join the real world.

Adios

[Ramón_G_Castañeda]

Hope you come back, Paolo.

Don't take the deletion of your ill-informed link personally. It had nothing to do with you.

Hope you take the time to read on color management so you'll find out why that advice would have anyone flying color-blind.

My reaction to your aggressive rhetorical question is immaterial. I just explained how I felt about it.

[Guest]

I was the one who asked the link be removed because it was such bad advice. I even posted at that blog telling everyone why it was such bad advice.

paolobaillie, If you actually knew what is going on you would not have posted that link. I sorry you got your feelings hurt with the removal of that link but if you stick with it and actually read some books about color management you will understand why it was removed.

[PeterK__]

>but rather than a constructive debate or conversation

We've already had about 500 posts of that. Not all of constructive at times, but most of it pointing out the proper method of managing colour to achieve predictable results. Using your monitor profile as your RGB working space is not it.

[jefbak]

I guess I need to call Adobe or start a new thread, but paolobaillie's advice and link did help me, but I have not tried creating the same graphic on a different mac yet.

But the question remains:

How can I guarantee that my save for web output will look the same no matter what version of PhotoShop I use?

If it is not going to look the same, then I have to stop using the product.

[Guest]

Jef I'm not sure how you have Photoshop set up.

I would also stop worrying how someone else did something 2 versions ago. If CS1 does not match CS2 and CS3 then either something is set wrong or that's the way it works now deal with it.

Also keep in mind that most of the world is using cheap uncalibrated monitors that are all over the place so no matter how good your image looks to you most of the world is not seeing what you see.

If you think you can do better with GIMP or some other product feel free to start using it.

[cbadland]

Jef,
I looked at some of your previous posts about differences you see in saving GIF images saved in CS1 vs. CS3.
I just tried saving-for-web a solid color as a GIF (the gold color from the home page of your site) in both CS1 and CS3. The results were identical.

You may want to start a new topic specifically detailing the problem you see. And keep in mind that the solution will NOT be making it look right on your particular machine at this particular point in time (which is all paolobaillies advice provided.)

[jefbak]

Thanks for checking the colors Charles.

Still driving me a bit nuts here. I have re-installed CS1 and CS3 so that everything in both versions is at the defaults. Save for Web also the defaults.

Still seeing 2 different shades of #cccc66 yellow/green...

CS3 version is lighter.

[cbadland]

Did you trash your SFW prefs? (It is different than just deleting your regular Photoshop preferences)
Re-installing does NOT delete Preference files.

In Finder go
Home > Library > Preferences > Adobe Save For Web x.x Prefs. Toss that file, (and the regular PS prefernce file while you are at it) then relaunch Photoshop.

EDIT
I just ran the cccc66 Save For Web as GIF test on both CS and CS3. Still no difference.

And how and where are you comparing colors to state "CS3 version is lighter"

[_Mike_Ornellas_]

If anything - maybe Adobe will wake up, doubt it.

[Guest]

Heck even assigning a monitor profile to an untagged image of unknown origin especially from devices like scanners that don't embed profiles files like my Epson 4870 can surprisingly affect clipping when editing in a larger working space.

I just found this out recently with a scan I had to edit in the scanner's RAW or so called sRGB space of a Kodak UC 400 negative depicting a wide gamut scene of brilliantly blue flowers lit by "Golden Hour" direct sunlight. Every one hour photo lab wrecked this image by squeezing it into their very small printer space.

Using the Epson's tools was like whittling wood with a dull knife providing only fair results. The image was just dead looking no matter what I did. Color temp was off and the hues were so skewed as if ProPhotoRGB was assigned to an sRGB image only without the oversaturation.

So I had to resort to working in Lab in Photoshop, but, instead of first assigning sRGB2.1, I assigned my monitor space before converting. Since this was a somewhat high contrast low light scene with very deep blues in the shadows of the flowers and intense orangish green in the leaves clipping was an issue.

Red channel would clip to 0 in the deep blues and the blue channel would clip to 0 in the shadows and highlite detail in the leaves. I started over by first assigning sRGB2.1 and all the same edits that I'ld previously saved and applied to the Lab image nolonger clipped the data to render the same preview.

[Guest]

Been working on this image for two years and put it aside cuz I just couldn't get what I saw through the lens at the time of capture and I finally got it. No more assigning nonuniform color spaces like Apple sRGB or my monitor to images like this. <br /> <br />The top is the minilab's, the middle is the Epson and the last is my attempt strictly from memory of the scene in Lab space by first assigning sRGB 2.1. Very little clipping converting back to sRGB2.1. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1qtNLzfmAFaDKu86JjLWFkK2UVBsS" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1qtNLzfmAFaDKu86JjLWFkK2UVBsS_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zHtAraVLNDBpobikRCoUFT0AJoxA1" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1zHtAraVLNDBpobikRCoUFT0AJoxA1_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1xJgpkjrtlOaeGJpV20M38UesYim0B" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1xJgpkjrtlOaeGJpV20M38UesYim0B_thumb.jpg" border="0" />

[Lundberg02]

In Safari the first one is a little lighter. No idea which one is best except i can't believe the scene was that dull.