| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2004 11:39:48 AM · #1 |
So last night I grabbed another pretty sunset out my office window. I open it up in PS this morning, make some adjustments, "save as", and upload to the web. If I flip back and forth between looking at the file in PS and looking at the file in my browser, most of the lovely fiery orange I see in PS is missing in the browser.
I tried the same process again, using "save for web" instead of "save as". The "save for web" preview looks more like what I'm seeing in my browser. But once the file is saved and I open it up in PS, the oranges are again more intense than in browser.
Perhaps normally the colors I deal with aren't as intense as those in sunsets, so I don't notice the loss as much with other images- but it is very noticeable with the deep oranges of sunsets.
Do "save as" and "save for web" handle colors differently? And should I be working in a different color space while making my adjustments so I can be sure what I'm seeing in PS is what I'll see online? I know all these discrepancies have something to do with colors displayable by the web, I just can't figure out how to best work around it.
Here is the image in question, by the way, if anyone is really curious:
//www.titoi.com/d70/DSC_0738.jpg
If you save it and open it in PS, you'll notice the oranges are much more intense than they are online. (It's also in my portfolio, but I don't know if DPC does anything to the files that are uploaded to their site.)
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:41:15 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:43:04 AM · #3 |
Nope. Running Windows XP Home on a Compaq Presario R3000 laptop using Photoshop CS.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:44:07 AM · #4 |
I had a similar thing happen to a photo of a red leaf...
It seems to look fine online and as a thumbnail in Windows, but when I look at it in Windows Viewer (clicking to open the file or in "Filmstrip" viewing mode) on my computer, the orange/red looks like crap...as if it was waaay oversaturated.
I don't get it...
Edit: Actually, if someone could take a few seconds and click the link, then right click "Save Picture" and view it in Windows to see if they get the same effect that would be great...let me know!
Message edited by author 2004-12-29 11:46:03.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:46:24 AM · #5 |
| Well, Mac or Windows, the same situation probably applies. Before you do any editing, change your Proof Setup (under the View menu) to Monitor RGB. The default preview is for print applications I believe, so your image won't look like what you see on DPC unless you change that preview or change your color settings to Web Graphics Default. Save for Web previews in RGB because it assumes Web=Monitor (that's why it matches). |
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:47:02 AM · #6 |
When you use the "save as" function, what quality are you saving the pictures as?
I believe 'save for the web' compresses the file so it's user friendly when people view it.
If you are just saving it using 'save as' in low or medium quality the quality is probably worse than the compression of 'save for the web.'
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:49:20 AM · #7 |
| I should note that Save for Web will yield slightly better image quality on the same 150Kb file since you're not wasting space on thumbnail data and other info that's included when you use Save As. |
|
|
|
12/29/2004 11:55:01 AM · #8 |
For the sake of comparison I "saved as' and "saved for web" so that both files were 90kb. For DPC, regardless of which I use, I save it to 150k. For my own website or other purposes, I use the preview function in each to decide how much image degradation and file size I can live with.
Scalvert- good point about "save as". I wouldn't have thought that "web" would be better, but that makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 12:00:46 PM · #9 |
| not sure if this is applicable....but I kinda noticed that my pictures in the web browser were a little desaturated from what it looked like in PS. It was because I shoot in Adobe RGB and I didn't convert it to sRGB before saving. After converting the profile to sRGB and then saving, the colors matched much more closely. I'm not sure if this is the same problem though. |
|
|
|
12/29/2004 01:00:53 PM · #10 |
Before saving web postables, make sure to Convert Profile to sRGB space. I will look for the tutorial on this site for better information....
ah... here it is: //www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=26
Message edited by author 2004-12-29 13:01:35.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 02:59:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Well, Mac or Windows, the same situation probably applies. Before you do any editing, change your Proof Setup (under the View menu) to Monitor RGB. The default preview is for print applications I believe, so your image won't look like what you see on DPC unless you change that preview or change your color settings to Web Graphics Default. Save for Web previews in RGB because it assumes Web=Monitor (that's why it matches). |
My colour profile is set to sRGB, proof setup to Monitor RGB. Yet all images come out 10-15 points brighter than the original, when saved for web.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2004 03:21:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I had a similar thing happen to a photo of a red leaf...
It seems to look fine online and as a thumbnail in Windows, but when I look at it in Windows Viewer (clicking to open the file or in "Filmstrip" viewing mode) on my computer, the orange/red looks like crap...as if it was waaay oversaturated.
I don't get it...
Edit: Actually, if someone could take a few seconds and click the link, then right click "Save Picture" and view it in Windows to see if they get the same effect that would be great...let me know! |
Saved photo and viewed it in Windows...certainly is more vivid colours. More orange than red! |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 09:49:58 PM · #13 |
Andi
I'm no expert, but saving for the web uses the (smaller?) web's default color pallette. If it can't find the exact color match, it chooses the next best hue. It's a bit more complicated than that, but...
I found my best results when working in CYMK mode for my prints, then saving 'for the web' when I want to post something. Switching from one pallette to another will never be perfect, though. If you're posting online, and 'save as' works, then that's the way to go. It's just not as easy as the other route.
Out of curiousity, do you calibrate your monitor?
Went back and saved the file and checked it. I don't get any variances. When PS asked if I wanted to convert it to my preference, I said 'no', otherwise the conversion would changed pallettes and shown differences.
Message edited by author 2004-12-30 21:54:47. |
|
|
|
12/30/2004 10:00:30 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by swagman:
...saving for the web uses the (smaller?) web's default color pallette. |
Not true. That's only for GIF files, which have a specific palette of 8, 16, etc. colors. Save for Web (in JPEG format) uses the same palette as Save As. The only difference is that Save for Web automatically converts your file to an sRGB color space at 72dpi, and doesn't include extraneous thumbnail images or other data that would increase file size. |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 03:01:36 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
For the sake of comparison I "saved as' and "saved for web" so that both files were 90kb. For DPC, regardless of which I use, I save it to 150k. For my own website or other purposes, I use the preview function in each to decide how much image degradation and file size I can live with.
Scalvert- good point about "save as". I wouldn't have thought that "web" would be better, but that makes a lot of sense. |
Save For Web dumps the EXIF info and possibly more info. This means there is less stuff to compress to 90k than the Save As. This means more space for the epic info itself. I doubt it is much (i mean, the EXIF in text can't be but 1 or 2k) but i have read that the diff at the same compressiion ratio Save For Web will be 50k smaller. That is a lot of space give over to EXIF and bookeeping stuff.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 10:10:21 AM · #16 |
Some additional threads related to this subject:
Save 4 web oversaturates image?
Save for Web?
Cha-cha-cha-changes...
Adobe RGB?
In the first thread, Gordon makes a good suggestion regarding SfW settings, but he already has the standard kinks worked out in his workflow. The more common problem is touched on there and in other threads.
FYI, SfW does not convert your image to sRGB. For most people, the biggest issue disappears if they do as EddyG (and others) suggests and convert to sRGB prior to saving. Aside from resizing, the bulk of EddyG's tutorial contains useful information for preparing web images in general.
Message edited by author 2004-12-31 13:50:03. |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 01:07:07 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Well, Mac or Windows, the same situation probably applies. Before you do any editing, change your Proof Setup (under the View menu) to Monitor RGB. The default preview is for print applications I believe, so your image won't look like what you see on DPC unless you change that preview or change your color settings to Web Graphics Default. Save for Web previews in RGB because it assumes Web=Monitor (that's why it matches). |
My colour profile is set to sRGB, proof setup to Monitor RGB. Yet all images come out 10-15 points brighter than the original, when saved for web. |
I do not experience any colour shift at all. There is and remains a marked difference in brightness only between the unsaved and the saved-for-web image.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 01:30:58 PM · #18 |
I would like to know the 'answer' to this question also. I have not been able to find any useful info on the web.
I find that when I get the right 'look' for my pictures in PS as .TIFF images that I lose saturation when saving as JPG or saving for Web.
This seems to be related to color space, but I can not find why this is or how to address it.
I have a couple of photo printers (inkjets) and a 6x4 Dye Sublimation printer and they all seem to print the less saturated image (even from the original TIFF.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 12:17:46 PM · #19 |
scalvert
Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression the pallettes were different, and that (s)RBG stood for (small)RGB - meaning a smaller color selection. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 12:33:16 PM · #20 |
Chris,
Your printers seem "less saturated" because of the nature of the media; just as your old-school color prints always looked less saturated than the equivalent color slide. Your monitor has a much wider dynamic range (transmitted light) than a print (reflected light).
Printers work on a CMYK model; Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black. Some of the newer ones add a green inkset as well. Trasmitted light (monitor images) use a different mixing, RGB; Red, Green, Blue.
If you want to see on the screen an image closer to what prints out, use CMYK model for editing. Use RGB model for images intended for online viewing. Most digital printing operations ask for CMYK art in submissions. Even if they accept RGB and run the conversion, what you get may not be what you expected. (I'm referring specifically to book covers here, because I design books now.)
DISCLAIMER: the above is the impressions of a relative newcomer to digital imagery; but I spent years as a designer...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 12:40:11 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Chris,
Your printers seem "less saturated" because of the nature of the media; just as your old-school color prints always looked less saturated than the equivalent color slide. Your monitor has a much wider dynamic range (transmitted light) than a print (reflected light).
Printers work on a CMYK model; Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black. Some of the newer ones add a green inkset as well. Trasmitted light (monitor images) use a different mixing, RGB; Red, Green, Blue.
If you want to see on the screen an image closer to what prints out, use CMYK model for editing. Use RGB model for images intended for online viewing. Most digital printing operations ask for CMYK art in submissions. Even if they accept RGB and run the conversion, what you get may not be what you expected. (I'm referring specifically to book covers here, because I design books now.)
DISCLAIMER: the above is the impressions of a relative newcomer to digital imagery; but I spent years as a designer...
Robt. |
Yes, pro reproduction for printing use CMYK, (like books, magazines, newspaper, etc)
but
for PC printing stay with RGB. That is native to teh PC enviroment and 99% of the print drivers for PC printers assume this is the colorspace the image is in and convert for printing accordingly. Sending a CMYK image to a printer can cause odd things to happen, depending on the driver.
Some PC printers use 7 inks these days - the printer driver will convert whatever it is sent into what it needs in cases like this.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 12:45:29 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
FYI, SfW does not convert your image to sRGB. |
Well, that depends on your color settings. If you had a 640 x 480 pixel CMYK image @300dpi and hit Save for Web, you'd get a 640 x 480 RGB image at 72dpi (if no settings were changed). Photoshop will use whatever RGB space is specified in your color settings. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 01:21:22 PM · #23 |
Professor,
That's interesting. I run an Epson archival large format printer (2000P) and I get much more accurate correlation between screen and print with CMYK model. My monitor's an Electron Blue 22, and it gets calibrated regularly...
I really don't know wnough about the variables to comment further; works for me with this setup, is all I know. Couldn't be happier with the prints.
Not disputing you, btw; you're probably much more up-to-date on this stuff than me. Now, if you want to talk B/W printing with large format negs using zone system, I'm your resident expert in that LOL.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:53:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Well, that depends on your color settings. If you had a 640 x 480 pixel CMYK image @300dpi and hit Save for Web, you'd get a 640 x 480 RGB image at 72dpi (if no settings were changed). Photoshop will use whatever RGB space is specified in your color settings. |
Ahh, I suppose that makes sense if your current working space is not RGB, but I assume for this discussion everyone is working in RGB. So, if you're starting out with an image not in a RGB space and your working (RGB) space is sRGB, your original statement is correct.
I assume that anyone editing their images in photoshop wants to maintain as much control over that process as possible. For me, that includes color space issues (conversions/assignment/etc.), so I do conversions based on intended use, including web display. If you convert to sRGB prior to using SfW, there's less guess work (but keep in mind Gordon's experience regarding some specific SfW settings). |
|
|
|
01/02/2005 05:12:49 PM · #25 |
Professor
I agree with bear on the Epson (I've the 2200). I had all kinds of problems until I switched to the CYMK mode, even using the printer's ColorMatch driver. Now, with CYMK, what I see on the screen is what I get on the print.
Message edited by author 2005-01-02 17:13:24. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 01:38:45 AM EDT.
