# Somebody tell me what's going on...



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

I'm using Adobe Bridge, opening Raw files and they are saved as jpgs. If I open the file in photoshop the colors are rich, but the same files are showing up in Windows Picture Viewer and on the Web as being washed out...can anyone tell me what's going on?


----------



## Shed Hunter (Mar 14, 2006)

*Whats going on?*

I can't. I shoot in Raw and use Silkypix to convert to JPG and my photos turn out under exposed and I have to lighten them up in PSP XI to post. I do not know what is going on either.
SH


----------



## Saltwater Servitude (Mar 18, 2006)

Are you saving the jpegs as Adobe RGB colorspace? It might explain why since you're probably going to get an automatic revert to displaying sRGB in web and Windows picture viewer.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*Colorspace*

SS,

I do think it's a colorspace issue, but I haven't changed any of the default settings. I'm finding out now that it's doing the same thing if I start with a jpg as well. It may have happened when I upgraded to CS2 in January...if you can call this hiccup and upgrade. I'll post my colorspace settings tonight and maybe we can figure this out. Thanks for the input.



Saltwater Servitude said:


> Are you saving the jpegs as Adobe RGB colorspace? It might explain why since you're probably going to get an automatic revert to displaying sRGB in web and Windows picture viewer.


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

I think the color issues are going to be caused by the viewing applications. Take a look at my screenshot - same photo opened in CS2, windows picture viewer and IE6. The colors are different in all three!


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

The more I think of this, the happier I am that Rusty had this problem - and I'm not being sarcastic. I always work in photoshop and never really look at my images anywhere else. If I'm setting one up to post online, I need to check and adjust a version of it for web browsers. I'm a web developer by day, so I'm used to testing code in multiple browsers but I never thought to do it with photos.

I have some friends with recording studios and they do this with thier stuff as well. Everything can sound great in their studio monitors, but it's not considered finished until they have listened to it in a 20-year-old, cheap car stereo. Same concept really.

If it's going to the web, I'm going to test for the web. If it's going to my printer, that's a different story


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*If I'm going under...*

then I'm taking someone with me! 

Thanks Brett for not making me feel alone on this. I guess my quest now is which colorspace provides the least amount of variation between PS and the web.

I'm in the process of changing my gallery so I need to get this sorted out. Time to dig. In the meantime here's my current setup...


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*First result of the dig...*

Adobe's RAW converter was set to Adobe RGB. I've changed it to sRGB for the web and are showing better results. Now I have to understand why these are being converted to regular RGB files when their being saved and I should be getting there.


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

Okay, different photo and computer. I kept my working space the same, but assigned the Adobe RBG 1988 profile to the image. It appears to be nearly identical to the image displayed in IE7, but the Windows Picture Viewer still wants to see things differently...


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

Well as soon as you guys get this sorted out, please repost and explain in laymen's terms because I have no idea what you are talking about or whether I should worry.


----------



## Slip (Jul 25, 2006)

I think they are saying all my photos are great in color and detail, but their monitors are showing it in an imperfect setting on their monitors. Kiddin, most of mine stink on my monitor also.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

I had the same issues until I ran Adobe Gamma to psuedo calibrate my monitor's color profile. That fixed it for me. When you did the upgrade, did you change the default workspace from which you previously stored and loaded your profiles?


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*Layman's Terms*

If I tweak a file should the file look exactly like the file I saved? If I upload that to 2cool shouldn't all three files look the same? They don't and I think we're all getting closer to the solution. Before I got distracted by Fred I learned alot abot color space.

Since I don't have the answer yet (and I think there's merit to SS, Brett and Pocketfisherman's statements) I'll refrain for now and focus on the worm. These are the same shots PS/Windows/IE7. The colorspace for these was Adobe RGB not bad, but the backgrounds are different.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*Ok then...*

Here's what I think I learned about this. RGB is the simplest colorspace. If PS is setup in that colorspace what you see is pretty much what you'll get on the web.

sRGB is basically a step up though it's still 8bit. It is better to use if you are going to print your images, but you may risk some image degradation when posting it to the web as we have already seen.

Adobe RGB will produce the best image prints, but suffers the most variance when it's posted to the web.

Since I save only originals, I can use whatever color space I need depending on what the final destination is. Looks like I'll try RGB for awhile and see if what you're seeing doesn't improve.


----------



## jferrell1211 (May 18, 2006)

you guys seem to have figured this out.....here is a brief primer on on the web and colors...

http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_colors.asp

with Picture Viewer and other apps.....they all try to match their current pallete to the demands of what is being displayed...(you hope)....some do it better than others....

I've been writing software for Windows for 12 years......colors & printing!!! the bane of my existence!!! oh well, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.........

good look..


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

For Web, stick to SRGB and set your camera for the same colorspace to avoid converting. When you use the Photoshop option "Save for Web", that is the colorspace it uses too. To my eye with the printer I have (Canon S820), I can't tell the difference in a print between sRGB or Adobe RGB because both are being clipped or converted to get into the printer's gamut.


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

OK guys, I know I'm dredging up the past here but I'm ill today and home from work so I have some time to read and try learning some of this. I have been reading a lot about this on different sites and in different books and it may just be the meds, but the more I read the more confused I become.

1. My Nikon D40 has three different color settings that I can select from. I sRGB, II Adobe RGB, and III anothe sRGB. Now my camera's help screen says that I is for portraits, II is for images that will be edited, and III is for vivid nature and landscape photography. I have always left mine on II Adobe RGB.

2. Now when I open my RAW images for any post processing and editing, shouldn't I open them as Adobe RGB in 16-bit, do my editing until I have the desired image results, save it as Rusty had once said as Adobe RGB in a 16-bit TIFF format? Then if I want to post on the web, just take that image and convert it to sRGB for before posting? This is almost too much for my frail brain this morning.

3. Lastly, I just ordered a Spyder2 Suite with the software and colorimeter for calibrating my LCD monitor. Do you think this will have a positive effect on my images. I have read a lot of reviews and posts from people that used it and they say their end results were very good and worth the effort. Anyone else use this product?

Help a sick guy out and give me some more stuff to read today. Thanks for any input and advice on the subject.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Gn..sorry you are sick....but..I am glad that you brought this topic back up. 

I have felt for some time that what I see on my monitor is much better than what I see when I post my shots on this site..( or any other pix sites ) . 

I don't know where I am losing sharpness; detail; color saturation etc...but it is happening. I'll keep on reading the (hoped for ) replies and learn something more this week. Thanks and sorry about your being sick. 
regards, Rich


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

What you see in photoshop is influenced by the profile you have set for your display. The Photoshop workspace is color managed, but web browsers are not color managed. If you want them to be closer together, shoot and process in the sRGB colorspace which is intended for material directed to the web. Also, you know you can change and save the defaults bridge uses when you click and open a file right?


----------



## Gator_Nutz (Sep 27, 2006)

Yes PF. Thanks. I think once I get my monitor profiled I will continue shooting all RAW and opening and editing in 16-bit Adobe RGB. That way if I want to print they should be ready. If they will be posted to web I just convert them to sRGB first. Is that correct thinking?


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

Rusty, it's just operator error. You need to take cruddier pictures like the rest of us so you don't notice that kind of thing... 

I have a rose that's a beautiful red and I've never displayed a photo of it because I can never get the red even close to right. I thnk it's just a thing with red. It has to be so perfect to look right. Too many variables going on I guess..


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Ignore my post a few lines up, I was reading back to the beginning of the thread and missed your new questions.

The problem is if you do your conversion and save as a 16 bit RGB, then convert so sRGB for web, you'll lose some colors and dynamic range during the conversion. Better to reopen the raw, then adjust crop, contrast, brightness, exposure, and saturation all in raw, then save it as an sRGB jpeg. You can then use photoshop to sharpen as it's sharpening plugin for unsharp mask is a lot more versatile than the one in Bridge/Raw. The reason this works is that everything done in RAW is pre-gamma conversion. The gamma conversion compresses highlights and strethes the shadow tonal range as if you are running a curves adjustment. If you've ever looked at the histogram with an extreme curves adjustment, you'll see gaps in the tone range (it looks like a comb) where you stretch the tone data out. The more you can do pre-gamma, the better off you'll be as to retaining the greatest amount of tone information in the final image. Scott Kelby's excellent book on Adobe Photoshop Raw goes into this in detail.

How well spyder works for you will depend on how well your profile matches your monitor now. I did the adobe gamma setup, and made my own profile. Then 6 months later, I got the spyder and did the calibration. To my eye, the only improvement I've noted is a very tiny bit more of detail in the shadows from fine tuning the contrast. There is no change in the colors that I can see.



Gator_Nutz said:


> OK guys, I know I'm dredging up the past here but I'm ill today and home from work so I have some time to read and try learning some of this. I have been reading a lot about this on different sites and in different books and it may just be the meds, but the more I read the more confused I become.
> 
> 1. My Nikon D40 has three different color settings that I can select from. I sRGB, II Adobe RGB, and III anothe sRGB. Now my camera's help screen says that I is for portraits, II is for images that will be edited, and III is for vivid nature and landscape photography. I have always left mine on II Adobe RGB.
> 
> ...


----------

