Color difference in web gallery

I am having trouble matching color from my images in Bridge or PS (CS4) to the photos that appear when I make a web gallery using CS4. The photos have been converted to sRGB and look vivid in Bridge or Photoshop. However when they are converted into a web gallery and shown on a browser they are dull and lacklustre.
However if I upload one to my gallery on Mobile Me they look just fine. It seems like Web Gallery in CS4 is doing something to them.
I am using Safari and CS4 withMacbook Pro. Is there something I am missing I wonder?? Any suggestions?

>> I have opened the files in Safari, Firefox, Photoshop and Preview and they display correctly - even when profiles are changed
that's expected in Safari, Photoshop and Preview
Safari and Preview both automatically honor embedded profiles and Convert to Monitor RGB (you can't confuse them if your files have embedded profiles they get displayed correctly) — Safari and Preview both apply Monitor RGB to untagged files — I don't think we can change this behavior
Photoshop can be confused in any number of ways by users opening tagged and untagged files, but it sounds like the same thing is happening correctly (Ps is Converting Source Space to Monitor RGB) — if we tell Photoshop Do Not Color Manage a file, it in essence applies/assign/assumes its "Working RGB" profile
anything in CS4 saving for web (galleries) is more than likely stripping the profile(s) by application default
the test would be to open the problem (web gallery-generated) file in Photoshop and first see if it has an embedded profile — then Assign various profiles until you hit the correct profile — if someone doesn't understand how profiles work then that likely whooshed out the other ear by now, but that is a very presice step to ID the problem
if someone is having this problem, this is how to figure out what's happening — learn how your workflow deals with profiles/color spaces
the way to fix it would be making sure your Save For Web (gallery) Converts to sRGB and strips the profile (CS4 Adobe default setting)

Similar Messages

Web Gallery-Surprising Differences between Safari and Firefox

I discovered some surprising differences using Web Gallery in Safari vs. Firefox:
1. When you first view an album the gallery, the thumbnail photos take quite a bit longer to be visible in Safari than in Firefox.
2. When rolling the mouse over the Subscribe icon in Safari, a message states, "Add this album to iPhoto." In Firefox, the message states, "Subscribe to an RSS feed of this album."
3. When a movie is selected in Safari, you can download it immediately, though the movie is not playable from the Safari page until it fully loads. In Firefox, if you click the download icon before the movie has fully loaded, a message appears that states, "QuickTime is unable to play this movie. Please try again. Then, a window opens asking what to do with the file you are trying to download -- Save it, or Launch QuickTime. If you wait until the movie is fully loaded, it plays within the Firefox page. If, after it's loaded, you leave the page and then go back to that page, the movie won't load again and play within Firefox, but it can be downloaded.
I'm wondering whether these differences in functionality are typical or just occurring on my Mac, so please document your experience here.

Thanks Denes for your reply.
I use HttpWatch tool to measure the loading times. Reports are mostly the same for IE and FF. I can see from the report, there is three times shown error 404 Not Found for the items below.
http://......./images/sRegion-Body.png
http://......./images/sRegion-Bottom.png
http://......./images/sReportBG-Standard.png
The last action which caused 404 error started 2 seconds after the page was asked to refresh. The next action http://......../i/libraries/jquery-ui/1.8.22/ui/i18n/oracle/jquery.ui.datepicker-cs.js started after 38 seconds (hanging in the same place for 36 seconds). Does it mean that the problem is caused by http://......./images/sReportBG-Standard.png action which returns 404 error?
How can I add the missing images?
-Jiri

LR Flash Web Gallery Colors are too "rich"

Hello everybody,
I am not even sure anymore that this is a LR only question, I apologize, but I encounter my problem while using LR.
If I create a Flash LR Web Gallery, the colors of the pictures are way off when viewed in the browser. They are too warm and very saturated.
First I suspected my browser, but it color managed (Firefox). If I go and open a single image directly in ~/bin/images/large with the same browser, I get what I expect (and what I see in LR).
But if I run the flash presentation, I get the overdone colors.
Can anyone help with a hint?
Thanxx, Peter

No, because LR's Web module is currently based on ActionScript 2, so no 3rd party Flash web engines are colour managed.
If you have some skills with Flash, SlideShowPro for Flash is one option. Coupled with their Director content management system, which comes with a LR export plug-in, you can have a smooth workflow and colour managed Flash output. Of course, remember that your visitors must also have Flash Player version 10, and most still don't.
John

Web Gallery and Color Space

Hi,
Is there any way to change the color space of the Web Galleries made by Aperture from Adobe-RGB to sRGB without exporting the photos separate first.
I'm also missing an adjustment option to set the image quality in the Web Gallery.
Regards,
JO
http://www.motivio.de

I am slightly confused by what you said...
without exporting the photos separate first.
Do you mean change to sRGB while still in Aperture? The answer would be no. The images get changed to sRGB on export. However, you do not have to export the images separately from the gallery. When you create the gallery, the images and html get created all together. So, what you do is change the export presets you are using for the web to have sRGB in the color space profile.

How do I change the background color to black? I'd like Photoshop's generated web gallery to display photos against a black background.

I can't find a place to change the background to black from white. I'd like Photoshop's automated web gallery feature to show photos against a black background once I open the htm file inside Firefox. I use a Mac with OS 10.6.7 (current) on my 27-in. iMac. Thanks very much

There are often many ways to do things, and c.pfaffenbichler's suggestion above is good.
However, as I'm very fond of Curves, I'd use Image - Adjust - Curves (or Layer - New Adjustment Layer - Curves) myself, and pull the black point of the blue curve up.
-Noel

[web gallery] how to define the export color profile

Hello,
I'm currently working on a web gallery template wich will create both web size and full size images. It will allows my clients to directly download the images they want for their article, and save me a lot of time for the uploading process.
This step is done. I've found in other web templates how to do the multiple sizes. You can have an example here: http://nack.ch/series/biscuits/index.html
But as I often work for press, I'd like to be able to export my images in a profile like ProPhotoRGB or AdobeRGB instead of sRGB. Is there a way to do that?
I suspect there should be a photoSizes.*. function that I have to insert in my galleryInfo.lrweb, but I didn't found a listing of the different parameters we can set for web galleries.
Have you any idea to solve this problem or at least where I could find any information about that?
Best regards
Niels

Sorry, there is no way to do this in the 2.x SDK.
We'll keep your request in mind for a future version.
- Andy

Photos in Web gallery too dark

Hello,
I just updated to the new iLife.
I tried the new Web Gallery function and the photos are too dark compared to the view in iPhoto.
Same happens with galleries in iWeb.
What's wrong?
JO

There is a color problem when publishing pictures from iPhoto 06 and 08 (as well as when e-mailing a picture).
The problem being that the images are published with their original color profile, whatever that is. Further, if profile is missing in the image in iPhoto, the profile will be missing in the output. (BUT iPhoto displays correctly in case there is an EXIF tag specifying sRGB).
The result is that colors will not be displayed correctly on the WEB (or in e-mail clients), more or less depending on OS platform. This applies both to images and their thumbnails.
Compare the iPhoto album http://www.tomasjonsson.eu/IPhotoTests/
with an album with correct colors http://www.tomasjonsson.eu/PictureSite/Albums/Pages/PreAndPostProcessed.html
In Safari, only IMG_9465 and IMG_5182 will show a difference - since those are the only images without a color profile. However, in other MS-Windows browsers, most images will be displayed incorrectly.
Note! Most digital cameras produce images without at color profile but with an EXIF tag. In iPhoto:Preferences:Advanced choose Embed ColorSync profile, which will add a profile corresponding the EXIF tag. However, the images that you have already imported will not be fixed.
Note to Apple: Show EXIF colors space and embedded color profile in Info pane. Add command - ASSIGN profile. And in export dialog - add option Color Space.
HOW IT SHOULD BE
Images on the web (and in general also e-mails) should be published in sRGB color space (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly in browsers on the MS-Windows platforms, with the exception of Safari, viewing images with a color profile)
Images should have a color profile, in particular the sRGB images (otherwise they will not be displayed correctly on the MacOS platforms. Maybe close to correct if you have calibrated your monitor to PC-gamma)
Actually all images should have a color profile, period. If the image does not have a color profile, it is just a pile of randomly colored pixels - to be interpreted freely by any displaying device, which they do.
For a demonstration of profiles and WEB see: http://www.gballard.net/psd/golive_pageprofile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
However, DO NOT follow this guys advice of omitting the color profile for WEB publishing because of overhead. The overhead is less than 1% of a high quality image. (I measured 0.5 - 2.5 kByte)
WORKAROUND
After exporting from iPhoto - use Photoshop and CONVERT TO PROFILE all images to sRGB color space. Save file with color profile.
Note, make sure that images without original profile are treated correctly (most often they are sRGB, check the EXIF tag with Preview application)
Note, apply also conversion to thumbnails.
Tomas Jonsson, Genicore Embedded Technology AB

Web Gallery generation speed is unacceptable

Machine: DP 2 Ghz G5, 2 GB RAM, 160GB disk, 250 GB disk, 20" Cinema Display
Aperture has it's library on the second SATA disk to improve I/O, likewise CS2 uses that disk for it's scratch and Bridge cache.
Task: Generate web gallery, Aperture(Proofs template), Bridge/ACR/CS2(white dots on black background)
-Raw images: Only 10 D2X NEFS
-In both apps all NEFS were tweaked and sharpening applied.
-Thumbnails 200x300
-Enlarged image(after clicking thumbnail) 750x499, JPG quality: Aperture(high) CS2(level 8)
On Aperture I selected "Export Web Pages", not "Publish to .mac"
Both Aperture and CS2 wrote the gallery web dir(under different names) to the same second internal SATA disk.
Aperture took 4:30
Bridge/ACR/CS2 took 59 seconds
Once again Adobe buries Aperture.
This is only one of the many problems with this app.
Note to Apple, if you want to be the leader then you need to beat the leader.
NO, I do not work for Adobe.

For me, the speed of Web page gallery creation isn't of great consequence. I don't make them that often. The speed of comparing images, selecting the pick from a stack, cropping, adjusting color, and so forth is much more important for me.
I've found the selecting tasks to be much faster in Aperture than in iView Media Pro III, which I also use and like. I also use Photoshop all the time (I'm still on CS1) and think its the best program that I've ever used. But cropping and adjusting colors are much easier and more facile on Aperture.
I wouldn't know how to conduct your test. Would I use the automation features to create the Web gallery, loading each image off of the hard disk in turn? If so, first I'd have to convert each to DNG. Then I'd have to adjust each on the fly. That makes no sense. So would I do the adjustments and then save out in PSD or TIFF format? Then the files are much bigger, so the disk i/o makes the test unfair for Photoshop and more about hard drive speed than anything the Apps are doing.
I recognize that other people are having speed problems with Aperture, even in areas where it works well for me. I have tricked out hardware which certainly helps my experience.
If I was making lots of Web image galleries every day, maybe the speed difference of a few minutes vs a few seconds would bother me too. I've noticed that the Web output from Aperture is very sharp with no noticable fringing. I think it looks great. But I also see that adjusting that sharpness isn't an option with Aperture. That hasn't annoyed me yet, but it might on some future project (like a portrait that wouldn't be as flattering if so crisp).

Color difference b/t JPG images seen on DPP vs. Preview

I take photos w/ Canon 30D using RAW file and touch up/convert to JPG on DPP. There is a significant color difference on the same JPG image when seen on DPP vs. when seen on Preview. Does anybody have the same problem? It only looks different on Preview b/c when I upload it on a web gallery, the color looks fine, so it's not the converting process that's messing up the color but something about Preview that's causing the problem. Any solution to this?

I've got the same problem on my new macbook. And what's more disturbing is I still could not find one display color profile could give the right color...the color LCD one is ok for daily use, but the color is still duller than it should be, when editing photos.

Aperture 2, Stacks and Web Gallery

I have had so many issues with this lately. I shot photos today, picked my favorites and created a web gallery. I then ordered my 40 photos in the web gallery in a very specific order to tell a story.
1st I noticed that the order sorted some how and I lost my custom sort. So I reordered it into a specific order.
Then I was working with stacks. I wanted to organize the rest of the photos in the project to find others that I missed before and to promote images to find better picks.
Then I noticed the Web Gallery would then automatically add all images in the stack next to the single photo in the Web Gallery.
2nd. My web gallery has hundreds of photos, mostly ones that I did not want displayed. Also my custom order was lost and I once again had to try to reorganize.
To make what could be a longer story short, I had to break all the stacks that I spent time on in order to remove the unwanted photos from the web gallery.
Are we forced to make a choice between using Stacks and Web Galleries? Can they NEVER be used together?

After much frustration and time looking at this issue, and reading this topic in forums, discussions and the Aperture User Manual (pg. 562 - 567) - for which there is no clear explanation of this - You can only use the stack pick in the Web Gallery.
Exactly!
Which means : If you want maximum flexibility in creating Web Galleries, DO NOT use stacks.
I suppose this depends on what you are using stacks for. If you are grouping images in stacks that you want to use, you can certainly do that, but that will be problematic in Aperture in places other than gallery, because that is simply not what stacks are designed to do. If you have several shots so similar you will only use one, but don't want to throw the rest away (you might change your mind later) put them in a stack. Makes it easy to compare and "pick" which one to output. If you have a number of photos that are roughly similar, but you will be using more than one - you can initially stack them, but will probably be better off splitting the stack later. Say I am shooting sports and get a high-speed sequence of a breakaway. I could put the whole sequence in a stack initially, but some of those images are different enough that I might want to publish two or three (out of, say, 15 shots). I might get them all in one stack through auto stack, or even manually stack them initially, but I will probably set one pick and extract a few others. The alternates will be there in case I find a use for them later. Same thing with portraiture. When shooting portraits, I can get a lot of almost identical images - with small nuances in facial expression being the only difference. Another kind of stacking I often do is when I create new versions from the master and make color and exposure adjustments.
What happens to the thousands of stacks that people have already created in Aperture and would like to simply get photographs online? You must rework your entire organization (if you use stacks) to accommodate this inconsistency.
I think Aperture is actually pretty consistent regarding stacks and alternates. Alternates are ignored if you try to create a web journal, web gallery, web page, or a book. I see no problem getting them online - the picks will display, extract alternates if you want them to display also.
And to further complicate a situation, when you select one photograph in a stack, and create a 'Web Gallery', once created, every photograph in that stack is put into the 'Web Gallery'
In other words, there is no 'Ignore Stack Groupings' option in Web Galleries and since Picks can be anywhere in the stack - this creates an organizational nightmare.
Yes, if you try to drag a single image to another project or album, the rest of the stack comes along for the ride. I know this bugs you, but I actually like the way it works. Where you see this as inconsistent - I see it being very consistent. If I create a stack - that stack is identical in all locations. I can change the pick for different albums, but if i alter a stack in any other way - it is changed everywhere. This doesn't take up an real space on your computer - it is all just referencing back to the master images anyway. If seeing all those alternates in the stack bother you, just close the stack By the way, your pick cannot be "anywhere in a stack" - the pick is always on top. Your "album pick" can be anywhere in a stack, but close the stack and the album pick is what you will see.
Maybe you would do better using albums for the kind of organization you are doing - it sounds to me like you are using stacks kind of like albums anyway. Just select a stack and "create album from selection." Then you can unstack your stacks and work with albums instead. Then when you drag an image to a web gallery you won't get alternates.
But leave the stacks the way they are please - I love them just the way they are
Scott

Web Gallery Images Don't Show Up On Web

I am very new to Lightroom, but have been using Dreamweaver and Photoshop for quite a while now. I took about 10 pictures that I wanted to be on a test web gallery, brought them into Lightroom as their own collection, selected them all and went to the Web tab at the top, HTML Gallery was selected by default and I left everything else at the defualt, just to see what I could get working. I then went to Export, and it export to a folder called 'gallery' on my desktop. I then went to the 'gallery' folder on my desktop, and inside there was a file called 'index.html'. I opened it, and the gallery loaded perfectly with all of the images showing.
Then, I selected the gallery folder and opened my FTP client, and uploaded the entire folder to my web server, whose domain is, let's say, test.com. I then went to test.com/gallery, and the gallery loaded but without any of the pictures. The outlines of the cells are fine, the defualt text all came up, but in every cell where an image should be, there is a little image missing icon in the top-left corner. This is the same in all browsers, and I have tried using the different kinds of galleries (Flash, etc.) but they all have the same sort of problem. The flash gallery specifically just says 'Loading' and hangs there, even though when running off of my desktop it works just fine.
In addition, I have tried configuring Lightroom's built-in FTP uploader to upload directly instead of exporting and then uploading, but that had the same results.
I have attached a picture which will show the difference between when it is on my desktop and when it is on the web.
Is there something I'm missing? Is there a file I'm supposed to rename for when it goes onto the web? I made sure that none of the folders I had the pictures in, none of the collections, and none of the names of the pictures themselves had spaces or punctuation so that it wouldn't mess up any coding that Lightroom would try to automate. I'm not familiar with the Lightroom settings and would really appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks.

Well, I re-read what was said in that forum and made those changes. I'm not quite sure what the SDK was for in this case, I just went to the folder, right clicked, and opened the files I needed to edit with Notepad. Then I edited, saved, re-opened Lightroom, re-exported, re-uploaded, and...drumroll...it worked perfectly.
Thank you all very much for your help. I had been using the Trial version of Lightroom, but after reviewing all of the other features and, finally, getting the web gallery feature to work just fine, I think I'm going to purchase it!
I'm going to send in a feature request through the little option on the side of this Forum page, and request that either those options be used by default (I just had my friend upload them to his Unix server and it worked fine on his), or that there should be an option to choose what type of server you're using. I don't think a user should have to edit program files, especially for something so simplistic. Thanks again.

CS4 Bridge - Black stroke around image in Web Gallery

More specifically, I'm using the LightRoom Flash Gallery selection as that provides just the structure that I want/need. To match my website (still in construction) I've altered the colors in Bridge's controls. Separately, I've added a frame around each image in Photoshop with a dropshadow that bleeds into the background color (again, to match the website).
The problem is that there is a 2 pixel stroke around the image.
Unfortunately since the image has a frame of its own with a drop shadow bleeding to the page color as part of the image, and that there's a 2 pixel stroke around the image, I've got a dropshadow contained within a stroke frame around the image that already has a frame. To my eyes it looks rather silly.
Is there anything I can do to get rid of this stroke? You can see two images with the problem here:
http://thecoynes.com/hdr/hdr_photographs/
By the way, before you suggest it, in the color palette options for this Web Export, there is an option for "Border." Unfortunately that is for the 1 pixel round-corner-rectangle border around the thumbnails and image. It doesn't do anything to *this* border. In addition, the structure of this web gallery is EXACTLY like the one in LightRoom and has the exact same results and problems.
Thanks for any help,
Gary

Tomrock,
Please read the last paragraph where I start "By the way, before you suggest it..."
In other words, yup, I've tried that and it refers to the 1 pixel border around the thumbs and the overall image.
Thanks for suggesting anyway, I've spent way too much time on this already.
Gary

Web gallery images not showing in Firefox

I have just created a web gallery in Adobe Bridge CS4. I had it working perfectly in all browsers and now all of a sudden the images are not showing up in Firefox. Anyone else have this problem?

If images are missing then check that you do not block images from some domains.
*Press the F10 key or tap the Alt key to bring up the hidden Menu bar.
Check the permissions for the domain in the currently selected tab in "Tools > Page Info > Permissions"
Check "Tools > Page Info > Media" for blocked images
*Select the first image link and use the cursor Down key to scroll through the list.
*If an image in the list is grayed and "Block Images from..." has a checkmark then remove this checkmark to unblock images from this domain.
Make sure that you do not block (third-party) images, the permissions.default.image pref on the about:config page should be 1.
Make sure that you haven't enabled a High Contrast theme in the Windows/Mac Accessibility settings.
Make sure that you allow pages to choose their own colors.
*Edit > Preferences > Content : Fonts & Colors > Colors : [X] "Allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above"
Note that these settings affect background images.
See also:
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Website_colors_are_wrong
There are extensions like Adblock Plus (Firefox/Tools > Add-ons > Extensions) and security software (firewall, anti-virus) that can block images and other content.
See also:
*https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Images_or_animations_do_not_load
*http://kb.mozillazine.org/Websites_look_wrong

Bridge CS4 / Flash Web Gallery

Hi!
I'm trying to create a web gallery in Bridge CS4.
If I save to disk, then it'll run fine locally, but once uploaded it won't any more.
No idea why. It used to work, and as far as I know, I altered *nothing*.
Here is one that did work:
http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/testflash/
(uploaded using Fetch)
Here's one that I ftp'd from Bridge. Works as well:
http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/test
Here is the exact same gallery as the one above, saved to HDD, then uploaded using Fetch.
http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/test1/
Both of the later galleries don't have a folder "bin" created, which the first one did.
Also weird, is that when I used CyberDuck to upload the "test1" gallery, I got a "403" error when trying to view it...
HTML galleries work "so so" for me.
Again: looks fine locally, looks off once uploaded.
Error 403: http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/testHTML/
Looks off: http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/testHTMLFetch/
(strange symbol on the top, when clicked, the images appear off center, and with a dark line above them)
Again, does look okay when uploaded through Bridge instead of Fetch:
Works: http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/testHTMLBridge/
A few other points I have with the web galleries through BridgeCS4: There seems to be no option to watermark, or to convert the images to sRGB? These images are AdobeRGB, with embedded profile, which will look like crap in any non color managed browser. Not ideal, to say the least.
Also repaired permissions and such. Then restart.
No help.
I've tried resetting all prefs for bridge, and even installed the entire CS4 anew.
No help.
I'm at a loss here. Might be something simple I'm missing, but I don't see it...
Guess I'll just have to use LR to build web galleries.
OSX 10.4.11
G5 2x2GHz
5.5Gb Ram
31Gb free on an 160Gb HDD

I discovered a way to create a Bridge CS4 gallery that works in all browsers.
The flash gallery worked great on most browsers - but does not work on the iPhone. My google analytics show that many people are looking at my site via an iPhone.
Take 2 was making an .html gallery. Was able to preview it and it looked great on my computer, but when uploaded to my site the images did not appear, only the names. This indicated the image files had not uploaded. I located the "content" folder within the photo gallery and tried uploading it separately, receiving the error that there was an illegal file name so it couldn't be uploaded.
Take 3 - looked at the file names in the folder "content" and realized the sub folder name "bin" was probably causing the problem to solve it (it is assumed that you manage your site with Dreamweaver CS4):
Open Dreamweaver CS4
Locate the "bin" file in the "files" palatte and select it
In the drop-down menu in the upper right of the files pallet choose
>file
>rename
>then rename the file, I used "source"
Dreamweaver will ask you permission to update linked files - say YES
The gallery will now work on all browsers.

Web Gallery export troubles w/ LR 2.3 update (Mac)

I regularly export web galleries (WG) using templates I have created. Earlier today I began having trouble, where LR2.2 would freeze
during a WG export, and I had to force quit LR.
At first, because LR was dragging so slowly, I thought it was a near-full startup disk, so I opened up 31 gb of free space, quit LR and restarted. After the problem reoccured, I thought it was because I had large Tiffs in the WG, which I had never done before, so I excluded them, but it did not help.
Finally I upgraded to LR 2.3, and immediately tried to output a small test WG. When I clicked 'save,' nothing would happen, that is,
the export window would disappear and there would be no indication in the progress bar that the WG was being created, and in Finder sure enough
nothing was created.
I tried several times. Then I tried it using my template without altering any text in the gallery, and it worked. I repeated this and it worked about 90% of the time. Then I tried it again with my larger web gallery (59 images) and again, nothing happened. I went
back to the simple gallery and it worked; back to larger gallery with text altered: did not work.
EDIT: I am finding it does not like a string of numbers in the "site info" boxes, such as my file number 090217.
Any ideas?
I am on an iMac Intel, with 4 gb ram, running 10.5.6
Thanks,
Jerry Mann.

>Bruce Morton:L.R. 2.3 windows and printer seem to be fighting for color control. I can not print in L.R. and get good colors. My monitor is calibrated and I have checked for a color managed by L.R. box. The color seems ok in CS4/Bridge. What am I missing or doing wrong? HELP!
There are quite a few printer related threads in this forum and you don't say what OS/printer you have but you could start here:
Steven Fromewick, "Is there a serious flaw in LRs Print Module?" #1, 13 Jan 2008 1:04 pm
or here
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b763ec
Posting under a Gallery thread might not be the best way to have your question read by those who know about printer problems :)

Color difference in web gallery

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for