Loss of saturation in Save for Web

Hi,
Objects that I export as PNG24 files using Illustrator's "Save for Web" feature result in files that a considerably less saturated than they appear in the Illustrator file (I'm working in RGB).
What's up? Is there a quick/easy way to make sure the raster files look just as saturated at the Illustrator objects?
Thanks!

calibrate and profile your monitor to the Web standard 2.2 gamma, not the Apple default of 1.8.
create your Web artwork in the sRGB color space (not Adobe RGB)
Save for Web.
You may still see some color shift when you save the image with no profile, but the above steps should minimize it.

Similar Messages

"Save for web and devices" making images saturated

I have been using the "save for web and devices" option for quite some time but suddenly it has started to make all images very saturated compared to the actual file. I made no changes to the output settings or the color management settings. Even when I change those sttings it makes no difference. The image is saturated no matter what. Any idea what's going on? I am about ready to uninstall and reinstall the software in hopes that it will make the problem go away, but I'm hoping there is an easier fix. Thank you

These are my settings. Are they the same in your SFW dialog?

GIF/Save for Web problem (PSE 7)

I've tried searching for an answer to this problem but nothing seems to address quite what's happening.
I recently had to replace my laptop, and switched from Windows XP to Windows 7. I transferred PSE 7 from the old system to the new system, and have had no trouble with it- until now. I have a 52-layer Photoshop-format image that I would like to save as an animated .gif, with each layer as a different frame. File >> Save As has the option to save Layers as Frames, but if I check it, then click "Save", nothing happens. Nothing at all. On my old system, I'd get a new dialogue with options like quality, duration per frame, loop, etc, but that's not happening anymore, and nothing saves (if I go to find the new .gif file, it's just not there). If I DON'T choose "Layers as Frames", the .gif dialogue comes up just fine, and it has no trouble saving as a static .gif. But it seems that it's just refusing to save it in animated format.
I'm having the same issue with "Save For Web". Neither the file menu option or the keystroke command will bring up the dialogue to let me save it that way. It thinks for maybe a second, but then doesn't do anything else, and doesn't save the image.
I've already tried resetting the layout, just in case the dialogue box was shifted somewhere I just wasn't seeing, and I tried resetting the Save For Web preferences, but neither of those things worked. Any explanation as to why an animated "Layers as Frames" .gif is the only format that isn't saving properly?
I've also tried opening old animated .gifs that I created with XP, and they will not re-save as animated .gifs either. I get the "Do you want to save the changes made" dialogue, but clicking "Yes" doesn't do anything and doesn't save the updates. I'm at a complete loss for why this function no longer works.

Glad you got it working.
It takes some getting use to the differences between xp and windows 7
in regards to permissions and all that stuff. Even when you install
programs on an administrative account, problems still persist sometimes.
What i do is always install programs by right clicking on the installer and
choosing Run as Administrator even when installing on an account with administrative
permissions. I seem to have less problems doing it that way. Anyway, just something to
keep in mind for the future.
MTSTUNER

Gif becomes grainy/pixelated in 'Save For Web'

Hello! I recently switched laptops and I have been having major issues trying to regain the quality gifs I used to make. After I have my gif set to go, I go to save it in 'Save For Web'. This is where all of my problems start. My gif no longer looks smooth, but the entire thing has a grainy or pixelated look -- and it doesn't change no matter how I fiddle with my settings. When switching from the 'original' to the 'optimized' tab in the save for web page, you can obviously see a loss of quality. It may be slight, but it makes a huge difference to me.
Here's a side by side reference:
Not sure if it will help, but here are my settings when saving (I have changed from 'pattern' to 'diffusion' and nothing changes):
Thank you for any help you can provide!

First, JJMack is correct: lots of colours (around 32100) in this example do make it harder to convert without grain.
Second, the quality of the GIFs you produced in Save for Web (SfW) prior to the purchase of the new laptop were never any "better" - it merely means that the previous screen was unable to display the results at a decent enough quality to actually discern the differences between the original and the GIF version with reduced colours. Screen quality does matter.
Second, Photoshop's Save for Web colour reduction algorithms are quite old-fashioned, and (far) better methods are available. Not in Photoshop, however. For a good conversion you will have to look elsewhere.
Here is the original version @2x zoom (32101 colours):
Photoshop's version. The best visual quality I could achieve in SfW (diffusion dither at 81%, perceptual). Obvious banding issues, and a very grainy result.
Next up: RIOT (Radical Image Optimization Tool). RIOT features a newer "NeuQuant neural-net" colour quantization algorithm. Notice how the gradients are quite nicely retained, although here and there some issues pop up (lips/makeup, building, arm highlight, and greenery are missing colour). Overall, though, the final result is much less grainy looking than Photoshop's effort. At the expense of smaller areas with unique colours.
Next, let's try Color Quantizer with standard settings, a two factor gradient priority, and 256 colours. Dithering was set to Shiau-Fan @75%. Slight banding in the lighter areas of the background, and the building and lips are again missing colours from the original. Much less grainy than Photoshop's version.
Colour Quantizer features a quality mask brush, which allows us to safeguard smaller areas with unique colours from colour degradation. I painted a mask for the lips, the building and greenery in the background, the skin of the woman on the right in the background, the lighter area around the vent, and the forehead to preserve those areas' quality as much as possible.
I feel this result speaks for itself. There is slight banding visible in the lighter area of the wall on the right, but still much less pronounced compared to SfW's version. The colours are all there, especially the important ones for the makeup and the smooth facial tones of Kate. The shoulder's highlight is also preserved nicely. Even the woman on the right in the background looks spot on (which was yet another sore point in SfW's version).
Arguably the best version. Far superior to Photoshop's failed effort.
Fourth, if you are still using GIF to optimize still images: STOP NOW. GIF is terrible in comparison to properly optimized and compressed PNG files. Only use GIF when small animated movies are your goal.
Here is a 512 colour version produced in Color Quantizer (Photoshop's SfW function lets us down once more, unfortunately: there is no option to reduce an image to 512 colours for PNG):
This last version is visually (mostly) indistinguishable from the original, and clocks in at only 52kb.
Of course, if you are saving this as a still image, jpg should have been your choice in the first place, since it is a photo.
Conclusions:
- avoid Photoshop's "Save for Web" function if your intention is a quality colour reduction;
- avoid GIF for still images. Either use PNG or JPG. JPG works best for photos;
- avoid Photoshop and SfW if your intention is to optimize PNGs well. Sfw cannot save PNG files with reduced colours beyond 256 colours;
- fall back to external and/or online utilities to optimize PNG and GIF files. Color Quantizer and RIOT deliver better results than SfW. Or use online optimization tools to optimize animated GIFs (Optimize animated GIF). You can also optimize each frame in a tool such as CQ, and then import the individual frames into a animated GIF utility. Remember, each frame can save its own custom 256 colour palette;
- for optimum quality a quality mask tool, such as the one in CQ, is a very effective and efficient method to guarantee the best possible conversion;
- file sizes of png files created in external utilities almost always beat the ones generated in Photoshop and SfW;
- a better choice to export PNG files is Photoshop CC Generator. At least that one allows for 8bit PNG files with full transparency (another missing essential feature that SfW fails to provide).
Other resources (these refer to png, but are also effective for GIF optimization in Photoshop):
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/07/15/clever-png-optimization-techniques/
PNG Optimization Guide: More Clever Techniques - Smashing Magazine
Color Quantizer: Color quantizer
RIOT standalone version (no installation required): http://download.criosweb.ro/download.php?sid=R

Looking for a better solution to the "Save for web" color shift issue

Ok, everyone who has fussed much with photoshop and "Save For Web" knows about the color shift issue. If you want your colors to look right after you "save for web", you have to work in the sRGB colorspace, and have Proof Colors checked (soft proofing on) and the proof color setup set to Monitor RGB, otherwise what you get looks terrible when displayed in a browser.
But of course if you are editing for print, this is exactly what you DON'T want to do. Well, I work in both. In fact, often the same images, and I want them to appear as close as reasonably possible in both print and web formats, and without a lot of fussing on my part. And I'm pickiest about the print mode, since I have the most control there, so that's the way I want to edit by default.
Nothing new here.
Now comes the interesting part (in my mind, anyway). Obviously there is a known remapping -- because PhotoShop DOES it when you select Proof Colors. So the inverse mapping must also be known (with some gamut issues, but I'm not concerned with those, because, after all, I'm VIEWING it on a monitor anyway!). What I want is a plug-in that automatically applies that inverse mapping so that, when I do a Save For Web, I end up with the colors I've been viewing all the time when setting the shot up in print mode. Then, too, I don't have to worry about what mode I'm in when I'm editing -- it just fixes it when doing a save-for-web.
Again, I want to edit in my normal print mode (typically ProPhoto colorspace, and with soft-proofing off or set to the printer/medium combination I expect to use), then do a single operation (might be a multi-step action) to "screw up" my colors so that when I then do a "Save-For-Web", the resulting image, when viewed on the average color-stupid browser, looks like the image I've been seeing in Photoshop.
Anyone know of such a beast? I would gladly pay for a plug-in that really works and fixes the problem.
And if you have other solutions, I'm interested, but the absolute requirement is that it I do one single edit pass for my colors for both print and web use, and I get what I see on the screen in PS on both the prints and on the web display (i.e., working in sRGB/Monitor RGB mode all the time won't cut it). And PREFERABLY, let me do all my editing work in the ProPhoto (or at least AdobeRGB) colorspace so I have a gamut closer to what the printer can do.
Anyone got a decent solution for this?

Chris
I spent all day Googling and doing side by side comparisons of my old and new systems.
My display is a Dell U2410. It has several presets, including sRGB and Adobe RGB. I've been using sRGB.
On my OLD system, (Win XP, PsCS2, DwCS4) there seems to be no distinction between color managed and non color managed apps, even on this wide gamut display. I could capture (digital camera) in Adobe RGB, open and edit in PsCS2, save as .psd, convert to CMYK for print, or convert to sRGB for SFW. All images looked identical and they printed and displayed perfectly. I thought this was normal, and seemed logical. This also seems to be the source of my incorrect assumptions. I was trying to get my new machine to behave like my old one.
So I get this new machine (Windows 7, PsCS5, DwCS5) and now (still in sRGB display mode) all color managed apps appear de-saturated. Non color managed apps are OK. If I switch the display to Adobe RGB, color managed apps are OK, but non color managed apps are way too saturated. From my investigation, I believe this is normal behavior on a wide gamut display. I've tried changing the Control Panel > Display > Screen Resolution > Advanced settings > Color Management options, but to no avail. Either I'm missing something, or Windows 7 is doing color management differently.
It seems my only option now is to use Adobe RGB display setting for Ps, etc. and switch to sRGB for Dw and non color managed apps. Or, have 2 separate files for print and web. I've Googled 'til my eyes are numb and still not sure I'm getting this. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, I don't see an edit function here, so I can't remove my previous incorrect reply. Moderator, please feel free to do so.
Thanks

Save For Web vs. Resizing vs. File Size vs. PNG

In playing around with some settings while saving a .png file, I noticed some weird results. For this example, the original image is 300 x 300, but I want the final size to be 200 x 200. I get different results depending on the order I perform the following operations (I never thought the order mattered until now).
1. start with 300 x 300 image, choose save for web, select png-24, with transparency, white matte, convert to sRGB, change image size to 200 x 200, then save - the file size is 37kb
2. start with 300 x 300 image, use Photoshop's "image size" to change to 200 x 200, then save for web, etc - the file size is 111kb
So depending on which step I resize the image, the file size is significantly different - if I resize BEFORE using save for web, the file size is much larger. This is just weird to me, but I always resize AFTER choosing save for web, so that's why I've never caught this until now. In case you ask, while using Photoshop's "image size", all three options are checked at the bottom of that window, so nothing is getting re-sampled or anything like that.
The only thing I can think of is each of those methods treat pixel data differently when reducing the dimensions. When I overlay both exported .png files on top of each other, I see no difference in pixel quality and/or color shift - so why the big difference in file size? Unsurprisingly, if I just save the file straight to .png, the sharpness is much better, and the file size is 46kb. I did notice when saving for web, the colors become a little more saturated.
Are all these results typical? I've never really paid much attention to the results when exporting .png's. I always thought the results were lossless (in general).

Too many variables
What? There are 2 variables here (variables = scenarios = steps). Only two different operations.
1. resize the image, THEN use "save for web" = 91kb
2."save for web", THEN change image size = 157kb
Hopefully my logic translates here:
All other settings are the same. I even made sure the .psd was sRGB this time. The specific question was "why does the different workflow order produce such a big difference in file size"?
In creating a new test file (http://www.shan-dysigns.com/userForums/photoshop/savePNG.zip), I did notice an interesting thing: (I'm including my files in case you want to follow along or test for yourself)
If I merge all layers BEFORE performing the steps above, the file sizes were relatively closer to one another - 168kb and 157kb (respectively from the 1, 2 list above)
One thing to note is all the .psd layers are either shapes or text - this whole scenario may be totally different if each layer had rasterized content (actually, it does, by about -20kb).
The file size in step 1 above didn't jump until it had to consider rastered text/shapes into the calculation. So all this tells me the difference in file size has to do with how each process handles vector data. Maybe when you allow PS to resize the image first, the overall file size is smaller because the vector data gets recalculated???
I don't know how to properly interpret all these differences, but I do know there is something about PS's operation of resizing the canvas with vector data versus resizing the canvas with rasterized data - this has to be where the difference in file size lies.
Maybe I've just wasted a bunch of time on the obvious, but I think I learned something here. Now my head hurts and my eyes have popped out of my head.
So, Chris, I guess there ARE more variables in this situation. My curse is being nosey and wanting to know more technically about PS than most casual designers probably would care about.

Photoshop CS3 color management "Save for Web" problem

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

>> First of all... I'm using an Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well, no change that I can tell.
This has further confused the issue on several points, not the least of which version PS you are doing this with?
>> AdobeRGB> Convert to Profile > Working Space sRGB-2.1... all still looks well... but now, when I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... I see the insane oversaturated look that is driving me nuts.
That is your strongest clue...it sounds like you have a bad system or bad monitor profile. To rule out the monitor profile: Set sRGB as your monitor profile in System Prefs> Displays> Color.
>> Adobe RGB image master... I open it and get the Profile Mismatch Screen... I choose Use Enbedded profile... all looks well. Next I go to Proof Setup > Monitor RGB... again all looks well
That doesn't make sense, stripping an embedded AdobeRGB profile should desaturate the color in Softproof MonitorRGB, especially the reds -- you have something wacky going on there.
At this point I think you need to review the links and get a grip about how color management and profiles work...
BTW, forget about setting ColorSync in PS COlor Settings, use Adobe ACE.
MO,
I think SFW is fixed under CS3 :) By default it Converts to sRGB and strips the profile.

Save For Web Saturates Colors

Hello,
I've dealt with this before and searched the internet for a solution/fix, but still have the problem of JPG images appearing over-saturated when viewing them in a web browser compared to the way they look in PS CS4 or in the windows "preview" application.
Here's the workflow:
Work with an image in PS CS4 (Vista) with an assigned color profile of sRGB. Use the "save for web" dialog to create a JPG (with the "convert to sRGB" box checked). View the image in Windows by right-clicking and selecting "preview," and it looks fine (looks same as it does within PS). View the same image using Firefox 3 or Internet Explorer 7, and it appears oversaturated (mosty too reddish) as compared to the original.
I've tried various permutations to the above (e.g., turning off "convert to sRGB") with no avail. However, if I convert to LAB color, and then save for web, the resulting image appears less saturated overall, even though it still appears more saturated as viewed in a web browser as compared to PS/Windows-preview.
Does anyone have any further suggestions to get the images to appear the same in a browser as they do in PS or in the Windows Photo Gallery (preview)?
thanks,
JP

Silkrooster wrote:
What happens if you use save as? I believe that save for web does not save the color profile therefore firefox or IE might assume a different profile thus over saturated images. I have read someplace that firefox uses color profiles but I am not sure about IE.
Firefox is not colour managed by default. It has to be enabled by the user.

Curious: How does "Save for Web" reduce the file size?

I do know HOW TO USE "Save for web" -- no questions there. I'm wanting to understand better what's going on under the hood.
When I start with say, an 8x10 JPG at 300 dpi, I understand completely how bringing that down to 72 dpi yields a much smaller file. Simple math.
What I don't understand is how the "Save for Web" function can reduce that smaller file size so drastically at the same dimensions, still 72dpi, with negligible image loss (at least at the 80% quality). Maybe it's just my amateur eyes, but for everyday casual web pages, I can discern no significant difference between the two 72dpi images. (At lower quality settings, I do see differences.)
Can anyone explain a bit more of HOW Photoshop does this? Is it simply compression? For example, is it -roughly- analogous to converting an AIF sound file as an MP3?
Thanks,
cb

Thanks, that worked. I figure there was a setting in there somewhere and was even in the right tab, but didnt think to click on that.

How differs soft proofing in View - Proof Colors and Save for Web - Preview?

Hi, I'm currently confused with one inconsistency. My working space is Adobe RGB and I use calibrated monitor. After I finish my work on image I go to View -> Proof Colors -> Internet Standard RGB. Image looks terribly with the overall violet/purple hue. Then I open Save for Web dialogue, I check Convert to RGB and from Preview options I select again Internet Standard RGB. Now the previewed image looks as expected. The same results I get if I manually convert image to sRGB before soft proofing and saving for web. So... what's the difference between preview in Proof Colours and in Save for Web? Thank you for your opinions.

Hi 21, thank you for your input. All what you say makes perfect sense, it is exactly how it should work and how I expected it works. My problem was, that while testing this theory in practice, I have come to different results. I expected, that if I stick to the theory (meaning keeping in mind all rules you perfectly described) I should get the same result in both soft proof and save for web preview. But... it was not the case. Save for web preview offered expected results while soft proof was completely out of any assumptions and colours were totally over-saturated with violet/purple hue. Also, Edit -> Assign Profile -> sRGB gave another result then Soft Proof -> Custom -> assign sRGB (preserve numbers), but the same as save for web preview. What troubled me was why this is so.
Today I've made tests on hardware calibrated monitor and... everything works exactly as you describe and as I expected.
Then I went back to another monitor which is software calibrated (both monitors are calibrated with X-Rite i1 Display Pro). And again... I received strange results described above. So I did the last thing I thought and disabled colour calibration on that monitor. And suddenly... both soft proof and save for web preview gave the same result.
Probable conclusion: soft proof and save for web preview (together with Edit -> Assign Profile) are programmed to use different algorithm which is evident on standard gamut monitors with software calibration. Question can be closed.
Gene and 21, thank you for your effort.

Photoshop CS4 Save for Web JPEG Colors are Off

Ok, I've scoured the web to see about finding a solution for this and tried every possible option and still I'm coming up empty handed. I have a website that I'm developing for a painter and have an image converted to sRGB, and the colors are where I want them to be. I use Save for Web, and every iteration suggested online for the, embed and don't embed, convert to sRGB and dont' covert, use document color profile, use windows, yada yada. Here's a recent example:
when i preview the image with Firefox, here's the difference:
The photoshop version is on the left and is the color that I want/need. The image on the right is firefox and saturated. If I save for web with embedded profile, safari is accurate, whereas firefox is saturated, so it's obviously discarding the icc and using some color space that I can't see in my file. I did notice that if I have my Custom, Proof and select Monitor RGB, then I can see what firefox will ultimately display and also what Safari will display if i have Embed ICC Profile unchecked in the save for web dialogue box.
I know that CS2 and CS3 were easier and less squirrely with color managing web files, but I think CS4 has some juju under the hood. Am I the only one out there frustrated, or like other web developers just accept the inaccuracy and move on? Since this is fine art, I'm doing my best to dial the color in, but it's been all afternoon beating on this.
Any ideas, I'm ready to install CS3 and see if my life will be easier, but I'm wondering if having Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will cause any issues.

>> your logic
That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
The OP wrote he doesn't want or need to discuss the pros and cons of embedding profiles in Web images, but for the sake of anyone else reading this:
1) Embedded ICC Profiles increase file sizes (about 4K per image).
a) I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos on one page,
b) Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.
c) That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and may kill dial-up traffic.
2) Very few computers use color-managed web browsers or calibrated monitors anyway, and
3) Problems with matching/blending image's edges or background color with a filled box or page color.
d) If I tag the image — on Mac colormanaged browsers — the color will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers because the tagged image is being Converted to MonitorRGB, and the untagged page or box color is having MonitorRGB Applied.
e) This matching or blending a pixel-based graphic to page color is a pretty big deal to do correctly in professional web publishing.
f) If I publish untagged sRGB images/graphics, the box/page color will match the images and blend correctly in all browsers.
I WILL QUALIFY my general recommendation about embedding profiles in pixel-based web images for the following reasons:
1) You are posting fine-art images, creative portfolios, and are not worried about adding 4K additional data per image, per slice.
2) You are not worried about having Mac visitors seeing graphic blends or photos mismatched to a background color.
3) You understand only properly-profiled monitors and color-managed web browsers will benefit from your embedded profile — and it is likely 99% of web surfers don't have either — however, if you are targeting the one percent who do, then there is your number one best reason for tagging web photos with embedded profiles.

Save for web export crashing photoshop

HI
In was wondering if anyone could help me. I have written a code that edits images but i am having trouble with the save for web export everytime it gets to saving it photoshop just crashes. I have tried a few different ways of coding it but all of them end of crashing PS and i am at a loss as to what is wrong.
Here is the code that i am using:
                                        set webFolder to (choose folder with prompt "Select the folder to link to")
                                        set webOpt to {class:save for web export options, web format:JPEG, quality:89}
                                        set theDoc to current document
export theDoc in webFolder as save for web with options webOpt
any help would be great. I have tried it on CS6 and CC, both of which crash.

You need to pass a full file path to the export command… Probably need to change the extension too.
set myFullFilePath to (path to desktop as text) & docName
export in file myFullFilePath as save for web with options myOptions

Problem: Color Management/Save for Web on Wide Gamut Monitor

Hi,
I've got a problem with color management - I thought I understood it, but it seems as if didn't. So I'm trying to kindly ask for help.
I'm printing, and also trying to save an image for Web.
My setup:
- Win 7, CS 5
- Calibrated Wide Gamut Monitor (eizo cg223w)
- Photoshop set to ProPhoto (I don't want to start a discussion adobergb vs prophoto)
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
- Viewing in Firefox 3.6 with Color Management enabled
Problem:
Image: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/311345/luchs-1024.jpg
If I compare the file in Firefox and Photoshop, the Firefox presentation is slightly more saturated - and I have no idea why.
I thought it should work with the above workflow.
Here is a screenshot where you can clearly see a difference (Note: the additional over-saturation here is caused by the wide gammut monitor when taking screenshots, in reality its not as dramatic as that): http://imgur.com/MFPbU but you can clearly see the difference.
I would be very very thankful for any pointers what I'm doing wrong in my workflow!
Thanks in advance,
Christoph

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
ch_bla wrote:
- Monitor calibrated
- Edit under ProPhoto RGB, 16 bit raw files
- Save for Web and Devices, Embed Color Profile, Convert to SRGB
Is this the preferred way?
It's a reasonable and correct way to do it, assuming you want to embed a profile in the images.
Since at least in some browsers and cases the colors selected within the HTML elements must match image colors, one can sometimes make a case for not embedding any profile at all, but that's really looking backwards. Browsers are moving forward toward not only managing colors in images but also in the HTML elements themselves. If you want your images accurately portrayed in as many places as possible you're doing the right thing looking forward.
Personally I embed the sRGB profile in my web images, as you are doing. And I check things primarily with IE and Safari.
Unlike you, I prefer to edit using the sRGB color space, but that's just personal preference. I find it more convenient to use File - Save As instead of File - Save For Web & Devices, and I get caught by gotchas less often this way. Your preference ensures you don't lose any colors at the extremes of the gamut while editing and it could easily be argued that that's better, depending on what image products you produce.
As for the article you mentioned, anyone who would set their preferred working space to Monitor RGB or use Proof Colors in normal editing is asking for trouble, and may not understand color management at all.
-Noel

CS4 - Save for Web settings

I'd be grateful for confirmation that I am using the correct Save for Web settings to achieve the colour effect I want.
I am using an sRGB workflow as my output is for the web. I am using a NEC 2690 LCD display which is wide colour gamut but I am using in its factory set sRGB (and non-calibratable) mode. I have calibrated the NEC using my Eye One display and this shows as the default monitor profile in the vga card's driver but what effect it is actually having I am not sure (OS is Vista 32bit). My CS4 colour management settings are based round the sRGB Working Space. Normally I convert to sRGB all images before saving them in Save for Web.
I am trying to ensure that the colours I see in images at the Save for Web stage preview are what I will see on the web and in other non colour managed environments. Specifically, I'd be grateful to know if the following settings seem right for what I am trying to achieve:
Preset: JPEG High
Quality: High
Optimize selected (but not Progressive or Embed Colour Profile)
Convert to sRGB selected
Preview: Use Document Profile
In the past (pre-CS4) I've had problems with images outside of CS3 looking over colour saturated and I want to avoid this now.
Thanks for any help with this.

> I am trying to ensure that the colours I see in images at the Save for Web stage preview are what I will see on the web and in other non colour managed environments. Specifically, I'd be grateful to know if the following settings seem right for what I am trying to achieve:
> Preset: JPEG High
> Quality: High
That's good, though you you should still try to get the image filesize as small as possible without losing important image details. Many images can support a lower quality JPG setting so you should see how low you can go before you visually see a problem. No sense delivering a higher quality JPG if it's not needed. Higher quality = larger file sizes = longer download time for the webpage.
> Optimize selected (but not Progressive or Embed Colour Profile)
I prefer 'Progressive' as that loads an image in 3 stages (low->med->fullRez) and looks better on webpages instead of having images load top-to-bottom like a window shade.
> Convert to sRGB selected
Doesn't hurt to leave it on. Though you said you already converted them before saving for web.
> Preview: Use Document Profile
I think that "Windows (No Color Management)" will display a better preview of what to expect when the image is displayed on a Windows computer (95% of your visitors) using a web browser that's not color managed (ie: 99% of the windows web browsers - are there any?).
> In the past (pre-CS4) I've had problems with images outside of CS3 looking over colour saturated and I want to avoid this now.
The previous step should help with this in that you'll at least see what visitors using a decently calibrated monitor will see. But since there really is no standard that most of the world adheres to, you can only do your best to get things right at your end. You cannot control how the rest of the world adjusts or miss-adjusts their equipment.
Russell

Save for web & devices' Full page instead of content

I have updated from CS3 to CS5. When I save using "save to web & devices" it brings it up in full page rather than content size, which I am accustomed to in CS3. No, I do not have the artboard ticked in the export dialog box. I am at a loss, please help, I use this feature frequently. Thanks.

Thanks, you guys are very helpful! It reduced the size to nearly the artwork size, but not completely, it left some white space to ther right and below.
This brings up another question though. Do I have to go through the "image size" tab process every time I save to web?
Here is what I am doing:
I created a vector drawing at 48"x24". I resized to 10"x5 . When I click save for web I get the warning window saying that "the image exceeds the size...". I am sure I get this message because the artboard is still 48x24. When I get past that window I have to uncheck clip to artboard eaxch time I save to web. Is this normal for CS5? Hope not. I didn't have these additional steps in CS3.
I also noticed that there seems to still be more res pixalation than I had in CS3.
THANKS

Loss of saturation in Save for Web

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for